Hacker News Reader

Comment by beat | Hacker News Reader

To put it another way... if you can't win your argument without going Godwin, maybe your position isn't very strong. Leading with Godwin is the sign of a very weak argument, or a very weak arguer.

View on HN

I think the Godwin rule is good for stuff that is extreme hyperbole, and typically just examples of attacks on character. The 'Soup Nazi' from Seinfeld being a good example: it was one of my favorite episodes, but really, the soup restaurant guy is Hitler?

But I am literally making a point about something that I think is truly key to preserving democratic society in America, or whatever is left of it, and I would view the removal of private gun ownership in the United States as actually being a prelude to something as bad as Nazi Germany. I think the Second Amendment is the keystone to all of the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Basically, calling your boss Hitler because he made you work on the weekend is absurd, but making comparisons between Hitler and somebody like Pol-Pot is quite legitimate.

If you actually look at modern warfare vs WWII guns in the hands of private citizens are basically useless for fighting the US military. Bombs can be effective but modern body armor, surveillance, medicine, and tactics mean even a well trained and equipped army is going to lose significantly more people let alone people with effing hand guns. See: Iraq and Afghanistan for examples.

Realistically, freedom of the press and due process are far more important and in far more danger than guns which are basically just a talking point / distraction at this point. Or put another way, if everyone in George Orwell's 1984 had a gun nothing would change.

Point 1: You didn't go Godwin on "removal of private gun ownership", you did it on mere registration. Changing parameters to defend your point is bad arguing too.

Point 2: I'm a pro-gun liberal. I'm also opposed to gun registration. I kicked you around on it not to support gun registration, but rather because you're making my side of the argument look bad. I don't want the people I agree with making crappy omg hitler!11!! arguments because it makes my job that much harder.

Point 3: If you can't show how gun registration is bad (or ineffective, which is my usual tack) without saying omg hitler, you're not going to convince anyone that you're right.

I think there is a sizable minority that wants anybody who isn't in jail to be well armed, whether or not they agree with me politically, and I'm in that minority. I think it benefits society. I sort of vacillate between conservative and libertarian depending on the issue and the day of the week myself, but I think pro-gun liberals are a great addition.

I think there is a sizable minority that wants nobody to have guns, for various reasons, but typically because they actually think it'll stop violence. I think that won't work at all, and has lots of negative effects. It isn't a coincidence that all of the mass shootings happen in "gun free zones".

I think there is a vanishingly small number of people who actually want to disarm society in order to try and push a Nazi-like situation. But, imagine an America where the NSA that Snowden has told us about are the only people with firearms. Do you want to live there?

Small logical problem there, common in pro-gun circles. The reason mass shooting happen in "gun free zones" is because those are the places where people are concentrated. The idea that mass murderers are afraid of armed self-defense is utter nonsense - after all, they know they will be engaged with the police quickly enough.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com