Joe Huffman is trying to educate a blogger advocating reasonable gun control that the laws being advocated are neither reasonable, nor effective controls. Most people when asked why they support assault weapons bans, even though they are not often used for criminal purposes resort to “I just don’t see why anyone needs to have one.”
Well, I can think of at least one reason. There are certainly more.
The right way to answer that question is “I just don’t see why anybody needs a vibrator. Or a ’65 Mustang. Or an original da Vinci etching. Are we going to ban everything people don’t absolutely need?”
Nobody needs to prove they need to do anything. It’s up to the prohibitionist needs to make a factual case that we need to prevent it. Which I don’t think they’ve got here. What they’ve got is an emotional case.
The trouble is, it’s virtually impossible to communicate to most Americans that a) emotion without facts shouldn’t count, and b) we should default to allowing everything unless it’s shown to be bad, rather than prohibiting everything unless it’s shown to be necessary.
Well, that second paragraph has a stray “needs” in it. But you get the drift.
Well, I’d hop in the conversation over there, but it looks like everyone else is handling themselves quite well.
I doubt you make it through the original author’s head as he’s invested in his writing, but with logical, well thought out comments, those who are sitting on the fence will be more easily swayed.
It’s times like this where my faith in our community is really strengthened.
well, i made the ritual offer of a trip to the range, and i’ll be damned. he emailed me his phone number and said yes. we had a great conversation that lasted over an hour this morning. this guy can be reached by reasonable argument. we will be going to the range early next year, and the place i have picked has an immense collection of different types of weapons. i can show him what exactly he is talking about. it seems to me that this guy is handicapped by the Brady Campaign info that is all he has access to. i may have to get back to you guys about some of the more esoteric stuff (.50 BMG) but the place in Chadds Ford has most of the stuff i would need to give him a basic gun familiarization course. i will, of course, start with the .22 rifle, or something of that sort.
“should default to allowing everything unless it’s shown to be bad”
this sounds pretty hard, objects can’t exactly be shown to be bad, the only thing that makes an object bad is how it’s used by a person…but that’s pretty obvious already, the hard part is trying to actually convince people that people are the problem – not the object.
As Robb says, intent is non transferable.
Hey, you want a better story?
I have a co-worker who labels himself “libertarian”, yet advocates the banning of all guns.
After more extensive conversation, I found that he did not know the process for obtaining a legal handgun — i.e., didn’t know the myriad array of laws constraining the legal purchase of a handgun. After explaining all of this, he admitted that he thought gang bangers just walked into a gun shop and bought automatic rifles willy-nilly.
On a recent business trip, I took him to a nearby range. He shot a .22 Ruger MKIII, and enjoyed himself (his words). I don’t know if he will become a gun owner himself (I sure hope he does), but at least now he knows that pressing for laws to “keep guns out of the hands of criminals” is pointless since such laws are already on the books.
The “need” argument is a losing one, for both sides. For us, the hoplophobes and anti-rights folks will never recognize any need for any firearm, so there is no common ground from which to start. For them, the “need” argument can be applied to everything from SUVs to big-screen TVs to four-eyed stoves, and thus quickly loses any and all merit in very short order.
Regardless, however, the Founding Fathers neither wrote, nor intended, a “need” clause into any of the Amendments… why is the Second one always singled out for this distinction?
It’s The BIll of Rights. Not The Bill of Needs.
(I think it was Alan Gottlieb that I first heard that from.)
I think you need to make both arguments. You’re not trying to convince the hard core people who hate all guns, you’re trying to convince people who may not care much, or have thought much about what the Second Amendment means, but who might accept the idea that people can own guns for sport, hunting, or self-defense.
You need to make the rights argument too, but it doesn’t hurt to show there are lawful uses of these firearms, that have nothing to do with criminal activity.
I weighed in on that blog.
It was really difficult to keep my words from being pointy. I’m getting testy in my old age.
It’s too bad the anti-gunners are not going to accept the “need” to have a semi-auto military type rifle to participate in “sporting” matches as a reason to support our right to arms.
They don’t care care.
I suggest that people go visit his blog. He indicated that Sean really did open his eyes and gave a really nice statement. This guy is teachable. Lets get him on our side.
Sean – Great Work!