There’s a very simple, and logical way to discuss this topic with anyone who’s in favor of gun control that’s really hard to argue with:
1. Do you agree that there will always be bad people in the world (criminals and tyrants)?
2: Of course (obvious and only answer)
3. Well if we agree on that, doesn’t that leave you only three choices? (a) You can fall victim to them. (b) You can protect yourself from them. (c) You can hire someone else to protect you from them.
4. Obviously we don’t want to fall victim to them, so the only real choices are to either protect yourself, or be protected by others.
5. What are the possible bad consequences of being protected by others? (a) the people protecting you may also be bad people. (b) they may become bad people as a result of the power they acquire by being your “protector”, and the history of humanity shows that this is ALWAYS the case.
6. Doesn’t this leave you with only ONE real option concerning the bad people in the world? You must protect yourself, because power corrupts, and anyone protecting you gains power over you, and will eventually victimize you.
7. Protecting yourself requires weaponry.
End of discussion. Either you own guns, or you’ll eventually become someone’s victim. Believing that violence will disappear if all guns are removed from society is childishly naive, and doesn’t even merit discussion. Guns put people on the “level playing field” the socialists are always crying for. The lack of private firearm ownership makes equality impossible.
Consider both sides are standing firm on what they each believe to be a solid axiom (- yeah, I looked it up to be sure -heh =>An axiom, or postulate, is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.).
Now both are set that they are obviously right for obvious reasons. The (simply put) problem manifests into this huge debacle, not because of facts but due to lack of facts ^ disinformation from one side used a premise to further their point of view (read: agenda).
As the gun control people lack the ability to present their points with logic and or reason & cannot find facts to back up their position the entire issue slips into stalemate. From there the disjointed side resorts to straw man (logical fallacies) & ridicule creating a false sense of justice & triumph where they can then declare to all how that proves their point. The point they were never able to substantiate.
There’s a very simple, and logical way to discuss this topic with anyone who’s in favor of gun control that’s really hard to argue with:
1. Do you agree that there will always be bad people in the world (criminals and tyrants)?
2: Of course (obvious and only answer)
3. Well if we agree on that, doesn’t that leave you only three choices? (a) You can fall victim to them. (b) You can protect yourself from them. (c) You can hire someone else to protect you from them.
4. Obviously we don’t want to fall victim to them, so the only real choices are to either protect yourself, or be protected by others.
5. What are the possible bad consequences of being protected by others? (a) the people protecting you may also be bad people. (b) they may become bad people as a result of the power they acquire by being your “protector”, and the history of humanity shows that this is ALWAYS the case.
6. Doesn’t this leave you with only ONE real option concerning the bad people in the world? You must protect yourself, because power corrupts, and anyone protecting you gains power over you, and will eventually victimize you.
7. Protecting yourself requires weaponry.
End of discussion. Either you own guns, or you’ll eventually become someone’s victim. Believing that violence will disappear if all guns are removed from society is childishly naive, and doesn’t even merit discussion. Guns put people on the “level playing field” the socialists are always crying for. The lack of private firearm ownership makes equality impossible.
Agreed.
However, logic & reason are things liberals are incapable of understanding
Consider both sides are standing firm on what they each believe to be a solid axiom (- yeah, I looked it up to be sure -heh =>An axiom, or postulate, is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.).
Now both are set that they are obviously right for obvious reasons. The (simply put) problem manifests into this huge debacle, not because of facts but due to lack of facts ^ disinformation from one side used a premise to further their point of view (read: agenda).
As the gun control people lack the ability to present their points with logic and or reason & cannot find facts to back up their position the entire issue slips into stalemate. From there the disjointed side resorts to straw man (logical fallacies) & ridicule creating a false sense of justice & triumph where they can then declare to all how that proves their point. The point they were never able to substantiate.
Well said.