warning: political discussion (kind of) and the third reich

I was talking with a friend last night and the topic of conversation turned to politics. Specifically gun control. I have no problems talking politics with people who understand the issue, even if they have a different opinion than me. Usually I gain some pretty interesting insights. What bugs me is when people understand just enough to think they have an opinion, but don't really get what's going on.

For example, last night this guy just didn't understand what "gun control" means. When I said I was in favor of gun control, his only argument back was that we shouldn't be allowed to take away people's guns. (Specifically his, I think. I'm pretty sure he thought I wanted to personally come to his house and destroy all his guns while he looked on helpless.) Please tell me you see the difference. Gun control doesn't mean no one gets guns. It means there is some regulation in the kinds of guns and permits and locations you can have guns, etc. If you want to have rifles and shotguns and hunting guns and maybe even a few handguns - be my guest. (Just don't be expected to be admitted to my home.) But I don't think the joe public should have access to any and all kinds of weapons and just tote them around with them all the time "just in case".

But this guy just didn't get it. Anytime I said the words "gun control" he heard "no guns for anyone in this country and possibly the world" and would explain to me why we needed guns. When I tried to explain what I meant, he would just give examples of why it was helpful to have guns. I wanted to shake some sense into him.

The conversation ended when he invoked "the Hitler defense". I can't remember where I first heard about the Hitler defense (probably from Rebecca - she's smart), but basically it's the point in the debate when the other person brings up Hitler. It is made to bring in the shock value of what Hitler did. My friend said that one of the things Hitler did to the Jews was to take away their right to have weapons. This is probably true; I'm too lazy to look it up. But true or not, it's a dumb argument. Is he saying if we regulate guns, we are going to have a genocide here? I'm not really sure because that is the poing of the Hitler defense - you are saying you have no more valid arguments but who will argue against that horrible event in history? It is pretty much the equivelent of saying, "I know I'm right" (which no one can argue with) but with more pretention. (Also, for the love! I don't want to take away everyone's guns! Just regulate!)

In summary: Don't resort to the Hitler defense in debates. (Especially if you aren't really clear on what we are debating.) Quote history responsibly and relevantly.

(Ps. To the friend I was debating with last night: I'm sorry I called you stupid here. But I doubt you are reading this anyway.)

To lighten things up, here's a quote from Eric Snider:

The billboard I saw on my way to work said this:
"The United Nations Wants to Take YOUR Gun!"
I was alarmed. How could the United Nations Want to Take MY Gun when I don't even have one? Are they planning to issue guns to everyone, just so they can take them away? Because THAT sure wouldn't make any sense. Plus, I don't want a gun in my house, even if it's only long enough for the U.N. to take it away. Who knows how long they'll leave it there before they come get it? It could be days, or even weeks, and in that time, plenty could go wrong, such as my roommate leaving dirty dishes in the sink FOR THE LAST TIME.

(from here)