One of his big arguments to solving the gun issue is to control the market where the guns are made. He beleives that, if the government is to lay heavy taxes and other penalties on the gun manufraturing companies, then the price of the guns will go up and the production would lower, achieving his goal to lowring the production of guns and making it hard for anyone to buy one. He is against civilian ownership of any gun and supports the state to be the only ones to own one.
So I swooped in and started with bringing up the civil liberty questions, why should the government stop an individual from owning a gun since it follows the same guidelines as property? Of course then he goes into " well you think the state cares about your rights? " " it is the nature of the state to get rid of items that put people in huge danger ". I then brought up NAP and other related ideas but it was of no use (I don’t think he really understood what I was talking about or awknowledged it). I also applied the same principles to the ideas he has on the gun market.
What would be, lets say.. the best way of handling this? I’m kind of a novice and I feel like I’m lacking lots of potential in my arguments. Care to assist a fellow liberty fighter?
“Just hit him with the hitler supported gun control and look what happened there.”
Even if this is true, this is a bad idea for an argument with a friend, as people will tend to think that using hitler in an argument is just making it inflammatory.
Firstly, what is the ‘gun issue’?? If it is spree killings, how come there are so many of those in countries with gun control? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_spree Perhaps it is the case that it’s beyond the power for states to prevent law-breakers from getting guns and that by preventing law-abiding people from getting them they simply render the latter defenceless against the former. Criminals could make guns for sale in their basements relatively easily, and because legal production would be so supressed, they could probably make a lot of money doing it. Point out Prohibition in the US to him and the complete failure on the part of the state to supress the production, sale, and use of alcohol. In any case, a madman could cause chaos with a mere match and bottle of vodka.
If it is violence in general, why is it that countries with gun control (e.g. UK, Australia), have more violent crime under every category except homicide by firearms (for obvious reasons)??
These videos should also give you some points (I’m sure there are many others on Youtube too):
Just wonder: if he is against civilian gunownership, why he doesn’t propose to ban it altogether but instead comes up with such a relatively sophisticated solution?
Are you familiar with police academy or military recruitment/training procedures?
Even if the training system was imperfect, the most you could gain from using this argument would be support for gun licensing at police/military standards. I doubt that’s what you guys are aiming for, though.
“What would be, lets say.. the best way of handling this? I’m kind of a novice and I feel like I’m lacking lots of potential in my arguments. Care to assist a fellow liberty fighter? :)” - TheIndividualist
Handle it to do what? Your chances of converting this person are near 0%. If you just want, as I often do, to post an alternative point of view so at least people thumbing through the thread won’t see only socialist drivel, write a concise defense of the right to bear arms as relevant to the thread’s subject as possible, post it, and ignore their responses.
Internet debates aren’t really debates because there’s no standard or moderator to appeal to when people, as the often do, go off the deep end and/or into tangents that are barely relevant. So, keep it simple, keep it concise, keep it on point, hit and run, and let them deal with the consequences.
Sphairon, let me add that I don’t see this as just a matter of using guns carelessly vs. carefully. Even if all police officers always used guns in complete accordance with their training, that has no necessary bearing on whether I think their use of guns is justified.
If guns are free to be carried then you have 1 man with a gun killing 10 people that are defenseless and dont have guns.
If guns cannot be carried, then 1 man with a gun can kill 100000 people that are defenseless against guns.
The argument of whether or not the person has training with the weapons is pointless. It is with the intention in which you use the gun. Whether you have training or not.
If guns are highly taxed then only the greedy rich will be able to have them and use against the small proletariat.
Try a google search on McDonald v. Chicago, it was the most recent case on second amendment rights and a landmark decision. The SCOTUS ruled that it applied to the states, i.e. it was a pro-gun ruling. This link is plenty for any research you may want to take up: http://www.chicagoguncase.com/case-filings/#SupremeCourt.
I have thread links from other sites that may be of interest to you.
