From: [s l hly] at [cc.usu.edu]
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Josh Sugarmann v. David Hardy Debate at Utah State University
Date: 12 Oct 95 15:07:06 MDT


A debate over gun control between Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy 
Center and David Hardy, a Tuscon, AZ attorney was held today at Utah State
University as part of the USU Arts and Lectures series.

The format for the debate was a 10 minute presentation for each side, 
followed by a 5 minute rebuttal for each side.  After questions from the 
audience, the debaters were allowed to make a 5 minute summary.

David Hardy led off.  In his presentation, he made several comparisons
between homicide rates in Washington D. C. and places with less restrictive
laws.  He pointed out Florida and Washington state's experience with CCW
laws, and the negative effect of gun laws on Hawaii's homicide rate.  He
also used examples of Hobbes' theory of individual right to self-defense,
and recounted the incident behind Warren v. DC, where the DC court of 
appeals held that the government couldn't be held liable for failing to
provide protection to it's citizens.

Sugarmann was up next.  He immediately discounted the use of statistics
in the debate, and then went on to quote several (discredited) ones 
himself, including Kellerman's "43 times more likely" figure.  He asserted
that there was no Constitutional basis for thinking that the 2nd Amendment
was an individual right, and said that no gun control law has been 
overturned.  He kept referring to the NRA as a "trade organization" and
seemed to be obsessed with guns as a business.  In fact, he concentrated
mainly on the idea that guns should be regulated as a consumer product
(no surprise there).

In his rebuttal, Hardy slammed him using US v. Verdugo-Urquidez and quoted
from Chief Justice Rhenquists' decision.  He also slammed former Chief 
Justice Burger's puff piece in Parade magazine, pointing out that *peer-
reviewed* legal journals such as Yale Law Review have held that 2nd is 
individual right.

Sugarmann's rebuttal?  WAaa, Waaa, Waaa.  He "refuted" Mr. Hardy's 
law journals with Gary Will's recent "don't confuse me with facts" article
in the august and respected law journal The New York Times Review of Books.
He asserted that all of the supposed constitutional evidence was just 
quotes taken out of context (he provided no examples, of course).

Because of time constraints, only three questions were allowed from the
audience, and all three were hostile to Mr. Sugarmann.  He basically held
to his previous theme, ie, there is no individual right, guns are bad, etc.
(As I was waiting in line to ask my question, I didn't write down any of it).
When one person asked him how long he thought it would take before a
gun law actually *worked*, he said that it might take a whole generation,
and only after government-sponsored anti-gun "education" in the schools.

The summaries were the same.  Sugarmann kept calling the NRA a "trade 
organization" and tried to assert that they advocated "selling guns to
criminals".  Hardy called Sugarmann one of the "liberal facists" who
wish to take away not only the Second Amendment, but the 4th as well.
Hardy received some good applause when he finished.

In my opinion, this is the last time that Josh Sugarmann will ever debate
gun control outside of liberal parts of the US.  He seemed taken aback by
the fact that the audience was mostly pro-gun.  He kept referring to the
homicides that appear in the papers every day, until Mr. Hardy pointed out
that Utah's homicide rate is 25 times lower (3.1 v. 76/100,000) than DC's
and that homicides here are rare.  Sugarmann seemed obsessed with the 
gun trade, and tried again and again to suggest that guns are consumer 
items (he compared them to toasters) and should be regulated.  He just
seemed lost, and was unable to sway the audience with emotional appeals.

In other words, he got his butt kicked.

Kevin M. Okleberry, Toxicology Program, Utah State University  [S L HLY] at [cc.usu.edu]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Disclaimers Apply