You asserted that I had the burden of proof and tried to use your opinion piece (the article) to justify your position. (I did read your post regarding the burden of proof but it’s a personal assertion that attempts to shift the burden.)

Actually, my article where I discuss rights doesn’t bring up gun rights at all. It simply defines rights, in general terms, and argues for that definition.

We can leave the guns out of it altogether. Your definition of rights in the article is an attempt to change the status quo (based on current definitions) as to where the burden lies.

I disagree with your article and the stance you take and reject your assertion that the burden lies with me on the grounds that redefining words to better fit your position isn't actually an argument. You’ve built the entire argument on a presupposition that your personal redefinition of rights is the correct one. I’m happy with the status quo and see no reason to allow someone else to redefine words to better fit personal arguments.

Some of the arguments that you use are clever (granted) but are ultimately sophistry. It’s sleight of hand. If you remove the presupposition around the rights definitions, you’re left with the assertion “this is how it is” which is predicated on the second presupposition of “this is how it is”.

But it’s not.

1. I posted my article.

2. You disagreed and asserted that guns were a right in NZ (they’re not) and posted an opinion piece that I disagree with trying to redefine gun rights into existence — you added another piece that I started to read but found a bit heavy and also played sleight of hand with number given it didn’t examine numbers or events per capita (understandable though because you take the opposite position).

3. I refuted by pointing out the exact laws in NZ and the status quo which negate your stance.

4. You then attacked my support of the government, compared it to approving of slavery (emotive attack) and tried to shift the burden of proof to me by supplying another opinion piece. You also claimed that supporting gun law reform in NZ was the same as supporting slavery because NZ laws once approved of slavery. You also asserted that supporting the government was bad. You tried to create a false equivalence between the right to bodily autonomy and the right to bear firearms.

5. I pointed out the emotive attack, highlighted the presupposition and rejected it by supplying links to actual definitions and then highlighted that the entire argument was based on a false position given that slavery had never been legal in NZ. I also pointed out that the vast majority of NewZealanders do support the government and we do so because we have one of the highest levels of political control in the world not as an ad populum argument but as a justification of that contradicts the people vs government stance that you allude to in your response.

6. You lastly posted that you’d been linking your own articles in defense of your position and suggested that perhaps I hadn’t read them.

7. I did read them, as stated in previous responses, I just disagree with them. They’re rhetoric. Good rhetoric, but still rhetoric. Reality contradicts them and as good as the arguments are, you cant redefine my reality or change the status quo into something it’s not.

Your whole approach was based on whether gun ownership was a right in NZ making the foundation of your argument weak. Guns are not a right in NZ, they’re a privilege:

Some of this back and forth clearly demonstrates some cultural differences which might account for some of the misunderstandings.

• Guns are not perceived as a right in NZ.
• NZ’rs know that we have one of the highest levels of political control in the world so we don’t have the same level of us vs them mentality when it comes to the government.
• NZ’rs apply for firearms licences on that understanding.
• NZ’rs value the right to reduced gun violence and deaths per capita far more then they value the bearing arms as evidenced by the opinion polls.

I absolutely understand that things are not the same in your country, but I’m not advocating for change in your country.