Having witnessed (and participated in) numerous debates between proponents of gun control and proponents of gun rights I've noticed that (with rare exceptions) the same dynamics play out during each conversation. For the sake of expediency I'll designate pro gun rights advocates as GR's and pro gun control advocates as GC's is describing my observations. Further, let's define the vague phrase "gun control" to mean laws which restrict the number of firearms available in the marketplace:
* GR's are generally familiar with the design characteristics of various firearms -- GC's........not nearly so much. In fact, a large percentage of GC's are unable to even define what differentiates a fully automatic firearm from a semi-automatic. Further, GC's seem to be of the opinion that knowledge regarding the design and function of different firearms is unimportant. Disturbing -- given the fact that a basic knowledge of firearm design/function is required to engage in honest debate in this arena.
* GR's argue primarily from a fact-based perspective while GC's argue primarily from an emotion-based perspective. While it it true that GC's quote statistics to argue their case, they're less interested in gaining a deep understanding of the relevant data and how that data interconnects because they believe that gun control is primarily a moral imperative in pretty much the same way that the anti-abortion crowd believes in the moral imperative of their cause. It's actually quite predictable that GC's lack knowledge in numerous areas of the gun control issue, as it is human nature for people to invest time in areas that interest them. With regard to firearms, GC's interest typically ranges from *dis*interest to absolute contempt -- not a strong starting point in terms of investigative motivation. GR's are typically able to box GC's into a corner very quickly in data-driven arguments since they have a much more deep and authentic understanding of firearms as they relate to crime and crime prevention, and when this occurs it is typical for the GC's to revert back to emotion-based argumentation.
* While GR's (including myself) are perfectly capable of ad hominem attacks, they are typically defensive in nature in response to a veiled insult or clearly disingenuous comment from a GC. GR's simply don't have to resort to ad hominem with the same frequency as GC's because the facts are on their side. Just one glaring example would be the number of states that have become "shall issue" in terms of concealed carry since 1986 with no overall negative consequence.
* While it is very common for GR's to point out basic errors in reasoning in GC argumentation, GC's are rarely able to honestly point to flaws in GR logic. Again -- this is evidence of desperation on the part of the GC's. GR's have the facts on their side. Another glaring fact in case: no correlation between the numbers of weapons and the level of violent crime. Don Kates refers to a condition known as "gun-aversive dyslexia" which prohibits many GC's from interpreting even relatively simple firearm data due to the fear and loathing they have for guns and gun owners. (a section-title of one of Don's writings describing portions of the gun control movement is "Fear and Loathing" as a Social Science)
* When confronted with information that challenges their positions, GR's are less dismissive of the information because they know that public support for gun control is steadily eroding -- and it only hurts their cause to appear closed-minded. On the other hand, GC's -- from their position of desperation -- are forced to dismiss everything that challenges their platform because they simply have no ground that they can afford to lose. Or if (as is usually the case) the GC has very little knowledge of the gun control issue the dismissal is based on their ideological rigidity and inability to keep their ego in check.
* GC's are much more prone to generally disingenuous argumentation -- again, as a result of desperation. It is *relatively* rare that a GC is able to identify disingenuous argument on the part of a GR. Recent glaring example: dismissing the sum total of the information presented in an article due to distaste for the messenger and portions of the writing.
* It is common for GR's to have spent a very large amount of time in researching the subject of guns as they relate to violence. It is less common for GC's to have done so -- again, because they have little or no interest in the subject. I have yet to meet *one* GC supporter (face to face) who has read *one* book on the subject of gun control, while the GR's I have spoken with have at minimum a strong working knowledge of the main players in the debate and the relevant statistics.
Forgive me if this is ground that has been repeatedly covered, but encountering this e-exchange prompted me to babble a bit. Obviously my bias shows. With more thought I'm sure I could go on at much greater length, but I imagine my fellow gun rights advocates will be more than happy to add to the list. In closing, I'll provide a link to the dialogue I referred to in the subject bar. You'll notice many examples of what I've mentioned above come into play in the e-conversation. The text of the gun control physician is in red, the gun rights physician in black.
http://www.dsgl.org/Articles/exchange1.htm 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
