After my friend wrote a letter to the local newspaper editor, we started discussing how to best argue for gun rights. He thought that it was better to use facts and statistics because one won't usually change one's values and ideals, but it's difficult to dispute the numbers.
I asserted that if you put the discussion on the level of statistics, you let your rights get trampled when the statistics happen to flip the other way. For example, if crime goes up 3% after new firearms regulations, one could stand by one's assertion that gun laws work. It would be better to work on someone's ideals and understanding.
I thought about it some more and came up with the ideas below. Let me know what you think.
If someone makes a quantifiable statement that is untrue or voices an unfounded concern, respond with facts. For example: "If we let employees bring guns to work in their cars, they'll get disgruntled and kill everyone." The response is: "Actually, 84% of murders at work occur from strangers. Your fear is unfounded."
If the statement is unquantifiable or hasn't been tracked, try reason. For example: "We ought to make schools a gun-free zone." The response is: "Passing laws to make gun-free zones only ensures that law-abiding citizens won't have guns. Criminals, who are prepared to do much worse than ignore a gun statute, won't be stopped by an invisible force-field at the edge of your school. In fact, they're more likely to want to commit crime in a gun-free zone."
If the statement is about ideals, argue with ideals that have a firmer foundation. For example: "Guns are okay for hunting and target shooting, but they should be strongly regulated and shouldn't be used for self-defense because people can kill with them." The response is: "Provided one intends to do no harm to other innocent people, one has an absolute right to self-defense with whatever evil-looking gun one chooses. Our Founding Fathers wanted guns to be almost unregulated to ensure that rights would not be trampled."
Obviously, a combination of the 3 is the real zinger.
One other thing to consider: these techniques apply to the soundbite, letter-to-the-editor world that we interact in most of the time. It would certainly be better to sit down, really listen to both sides, let the walls come down, and get on the same side of the problem to work out the best solution. Maybe that's what we really need to do more often.
Techniques too general? Was this already obvious to anyone who's familiar with formal debate? My concern is that we're going about this the wrong way sometimes and turning people off. Discuss.
I asserted that if you put the discussion on the level of statistics, you let your rights get trampled when the statistics happen to flip the other way. For example, if crime goes up 3% after new firearms regulations, one could stand by one's assertion that gun laws work. It would be better to work on someone's ideals and understanding.
I thought about it some more and came up with the ideas below. Let me know what you think.
If someone makes a quantifiable statement that is untrue or voices an unfounded concern, respond with facts. For example: "If we let employees bring guns to work in their cars, they'll get disgruntled and kill everyone." The response is: "Actually, 84% of murders at work occur from strangers. Your fear is unfounded."
If the statement is unquantifiable or hasn't been tracked, try reason. For example: "We ought to make schools a gun-free zone." The response is: "Passing laws to make gun-free zones only ensures that law-abiding citizens won't have guns. Criminals, who are prepared to do much worse than ignore a gun statute, won't be stopped by an invisible force-field at the edge of your school. In fact, they're more likely to want to commit crime in a gun-free zone."
If the statement is about ideals, argue with ideals that have a firmer foundation. For example: "Guns are okay for hunting and target shooting, but they should be strongly regulated and shouldn't be used for self-defense because people can kill with them." The response is: "Provided one intends to do no harm to other innocent people, one has an absolute right to self-defense with whatever evil-looking gun one chooses. Our Founding Fathers wanted guns to be almost unregulated to ensure that rights would not be trampled."
Obviously, a combination of the 3 is the real zinger.
One other thing to consider: these techniques apply to the soundbite, letter-to-the-editor world that we interact in most of the time. It would certainly be better to sit down, really listen to both sides, let the walls come down, and get on the same side of the problem to work out the best solution. Maybe that's what we really need to do more often.
Techniques too general? Was this already obvious to anyone who's familiar with formal debate? My concern is that we're going about this the wrong way sometimes and turning people off. Discuss.
