Does anyone else find this whole "common sense gun control" argument to be frustrating and kind of dumb? The basic premise of the argument more or less is intended to make a certain ideology appear to be the only practical value, and given it is based on a reasoning that everyone 'should' have, disagreeing with common sense gun control means you are illogical.
I've seen some debates where pro gun control candidates have made this argument, and pro gun rights candidates did not have what I consider to be a strong response. If you were to get backed into a corner with this argument, and the quality of your counterargument could affect how other undecided Citizens begin to form opinions regarding the 2A, how would you respond? If this topic came up in a debate, how would you like to hear a pro gun rights candidate respond?
----------------
I have moved in the direction of pointing out that a consensus of ideology within a certain group of people (large and small alike), even when promoted as a conclusion of common reason, is not necessarily strategically or systematically logical. More importantly, it is not necessarily ethical.
I try to point out that the sensible treatment of a fever was once bloodletting, and anyone who thought the world was not flat was a fool. Some of the worst atrocities in human history have come out of a consensus that is justified by 'common sense' reasoning; to name just a few: human enslavement, genocide, and human experimentation without consent. One could even make an argument that it is common sense to oppress certain human rights in certain scenarios, but regardless of systematic justification of the simplicity in implementation or outcome, it's still immoral.
Consequently, if a candidate is justifying gun control with the 'common sense' argument, Voters should be cautious of this candidate because of just how short-sighted and ethically ambiguous this type of argument can be, and how 'common sense laws' often do NOT have the best interests of the public in mind.
I'm curious to hear other perspectives! (and I hope this is the correct subtopic to post this in!)
I've seen some debates where pro gun control candidates have made this argument, and pro gun rights candidates did not have what I consider to be a strong response. If you were to get backed into a corner with this argument, and the quality of your counterargument could affect how other undecided Citizens begin to form opinions regarding the 2A, how would you respond? If this topic came up in a debate, how would you like to hear a pro gun rights candidate respond?
----------------
I have moved in the direction of pointing out that a consensus of ideology within a certain group of people (large and small alike), even when promoted as a conclusion of common reason, is not necessarily strategically or systematically logical. More importantly, it is not necessarily ethical.
I try to point out that the sensible treatment of a fever was once bloodletting, and anyone who thought the world was not flat was a fool. Some of the worst atrocities in human history have come out of a consensus that is justified by 'common sense' reasoning; to name just a few: human enslavement, genocide, and human experimentation without consent. One could even make an argument that it is common sense to oppress certain human rights in certain scenarios, but regardless of systematic justification of the simplicity in implementation or outcome, it's still immoral.
Consequently, if a candidate is justifying gun control with the 'common sense' argument, Voters should be cautious of this candidate because of just how short-sighted and ethically ambiguous this type of argument can be, and how 'common sense laws' often do NOT have the best interests of the public in mind.
I'm curious to hear other perspectives! (and I hope this is the correct subtopic to post this in!)