If you can't win an argument even when you stack the deck in your favor .... Yesterday, the New York Times' Nick Kristof posted a column that purported to tell his largely progressive readership "How to win an argument about guns." I'm interested to read good arguments from the other side, so I clicked eager to find how Kristof would best an informed gun-rights advocate in debate.
Kristof first purports to answer the "Argument" that cars are more likely to kill a person than guns, but we don't try to ban cars.
We have a background-check system that regulates the vast majority of gun sales and a labyrinth of criminal and civil laws designed to prohibit violent and unstable Americans from ownin guns.
A recent Rand study looked at studies of the effects of universal background checks on violent crime and found the evidence "Uncertain" and "Inconclusive." Last October, Duke professor Philip Cook analyzed studies examining how criminals obtained their guns and noted that the guns typically have been "Diverted from legal commerce." In other words, criminals break the law not just when they use their gun but also when they obtain it.
If Kristof wanted to 'win an argument' with a gun owner, why did he completely ignore the benefits of gun ownership? He never once addresses the effects of his so-called sensible gun restrictions on the right of self-defense.
Finally, if Kristof wanted to "Win an argument" with a gun owner, why did he completely ignore the benefits of gun ownership? He never once addresses the effects of his so-called sensible gun restrictions on the right of self-defense.
An informed gun owner is always going to respond to a gun-control proposal with at least two follow-up questions: First, will it make a material impact on the gun problem you seek to solve? Second, will it materially impact my ability to defend myself from known and foreseeable threats?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/nick-kristof-argues-with-straw-men-about-guns-straw-men-win/
Kristof first purports to answer the "Argument" that cars are more likely to kill a person than guns, but we don't try to ban cars.
We have a background-check system that regulates the vast majority of gun sales and a labyrinth of criminal and civil laws designed to prohibit violent and unstable Americans from ownin guns.
A recent Rand study looked at studies of the effects of universal background checks on violent crime and found the evidence "Uncertain" and "Inconclusive." Last October, Duke professor Philip Cook analyzed studies examining how criminals obtained their guns and noted that the guns typically have been "Diverted from legal commerce." In other words, criminals break the law not just when they use their gun but also when they obtain it.
If Kristof wanted to 'win an argument' with a gun owner, why did he completely ignore the benefits of gun ownership? He never once addresses the effects of his so-called sensible gun restrictions on the right of self-defense.
Finally, if Kristof wanted to "Win an argument" with a gun owner, why did he completely ignore the benefits of gun ownership? He never once addresses the effects of his so-called sensible gun restrictions on the right of self-defense.
An informed gun owner is always going to respond to a gun-control proposal with at least two follow-up questions: First, will it make a material impact on the gun problem you seek to solve? Second, will it materially impact my ability to defend myself from known and foreseeable threats?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/nick-kristof-argues-with-straw-men-about-guns-straw-men-win/
No comments:
Post a Comment