Tag Archives: Common Anti-Gun Control Arguments

A Response To Trump’s Anti-Gun Control Talking Points

Reported-Shooting-At-Mandalay-Bay-In-Las-Vegas_2.jpeg.CROP.promo-xlarge2

So NBC got their hands on Donald Trump’s talking points for his visit to Las Vegas in the wake of the worst mass shooting in America this century. They read like a Greatest Hits of pro-gun bullshit. These are the arguments you see again and again from gun fetishists. And since they are so common and I encounter these so often, I figured I would do myself the favor of countering these all right here so I can just refer the next gun enthusiast who regurgitates this stuff to this page where they can find the appropriate piece of propaganda and see my response to it without me having to type the same thing over and over again.

“Let’s gather the facts before we make sweeping policy arguments for curtailing the Second Amendment. The investigation is still in its earliest stages.”

This is a classic trope. We don’t know enough. It just happened. Have some respect. The investigation is just beginning. Of course none of this actually matters. It could turn out that the guy was from ISIS, obtained his guns illegally, and that no amount of gun laws or regulations would have ever stopped him from his attack. So what. Does a recent mass shooting somehow negate what we already know about gun violence? Of course not. Anyone who wants gun control doesn’t want it because of one incident. They want it because they’re aware that over 120,000 people are killed or wounded by guns every single year in America. I get that 558 of those are in the news right now, but again, even if it turned out that attack could not possibly be stopped by gun control, there are still the other 100,000+ shootings that may very well be cut down by gun control. By pretending that our conversation on gun control hinges on this one incident is to ignore all of the other victims of gun violence.

“The Second Amendment has endured for more than two centuries for a reason: it is a key constitutional right that is meant to protect people’s freedoms, and the President understands that.”

It’s cute how they say ‘the President understands that’. This is the only point at which they say that. Does that imply he does NOT understand the other points? They are correct that the Second Amendment has endured for more than two centuries, but for the most part it wasn’t used to defend the private ownership of guns until very recently. It wasn’t until 2008 in District of Columbia v Heller that the Supreme Court used the second amendment to justify ownership of guns.

I suppose it could be argued that the second amendment is a ‘key constitutional right’, but it’s less clear that it is or was meant to ‘protect people’s freedoms’. People have been arguing about the intention of the second amendment practically since its founding.

“The President believes that our founding principles, like freedom of speech, freedom of religions and the right to bear arms must be protected while maintaining public safety.”

Well that’s great, except that he doesn’t. His administration’s Justice Department is looking into Facebook pages that are anti-Trump with in an effort to identify dissenters. That doesn’t sound like believing in free speech. His Muslim ban makes it clear that if he does believe in freedom of religions, it’s certainly not all religions. And the fact that there are over 100,000 people shot in America every year shows that public safety is NOT being maintained.

“We welcome a reasoned and well-informed debate on public safety and our constitutional freedoms, but we reject the false choice that we can’t have both.”

No, they don’t. If they welcomed a well-informed debate they’d allow and fund research on gun violence. Instead they fight against it. It’s also worth noting that we have quite a few gun laws on the books right now that are not considered even by Trump’s administration to infringe on our constitutional freedoms. Arguing that any new gun control legislation automatically must being infringing on our constitutional freedoms is like saying whatever I’m planning on making in the kitchen must be poison. Until you hear the plans, there’s no way to know if that’s true or not.

“And when it comes to gun control, let’s be clear: new laws won’t stop a mad man committed to harming innocent people. They will curtail freedoms of law abiding citizens.”

Stephen Paddock was a law abiding citizen…until he opened fire on a crowd of 22,000 people and killed or wounded over 500 people. There is this myth trotted out by gun enthusiasts that somehow law abiding citizens and criminals are entirely separate kinds of people and one can never change into the other. It is, of course, like so many of their arguments complete bullshit.

That said, this particular talking point does have some truth to it. A mad man committed to harming innocent people will not likely be stopped by new gun laws. A mad man committed to breaking into your house isn’t likely to be stopped by locks no matter how many you put on your door, but that doesn’t mean you leave your doors unlocked, does it?

New gun laws will not make mass shootings in America a thing of the past, but it could mean less people die. Sure, the new laws won’t stop some determined people, but it will stop others. Just like a locked door stops some burglars but does not stop others.

 “We’ve seen terrorist attacks with knives, by people driving cars into crowds, by hijacking airplanes”

First off, since these are Presidential talking points, does this mean that the Trump administration is finally willing to admit that the Nazi march in Charlottesville was a terrorist attack? About damn time.

Secondly, yes, people have been attacked using knives, cars, and hijacking planes, but that does not somehow negate the 120,000 people who are shot every year. This is like insisting you don’t have a problem with heroin because other people are addicted to cocaine and meth. It makes no logical sense the moment you think about it for a moment.

“Some of the cities with the strictest gun laws have the highest rates of gun violence.”

“This shows that more laws on the books may not work. The problems in these cities and many others isn’t too few gun laws.”

It’s true that the problem in these cities is not too few gun laws. The problem is being surrounded by areas that have too few gun laws. Most of the guns in Chicago come from surrounding areas where the gun laws are lax and thanks to strict gun laws in Chicago, mostly criminals have guns. This is not showing that gun laws do not work. It’s showing that in order for gun control to work in America, it needs to be on a national level. Otherwise you get places like Chicago and Baltimore. Essentially, the Trump administration and many gun enthusiasts simply draw the wrong conclusion about gun violence in cities like Chicago. Whether they do this because they don’t know what they’re talking about or that they assume we don’t know what they’re talking about doesn’t really matter. The fact is that they are wrong.

“Also, we’ve had examples where concealed carry has allowed people to protect themselves and stop a mass shooting in its tracks, such as last month in a church in Texas.”

A recent study shows that for every time a gun is used in self-defense, 34 innocent people die. The fantasy of some John Wayne-type law abiding citizen stopping a gunman intent on committing harm is just that, a fantasy. It hardly ever happens. In fact, if you own a gun and you fire it killing someone, the odds are 2 to 1 that you shot yourself as suicide accounts for 2 out of 3 gun deaths.

“Again, we welcome this debates, but in the wake of Sunday night’s tragedy, we shouldn’t rush toward compromising our freedoms before we have all the facts.”

They do not welcome this debate. Trump has no interest in debating gun control. There has never been a time that he wanted to talk gun control.

As for ‘compromising our freedoms’, it’s worth noting that gun control laws already on the books are not considered by the Supreme Court to be compromising our freedoms. And without talking about specific gun control proposals any allegation that any new gun control law automatically compromises our freedoms can be dismissed as paranoid nonsense.

Finally, let’s put to bed the idea that we are ‘rushing’ to do anything at all about gun control. It has been 18,693  days since 15 people were killed by a gunman at the University of Texas-Austin. It has been 12,132 days since 21 people were killed by a gunman at a McDonalds in San Ysidro, California. It has been 11,369 days since 14 people were killed in Edmond, Oklahoma. It has been 9,486 days since a man drove a car into a restaurant in Killeen, Texas and shot and killed 23 people. It has been 6,743 days since the mass shooting at Columbine where 13 people were killed. It has been 3,825 days since a man at Virginia Tech shot and killed 32 people. It has been 2,887 days since the mass shooting at Fort Hood where 13 people were killed. It has been 1,756 days since the Sandy Hook massacre. It has been 673 days since San Bernardino where 14 people were killed. It has been 480 days since a man went into a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida and murdered 49 people.

The LAST thing we are doing is ‘rushing’ to solve the gun problem in America.

– Jack Cameron

 

 

Advertisements