There has just been another mass shooting. I won’t say which one, so this blog post will remain evergreen since there will certainly be many more. That being said, it’s time to demand that all your NRA-loving, GOP-supporting friends and relatives finally abandon their zero-tolerance policy on gun control and hold their chosen representatives accountable. To help, here’s how you counter all their ridiculous arguments as to why less gun control, not more, is the answer.
The criminals don’t obey gun laws. These shooters won’t
care about gun control. At least this way the victims can get their own guns
and have a chance. (If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns)
This is probably one of the most common arguments against
gun control that is trotted out, and the one that can stand the least scrutiny.
To debunk this one, just have your gun-loving friend substitute any other crime
for gun possession.
“We can’t outlaw murder! Serial killers aren’t going to obey
that law! At least if we legalize murder, law-abiding citizens will have the
chance to murder the criminal before a criminal murders them!”
“We can’t outlaw drunk driving! Drunks aren’t going to care
if there’s a law if they want to drive! At least this way, law-abiding citizens
who want to drink a little before they drive home won’t have the drunks ruin
their night!”
“We can’t outlaw theft! The burglars aren’t going to stop
stealing because there’s a law! At least this way, we can legally steal our
stuff back!”
You get the idea.
I need to defend myself and my family
You are much more likely to see you or your family killed or
wounded if you have a gun than if you don’t. Studies show:
People successfully defend themselves with guns in less than
1% of crimes in which there is contact between a perpetrator and a victim.
Having access to a gun doesn’t better protect people from
being injured during a crime compared to other protective actions like calling
law enforcement or fleeing the scene.
Someone with a gun is four times more likely to be shot in
an assault.
Firearm access triples the risk of suicide death and doubles
the risk of homicide.
Firearms make it five times more likely that a victim will
be killed in a domestic dispute.
Places like Chicago have stringent gun laws and they have
more gun deaths than anywhere
Conservatives like to trot out this one because it is so
much the opposite of the truth that it feels true. In fact, gun violence in
Chicago rose after gun laws were weakened, and even though their gun
laws are still stricter than many others, most of the guns in Chicago come from
neighboring Wisconsin and Indiana, which have very weak gun laws. Furthermore,
no other country has as lax gun laws as the US, and no other country has our
level of gun violence.
The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a
good guy with a gun.
No. When Gabby Giffords was shot in Arizona, the shooter was
subdued by unarmed samaritans. In fact, the “good guy with the gun” showed up
late and almost killed one of the subduers.
The good guy with a gun in Buffalo ran up against the
shooter’s body armor, and ended up just as dead as the other victims.
Good guy with a gun Jemel Robertson subdued a shooter at
Manny’s Blue Room in Robbins, Illinois. While he held the shooter at bay,
police arrived and shot Jemel dead. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you what
color he was.
The 2nd Amendment says I have the right to own
however many guns I want of any kind no matter what!
It doesn’t. The text of the 2nd Amendment reads “A
well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the
right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
First of all, this is a conditional statement. It’s like
saying “The pool being full of water, the right to swim and dive shall not be
infringed.” If the pool is no longer full of water, the second part doesn’t
apply. A well-regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a
free state, hence, everyone doesn’t need to have guns.
Furthermore, even that bastion of conservatism, Antonin Scalia,
ruled in DC vs. Heller that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t give everyone
unrestricted access to weapons of war. He specifically ruled that the amendment
only applies to the type of weapon that one could reasonably expect a person of
that time to own, such as a handgun or a standard rifle. Not an AR-15.
Finally, the words “well-regulated militia” have importance.
Well-regulated means restrictions, as appropriate, can apply, and militia, as
defined by the Constitution, does not mean you and your buddies out in the
woods, but a group of volunteer soldiers ready to be called into service BY THE
GOVERNMENT, to allow states to protect themselves. (Article I Section 8).
Basically, if you are not in the National Guard, the state doesn’t have to
allow you to have a gun.
Also it’s worth noting for your Strict Constructionist friends that
there’s nothing in the Constitution that requires states allow guns to be
bought or sold.
There you have it. Clear and logical refutations of all your
friends’ and family’s pro-gun arguments for them to ignore at the next reunion!
