DrVino [not shown] emailed me the other day. He wanted to make sure I was rhetorically
armed ready for my confrontation discussion about gun control with Dr. Arthur Romano [above] at Penn State. DrV was especially concerned that the peace provocateur would hit me with ye olde “Look at Britain’s firearms-related homicide rate” anti-gun agitprop. Which he did. Unfortunately, I got to DrV’s email the day after the shoot-out exchange of views with Dr. Romano. So I countered with the fact that the UK has the highest violent crime rate in Europe. In fact, it’s higher than that of the U.S., in several important categories (including rape). DrVino had a different prescription for the Europe-leads-the-way-on-gun-control assault argument against uninfringed America gun rights. Make the jump and check it out . . .
When grabbers start talking about England, Norway and Australia not having guns and being such wonderful violence free utopias, ask them:
Whether those countries at any time had RKBA codified in their legal structure (i.e., 2A-equivalent)?
The answer will, of course, be “NO” (I’m almost 100% sure, but I don’t know what I don’t know about other countries, so…do your research)
Then point out to them that 2A is a fundamental construct of American civil and political structure. It’s a political check to balance gov’t.
Solutions to our problems must come WITHIN the context of a civil and legal structure that guarantees RKBA, not by infringing or eroding that right.
Then tell them that to infringe on that is to deconstruct and destroy the essence of what makes American civil and political structure unique, exceptional.
If they want to compare violence and death statistics they need to compare apples to apples and find those stats for countries where RKBA is mandated or at least protected. (I don’t think Switzerland is a good example, but I’ll take it).
If they’re an academic – especially a “____ science” faculty – ( _____ = social, political, psychological, or even a hard science), you can really nail them:
They must have in the course of their studies learned statistics and experimental design. So, if they did, their attempts to compare apples to pickles is either 1) a manifestation of ignorance for fundamental tenets of critical analysis (which is incumbent upon them to possess), or 2) deliberate disregard of these fundamentals in order to carry out a cognitive sleight of hand in order to score points for an agenda.
They need to be hammered on this to undermine their facade of “interest of public safety”, their credibility.
Use this as the core reference point for your arguments to devastate their foundational assumptions.
Hammer on that to destroy their credibility and put a shadow of doubt on their motives.
It goes without saying that somewhere in there you want to say that gun owners don’t buy guns to kill but to keep from being killed and that we too want to reduce senseless killings, but we want to achieve that WITHIN the construct of our Bill of Rights.