Brooklyn
I stand with John Locke.
The problem is that the court isn't the only entity that will laugh you out of the room. The public will do the same, and for the very same reasons.
Whatever argument you make, it's going to have to be one that is consistent with the general sensibilities of the target audience or, at a minimum, challenges those sensibilities very gently and in such a way as to provide an even more persuasive alternative. The "guns are not dangerous" argument is neither gentle nor provides a more persuasive alternative.
But it is my belief that the "not unacceptably dangerous" argument is one that can win. See my prior message.
I have made the argument, very successfully.. in fact, for several thousand years, philosophers have engaged in a tactic know as strong from weak form in which the strongest possible claim is made an defended to its fullest, and since each point in favor of the strong claim is also a point in favor of the weak claim you lose nothing by making the stronger claim.
It is a very economical and effective technique in which the opposition often concedes major points as true on the theory that, while they are necessary to the strong argument, they are not sufficient , and thus no ego is at risk if they yield since they can still win. Properly executed I can move someone quite a bit in my direction before I let them ' win' by conceding the strong argument thus forcing them to accept the weaker.
It been working for several thousand years so there just might be something to it .
Meanwhile by your own admission we are losing and you expect to lose could it be that op force has already used this tirck on us and most have failed to notice.
Is it an accident that after 30 years of "guns don'y kill people do ", and guns save more lives than they take" we have 43 shall issue states and a few going constitutional carry?
Pure chance right?
Stop arguing for a CA audience they will guarantee a loss. I will discuss why in another response.
You may also consider that the court is one place that " Strong form" / Weak Form" will not lose you any points at all .
I doubt they would bat an eyelash at an advocate that asserted " I am not willing to concede the burden of proof, nor will I shoulder it, but even should the court hold that the opposition has meet the burden of showing that guns pose some danger , they have not meet the higher burden of shoeing that that danger is not acceptable , as it is not materially different than other presumably dangerous objects. ( this is there version of strong from weak form -- they show weak form as ask the court for a pass on strong form -- but we cannot impeach the argument they never made -- yet another reason never to concede anything.
You will see why it is imperative not to concede the burden when I reply to another of your statements .
Last edited: