Worldviews and Emotional Assumptions in the Gun Civil Rights Debate
Heated debates about law-abiding responsible American gun ownership civil rights tend to start and end as emotional arguments stemming from dug-in presupposed assumptions and predetermined worldviews, rather than inquiring open-minded attitudes that lead to acceptance of convincing proof.
Unalienable human rights, such as the Second Amendment, are based on the steadfast recognition that there are certain nonnegotiable, self-evident givens in human nature, prior to the state’s involvement, which the state is obligated to respect. Natural human rights are meant to be inviolate; incapable of being reduced to merely legal rights or privileges.
A myriad of statistical analyses are already available that support how the gun civil rights position is effective in crime control, such as
- Exhaustive Study: Murder Rates Rise Every Place that Bans Guns
- Correcting Gun Control False Claims About “America’s Unique Gun Violence Problem” And “How To Reduce Shootings”
- Second Amendment Foundation Gun Rights FAQ
- Gun Facts
- Gun Ownership and Crime Trends
- Articles About Gun Facts
- 61 Statistics Describing USA Gun Owners, Demographics, Concealed Carry, and More
- Glossary of Terms about Guns
[ Read the SemperVerus article, Important Judicial Decisions Regarding Self-Defense Law ]
Because the facts are readily viewable online, the following chart is an attempt to help you recognize the underlying basic emotional premises from which each side approaches the subject. Once these perspectives are identified and acknowledged, perhaps feelings will subside to the facts, helping to deescalate emotional-only arguments.
