A re-look at gun control on Occam’s razor edge

Back in January I wrote an article about the false logic of gun control and how the argument between gun control and gun rights fairs when placed within the constructs of Occam’s Razor; the logic principle that the argument that makes the fewest assumptions is the right one.

In the current debate concerning guns in America, I am always astounded by the twisting of facts, logic and reason that the gun control zealots put forth in order to defend their case. By all sense and logic, gun control cannot be viewed as anything other than a means to oppress a free people and to disarm the law abiding.

When looking at the pro-rights argument against the pro-control argument one needs to cut through the hyperbole and sensationalism with Occam’s razor.

Plainly put, Occam’s razor is the process in which, when you have two competing theories, the one that makes the least amount of assumptions is most likely the correct one. By using the “razor” to cut away the most assumptions you are left with the correct answer.

To apply this to the gun debate, I argue that gun control, when cut to ribbons by the razor cannot stand.

The argument for the 2nd Amendment.

An armed people are a free people

That’s pretty much the only assumption that needs to be taken into consideration for the 2nd Amendment. Freedom does not guarantee safety, it does not ensure absolute happiness, it only assumes that if people are armed they will be free so long as they remain so.

The argument for gun control requires a lot more assumptions to be made (many of which have been proven false).

The 2nd Amendment is about hunting (because hunting is a past time and our founding fathers could always go to Wal-Mart in order to buy some meat) The founding fathers didn’t know what weapons would be available in the future and wouldn’t have written the 2nd Amendment if they had (they just fought a revolution using the same guns as the tyrants army, why would they then turn around and deny the same to those who follow) Gun control will stop criminals from getting guns (there are a number of shootings in “gun free zones” that have proven this false) The government will never turn on its people (I guess we’re just ignoring the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina) The police are enough to keep you safe 5 cops sat and watched him dragged from his car and beaten (i feel that Alexian Lien might feel differently as no less thanin front of them) Criminals will follow gun laws (just like they follow the signs at “gun free zones”) Shall not be infringed doesn’t mean that the 2nd Amendment can’t be infringed (a single mustard seed of doubt means you have doubt so too does a little infringement mean you are infringing) Gun control only fails because we don’t have enough of it (and our government is in debt because we don’t spend waste enough money) Only the government needs guns, law abiding people don’t (i guess that’s true…if you’re a tyrant) Armed citizenry couldn’t stop tyranny (see 1775-1783)

Those are just 10 assumptions that I have heard the gun control zealots use that come to mind. I’m sure many of those reading this have heard even more.

The long and short of it is this, you have to make a LOT of assumptions in order to get on board with gun control while the 2nd Amendment only requires you to make 1 assumption. And that assumption just seems so rational and has been proven in history that it boggles my mind that people still choose to deny it. At this point it’s more fact than assumption.

So the next time you find yourself in a war of words with some “enlightened” gun control advocate, don’t forget to bring your razor.