How to lose an argument
Chris emailed this link that instructs people how to win the debate in favor of extending the assault weapons ban. It does so poorly:
An overwhelming majority of Americans support the ban.
Since, as is often reported here, the ban is misrepresented as banning machine guns, I’d say that is not really the case. After all, other pollsters have been accused of asking loaded questions, such as do you support a ban on AK47s and Uzis to imply machine guns. And the majority of Americans supported slavery and segregation too. Don’t make it right.
The prohibited guns are designed specifically for killing people. The law mentions 19 semiautomatic weapons by name, none of which can be construed to have any sporting purpose. As the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has written, “Assault weapons were designed for rapid fire, close quarter shooting at human beings. That is why they were put together the way they were. You will not find these guns in a duck blind or at the Olympics. They are mass produced mayhem.”
These guns are used in sporting competitions at Camp Perry and they serve other recreational purposes. Actual assault weapons (you know, machine guns) are designed for rapid fire. The banned weapons have the same rate of fire as a semi-automatic hunting rifle. The Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to arms for sporting purposes or hunting, just the right to arms. And if you quote the Brady Campaign, you have already lost the debate.
The ban has been effective. Since the implementation of the law in 1994, ATF found that the proportion of gun crime traced to the banned weapons has fallen by two-thirds. The Department of Justice study mandated by the law controlled for other variables related to the drop in violent crime and concluded that murder rates dropped nearly 7% below what they were projected to be without the ban
Before the ban, these weapons were used in roughly 0.25% of crimes (link – see page 2). Two-thirds of an insignificant number remains insignificant. The drop in murder rate also coincided with a better economy and the increase in the number of states that issue concealed carry laws. Correlation does not equal causation. And since the guns were used in so few crimes to begin with, it likely had no effect. Even the Centers for Disease Control said that gun bans have not been shown to have an impact on crime.
Assault weapons are lethal tools for crime. They have been used in some of the most horrible crimes in recent history, including the Branch-Davidian standoff at Waco and the Stockton schoolyard massacre. Prohibiting these guns does not infringe on hunting rights or rights to self-defense—it only prevents criminals from accessing the best equipment for committing mass murder. The gun lobby’s refusal to conform to the obvious social consensus that banning tools for slaughter is a good idea shows that it places narrow special interests completely above the safety of the American people.
The Branch Davidians used machine guns in addition to assault rifles. Semi-auto versions of AK47s, as used in the Stockton massacre, are still available. They just aren’t available with more than one of a flash hider, bayonet lug, grenade launcher, pistol grip, or threaded barrel. Again, there is no right to hunt guaranteed in the Constitution and I think some Korean shop owners in Los Angeles in 1992 would disagree about them not being useful for self-defense. Lastly, the favored weapon of criminals is a cheap handgun. Assault weapons are typically expensive and are not favored by criminals, as they are only used in less than one percent of crimes before and after the ban.
July 22nd, 2004 at 1:06 am
[…] r for American Progres is here, ready to spoon-feed you all the Winning Arguments™ (h/t: Uncle) that you also don’t understand to support every leftist positi […]
August 12th, 2004 at 12:27 am
[…] | Main | Interesting blog concept |By SayUncle| You may remember this post of mine that pointed to a site called Winning An Argument. I cha […]
July 21st, 2004 at 7:28 pm
I believe I am correct in saying that the only full-auto weapons the Davidians were convicted of possessing were the MP5s the ATF left behind when they pulled out their wounded during the truce on the first day. (Part of the truce deal was that the ATF drop weapons in place and they would be allowed to retreat off the Davidian property, with wounded) The Davidians DID have a Barrett rifle, never used.
There is a strong possibility, by the way, that most of the ATF casualities, both KIA and WIA were from friendly fire. The Davidians hardly seemed to fire back at all. The pickup trucks and canvas covered horse trailers that the ATF used for the assault, and took cover behind during the shoot-out were unmarked by bullet strikes.
July 21st, 2004 at 7:48 pm
The AWB does impede my ability to shoot any bastard who tries to take my homeland defense rifle away in the most effective way possible.
So it needs to go away.
July 21st, 2004 at 8:21 pm
Thanks. Cogent analysis.
I do have a question though:
I didn’t see any numbers about this on page 8.. am I looking at the wrong document?
But my question is: were those 0.25% of crimes in general? Because there’s a lot of crime. Were they mostly homicides, I am assuming? 0.25% of all crime could still mean a lot of murders, making it not insignificant.
IF they were homicides and IF we can safely attribute the decrease to features of the AWB’s ban on only-for-killing-people accessories (which I realize is also debatable), then I think it’s well worth it. If it’s overly-restrictive or insufficiently consistent then these are things that can be fixed in the legislation, and are not worth “tossing the baby out with the bathwater”, as the author on Winning Argument put it.
I guess what I’m saying is: regardless of what the AWB does and does not ban as a dysfunction of its wording, do you think it’s a worthwhile endeavor to ban accessories to firearms that serve exclusively to kill other human beings? Do you think such accessories even exist? Example: a barrel shroud, or a bayonet mount.
Is there any theoretical legislation that you can imagine that would deliver the intent of the AWB (which is decreasing murders using firearms) and would you endorse it in spite of the 5th amendment?
Sorry for the 3rd degree.. just trying to clarify..
July 21st, 2004 at 8:25 pm
WordPress turned page 8 into a smiley. cute.
Also, speaking of wordpress, does it not support trackback? It’s too bad this entry didn’t trackback the one on winningargument because I think it’d be good to get your opinion voiced over there too
July 21st, 2004 at 9:08 pm
Winning Arguments™ for Liberals
Attention, Liberals! Tired of losing arguments on issues where you have strong feelings but little or no real knowledge? Never fear. The nonpartisan ultraliberal Center for American Progres is here, ready to spoon-feed you all the Winning Argumentsâ…
July 21st, 2004 at 9:12 pm
Man, comment spam is getting worse and worse..
July 21st, 2004 at 9:16 pm
Sorry chris, it’s page 2.
none of the accessories listed serve to kill people, except maybe the bayonet lug. But drive-by bayonetting isn’t really an issue.
And I’ll ping it.
ANd robert, i remember the footage of the atf guy walking on the roof when about 20 rounds come flying through the wall. I’d say that was a machine gun.
July 22nd, 2004 at 8:36 am
Uncle, the footage you remember was a machine gun – the ATF shot up their own. If you see the whoe scene you’ll see an agent going in the window, then another agent throwing a grenade in after him, then bullets come out from just below the window. The ATF guy inside shot the atf guy’s outside.
Chris,
Nope. I want my firearms to have features that allow it to kill people. I mainly hunt & target shoot but at the risk of sounding extreme, firearms should never be thought of as less than lethal. Killing in general doesn’t bother me – it’;s the reasons why the killing occurs that are important. No feature I’ve ever seen on an object enables or prevents intent. Want to stop unjustifiable homocides? stop intent. Leave the objects alone as they’re not as material as you’d think.
But no – legislaton won’t achieve the goals alleged by the AWB – only education & morality can do that.
July 22nd, 2004 at 8:37 am
All AWB Refutation – All The Time
Another person is arguing for a renewal of the “assault weapons” ban. The following wa sintended to be left in said blogger comments, but I figured I’d post it here to A: avoid hitting a word limit in her comments…