There are many arguments out there when it comes to gun control. Some are good. . . but. . . the vast majority are terrible. Unfortunately, what passes for convincing argument these days is often a bunch of unsubstantiated opinion that can't be supported with any actual facts, or logic for that matter.
1. A particularly stupid argument between both sides is over when is the right time to talk about gun control. This is one of the stupidest and most boring arguments because it usually ends up with both sides at loggerheads. I'll boil it down - When do the Democrats want to talk about gun control? ALL THE TIME! - When do the Republicans want to talk about gun control? NEVER. This leads to both sides accusing the other of being a bunch of political hacks.
So what is the right amount of time to wait before we can talk about gun control? As usual, the answer is not simple. But I think most people will agree with my logic on this.
1. A particularly stupid argument between both sides is over when is the right time to talk about gun control. This is one of the stupidest and most boring arguments because it usually ends up with both sides at loggerheads. I'll boil it down - When do the Democrats want to talk about gun control? ALL THE TIME! - When do the Republicans want to talk about gun control? NEVER. This leads to both sides accusing the other of being a bunch of political hacks.
So what is the right amount of time to wait before we can talk about gun control? As usual, the answer is not simple. But I think most people will agree with my logic on this.
- When we know the facts. It doesn't do either side any good to call for a ban on AR-15's before we know what gun the shooter used. Duh. This also goes along with all the other factors of any shooting. So here's the first rule: WAIT FOR THE FACTS.
- Make your argument with integrity. No one wants to see you using dead victims to bolster your agenda. Chances are that if your argument is, "You just don't care about people because you won't agree with me" it's a lousy argument. So here's the second rule: You can talk about gun control but don't be a jerk or a snob. (This is mostly for the people who run around telling people that their thoughts and prayers are stupid and pointless.)
- And gun advocates should always be willing to entertain the conversation no-matter how dumb they think it is. It's not a good argument to say that we shouldn't be able to discuss anything. So here's the third rule: Discuss politics whether you like it or not.
2. Another bad argument is about whether owning a gun actually makes you safer. Anti-gun advocates say that owning a gun actually increases your risk of injury. For once, this argument actually has some sources behind it. However, the whole argument is not good because it paints with too large a brush. Owning a gun responsibly, and using it only for defense, completely negates the chance of injury. Think of it like this, if you keep your gun unloaded, with the safety on, and unloaded how exactly is your gun supposed to injure you? Unfortunately, responsible gun owners often get lumped in with people who are not. Similar to car owners. Accept that you are much more likely to die in a car accident than a firearm accident (Cars: 1-144 Firearms: 1-6,905). Of course, you say, but maybe there are more cars than guns? Nope (265m cars vs roughly 400m guns). This inevitably leads to the argument that guns just aren't heavily regulated enough and that's why people get hurt...
Of course, I almost never hear suggestions about how we can make guns safer. Usually the suggestions just involve bans, waiting periods, and background checks--none of which have anything to do with actually making guns safer. It sounds like the real argument is just that less guns would make us safer. I'll get to that one later because it's a doozy.
First, we already have hunter's safety courses, gun safety courses, laws that require safe storage and handling, age restrictions, concealed carry courses, etc. Is there more that we need?
Second, asking one gun owner to be responsible for the actions of another gun owner is as stupid as suggesting that my car should have an ignition lock because my neighbor was caught drinking and driving, or as stupid as saying that all men should remove their penises because Harvey Weinstein isn't capable of keeping his under control. Clearly this line of thinking will lead us into a quagmire.
3. Places with tough gun control laws (Chicago) have a homicide problem because of places with lax gun control (Indiana). This argument is getting to the point where it's starting to sound less like ignorance and more like lying... First, no one in Indiana will sell you a gun if you are from Chicago (you have to show proof of residence to purchase a gun). It's already illegal to buy a gun and sell it to someone else who is unable to pass a background check. Even so, this doesn't mean that guns can't come in from Indiana illegally, or that many guns are purchased outside Chicago. Lastly, this gets us to the problem of enforcement--what's the point of having a law that you can't or wont enforce? Why ban guns in schools if you don't have someone checking people at the door?
4. "Cars are heavily regulated... Guns should be too." This is another argument that is more about lying than anything else. It puts the false notion in people's head that it's easier to buy a gun than it is to buy a car. However, you don't need a license to buy a car, you don't have to do a background check, you can purchase the car immediately, and you don't even have to be over the age of eighteen. However, to purchase a gun you must be over the age of 18, you must have conducted a federal NICS background check, you can't be a convicted felon or domestic abuser, and you must have a valid photo ID from the government; additionally, some states (10 and D.C.) require you to wait for a period of time before you can take ownership of a firearm irregardless of the fact that almost every study ever conducted shows that waiting periods have zero effect on gun control. But it is also true that in most states, you can buy a gun from a friend or family member without going through the background check process, however, this is also true with cars (just like cars you still need to pass other requirements before you can actually take your firearm anywhere.)
5. Another popular belief is that because guns are designed to kill they are inherently bad. This is a rather limited view of the world and less about factual inconsistencies than a simple thinking problem. Guns also save lives. For example most people wouldn't say that a cop who uses his gun to shoot and kill a sexual predator holding several children hostage is bad. Some studies put the number of lives saved by guns as high as 2.5m every year (CDC, Gary Kleck). The CDC never published their studies (another reason in a long list why they are no longer allowed to study gun control) but the studies were recently found and they match what other studies have found.
If you only evaluate guns for the lives they take rather than for the lives they save, you will make faulty decisions regarding gun control policy.
6. Perhaps the most widely spread argument among people who want gun control is the idea that the phrase "well regulated" in the second amendment means the government wanted heavy restrictions on gun ownership. This is just another lie in a long list. Well regulated in the 18th century actually meant well trained. This also makes a lot of sense when you more deeply understand the text of the second amendment and it's purpose. First, in Heller v. D.C. the Supreme Court ruled that the comma in the second amendment means that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that stands on its own without the phrase about the militias. Therefore "well regulated" doesn't even refer to the right to keep and bear arms. Second, the drafters were adamant that the militias not be controlled by the federal government because their entire purpose was to defend against a tyrannical government--it would be extremely stupid to give control of militias to the entity they are supposed to defend against. So no matter how you view the grammatical structure of the second amendment, "well regulated" was clearly not intended to give the government control over firearms.
7. "It's not your fundamental right to own a gun." Shockingly this is true! However, the constitution does guarantee every person the fundamental right of self-defense. This was based off of an English lawyer, William Blackstone, who argued that no government should have the power to take away someone's right to self defense. The drafters thought this was a good idea and wrote the second amendment into the constitution--probably why Blackstone has been cited more than any other person by the Supreme Court. Logically, taking away a person's gun also takes away their ability to defend themselves. For example, the 105lb female is unlikely to be able to protect herself against a 6'5" 260lb male attacker, a gun is the only viable way she can defend herself. Therefore until a new form of self defense is discovered everyone has a fundamental right to own a gun.
5. Another popular belief is that because guns are designed to kill they are inherently bad. This is a rather limited view of the world and less about factual inconsistencies than a simple thinking problem. Guns also save lives. For example most people wouldn't say that a cop who uses his gun to shoot and kill a sexual predator holding several children hostage is bad. Some studies put the number of lives saved by guns as high as 2.5m every year (CDC, Gary Kleck). The CDC never published their studies (another reason in a long list why they are no longer allowed to study gun control) but the studies were recently found and they match what other studies have found.
If you only evaluate guns for the lives they take rather than for the lives they save, you will make faulty decisions regarding gun control policy.
6. Perhaps the most widely spread argument among people who want gun control is the idea that the phrase "well regulated" in the second amendment means the government wanted heavy restrictions on gun ownership. This is just another lie in a long list. Well regulated in the 18th century actually meant well trained. This also makes a lot of sense when you more deeply understand the text of the second amendment and it's purpose. First, in Heller v. D.C. the Supreme Court ruled that the comma in the second amendment means that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that stands on its own without the phrase about the militias. Therefore "well regulated" doesn't even refer to the right to keep and bear arms. Second, the drafters were adamant that the militias not be controlled by the federal government because their entire purpose was to defend against a tyrannical government--it would be extremely stupid to give control of militias to the entity they are supposed to defend against. So no matter how you view the grammatical structure of the second amendment, "well regulated" was clearly not intended to give the government control over firearms.
7. "It's not your fundamental right to own a gun." Shockingly this is true! However, the constitution does guarantee every person the fundamental right of self-defense. This was based off of an English lawyer, William Blackstone, who argued that no government should have the power to take away someone's right to self defense. The drafters thought this was a good idea and wrote the second amendment into the constitution--probably why Blackstone has been cited more than any other person by the Supreme Court. Logically, taking away a person's gun also takes away their ability to defend themselves. For example, the 105lb female is unlikely to be able to protect herself against a 6'5" 260lb male attacker, a gun is the only viable way she can defend herself. Therefore until a new form of self defense is discovered everyone has a fundamental right to own a gun.
Comments
Post a Comment