I am extremely pro gun. Not overly dedicated to any political party or organization. However, I’ve discovered my parents are extremely anti-gun. How do I have the conversation?
Perhaps elaborate on what you mean by pro gun/anti gun. You may find common groundAre you saying you want unrestricted access to all types of firearm with no government regulation? (A pretty extreme position i must say. If you enact that kind of constitutional interpretation, what would stop me from owning something like a howitzer or tactical nuclear weapon?) When you say your parents are anti gun. Are they completely against all possession of guns by civilian or just the lackluster regulation of potentially lethal firearm?I live in Canada, there is no constitutional right to gun possession. But there are plenty of people with firearms. I dont own gun and have no issue with people possessing firearms in our community. In rural area of canada, many own bolt action rifles for hunting and protection against wildlife, others also own semi auto AR15 and pistols for shooting sport.What we do have is a series of regulation that try to safeguard the public in general. That include an license process where applicant have to attend and pass a gun safety course, screening for criminal and mental health issues, record the sale of firearm, and certain requirements for the safe storage and transportation of your firearm. Hunters toting their rifle in the wilderness is not a strange sight, but you lugging an AR15 in the city center without a gun range in sight is going to earn you a conversation with police.Our regulation doesn't seem that onerous on people who wants to enjoy using a potentially lethal instrument. The rest of the public can enjoy reasonable security without removing all the guns. The two views are not mutually exclusive and zero sum.
What is your favorite amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
I’d really like to pick two:First Amendment: protects our right to speak out, especially against the stupid things that politicians do.Second Amendment: protects our right to own guns, so that if/when the government gets too oppressive, we can protect the rights in the First Amendment.But if I have to pick just one, I’ll pick the First. With the First, we can speak out against oppression. We can scream about it on the Internet. We can print newspapers and broadsides and (whatever). That includes publishing the plans for creating a gun with a 3D printer.I used to be a bit skeptical about that last: yes, you can “print” a gun. It won’t be very accurate and will fire maybe twice or three times before it comes apart from the pressure generated by modern cartridges.But a friend pointed out an important fact: Moore’s Law. It’s usually thought of as applying to computers: the amount of logic you can put into a chip doubles every (was year, then 18 months, now about 2 years). But it applies to technology in general.If you can spend an hour printing a barely functional gun now, in a couple of years you’ll be able to print one that will fire 4 times and it will only take you 1/2 hour. Another couple years and it will fire 8 times and print in 15 minutes…Forget gun control. It’s a dead issue. Everybody who really wants a gun will have one, printed at home from publicly-available plans.Protect your right to speak, to print, to be an idiot all over the public Internet. And not to have the government favor one religion over others. And your right to gather together and protest and “petition the government” to fix whatever you think is wrong.And the most important way to protect that is to protect the opposition’s rights. If you’re a liberal, it’s important that you speak out (and vote!) when a college or city tries to keep conservatives from speaking or protesting or gathering. If you’re a conservative, it’s important that you speak out (and vote!) when the government tries to shut down liberals. [Yeah, you probably read about colleges shutting down conservatives in places like California. You also need to be aware of what’s going on in Texas and Louisiana.]
Do you think Penn and Teller were dead on about gun control?
Why is that little person in it if he doesn't speak? In Switzerland having a gun at home isn't just permitted, it's compulsory. The governmentnot just hands out guns, they actually teache people how to use them. Yet Switzerland is one of the lowest crime countries in Europe. Switzerland has open borders with all of its 5 neighbours. There's nothing to stop you driving out of the country with a van full of guns. So why aren't there killing sprees all over Europe? Nobody in the anti-gun lobby has ever been able to explain this. BTW, NZ also has a strong gun culture and v low crime.
Why do gun advocates use fallacies to present their argument?
In other words, you can't go up against one philisophically without one of them using fear tactics like "Well, then you can expect to have your house invaded!" or straw man arguments like "You support gun control? So you DON'T believe people have right?" or illogical absolutes like "It's our right to own them..." Is it trigger hapiness? If you can supply a good, fallacy free argument in support of the Second Amendment, I'll retract my statement.