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

 

 

If Only We Really Gave A Damn About Gun Violence in America

o-GUN-FLAG-facebook

I spent nearly ten years reading studies, articles, and books while talking to people I agree with, people I disagree with, and people who are just a lot smarter than I am about guns, gun control, and gun violence. I would stop short of calling myself an expert, but I know a thing or two about a thing or two when it comes to guns in America. In the last year or two I’ve cut down on my research because I arrived at certain conclusions that made any further research on my part largely irrelevant.

  1. Most of America agrees that universal background checks and required training on the use and safe storage of any gun that is purchased is common sense gun control. People are less in agreement when it comes to requiring registration and liability insurance but most people like that too.
  2. That said, it’s worth noting that while most of America agrees, also most of America doesn’t care too much about it. We don’t see protesters supporting gun control doing marches, confronting prominent politicians, or doing much of anything really beyond online petitions and lip service towards the concept of gun control.
  3. What we in America have decided collectively is that we’re probably not going to get shot and 30,000 abstract dead Americans every year is a fine price to pay for easy access to guns. We don’t even pay attention to the 80,000 wounded every year from gunfire.
  4. There is a small but vocal population of gun owners who are nearly sexually aroused by the idea of the government coming for their guns or some home intruder breaking into their house despite the odds of such things happening being astronomically low. These are people who will shoot their fellow Americans regardless of what uniform they are wearing before they will relinquish their guns.
  5. Given points 2, 3, and 4, I have nearly zero expectation of any meaningful national gun control laws in the United States.

Now you may want to argue any of these points, and you may go right ahead and do so, but as I said, I did not arrive at these conclusions in any uninformed way. I recognize that America, like the Aztecs is a society in which human sacrifice is part of the culture. We just do it with guns rather than rolling people off of pyramids. And like the Aztec human sacrifices, it is not a practical thing, but a religious thing. Talk to any avid gun enthusiast and you’ll see they have every bit the zeal of the most passionate evangelist. As an atheist, I am well aware that when it comes to religion, no amount of common sense, statistics, studies, or facts will sway a believer from their belief.

Most of us are not gun owners. Most of us do not fetishize guns. Most of us do not hold the beliefs of a religious zealot. But, despite these gun fetishists following a belief system that kills ten times the amount of people who died on 9/11 every year, we do not treat these people the same as we might a member of a ISIS or a Nazi. I don’t see that changing any time soon either. Instead, we are tolerant or indifferent to their deadly religion.

When it comes to guns, people often look to politics, but really modern politics about gun control is all about getting out of the way of the gun lobby. The NRA is a domestic terrorist organization that works as the propaganda arm of gun manufacturers under the guise of representing American gun owners. They spend millions on members of both parties to make sure none of them do anything to mess up the sales of guns and ammunition to any American who might want them. I remain convinced that if enough people cared, protested, made calls, and voted out anyone who takes a dime from the gun lobby we might get somewhere on gun control, but I also remain equally convinced that won’t happen because most people, including you and me, simply do not truly give a shit. Not really.

– Jack Cameron

A Note About Comments: All comments are moderated. Feel free to comment if you have something beyond insults and something involving evidence to back up whatever it is you want want say. Comments with insults, unrelated or bad links, or off topic will be deleted.

Barely A Whisper Anymore

I woke up to the news that over one hundred people had been shot in a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida last night. At least fifty are dead. After the initial shock of hearing the news a small voice I can barely hear anymore said, “Maybe this is the horrible tragedy that finally gets us to clamp down on gun violence.”

The day before, also in Orlando, Christina Grimmie, a young singer who was on the television show The Voice was shot and killed while signing autographs. I heard that small voice then too. And then I thought, “She’s probably not famous enough. It would have to be a major rock star.”

john-lennon

John Lennon shot four times on December 8, 1980

Oh yeah. That did not do it. If someone can shoot and kill a Beatle, a dead rock star isn’t going to do it. Maybe if it was someone important. Someone powerful. A leader of some sort.

jfk-in-his-own-words-1024.jpg

John F. Kennedy shot and killed November 22, 1963

mlk

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. shot and killed April 4, 1968

rfk

Robert F. Kennedy shot and killed June 6, 1968

Wow. Clearly the death of one person is not enough to galvanize the American people to demand common sense gun control. You know what works on the news? Blonde girls. That gets people all upset for some reason. A blonde girl goes missing and everyone is up in arms and the 24-hour news channels cover it for weeks. What if a blonde reporter got shot live on television? Would that wake people up enough to do something about guns and gun control?

Alison-Parker_3422389b

Alison Parker shot and killed on live television August 26, 2015

Okay. I get it. One person whether they are an attractive blonde girl, the biggest rock star in the world, or President of the United States is not enough to make people rethink our policies on guns and gun control.

What about numbers? Statistics like the fact that more people died last year from gunshot wounds than from car accidents do not work either because they’re just numbers.

The kind of tragedy we need to wake people up to the horrible damage easy gun access has caused is something like a school shooting. Maybe that would work.

columbine

Fifteen people shot and killed including two teenage gunmen on April 20, 1999 at Columbine High School

Oh. That didn’t cause people to change their minds about guns either. Well, it’s high school. High school can be rough for some people. Hell, who didn’t want to kill someone in high school?

You know what no one could ignore? You know what would really get everyone ready to give up their guns voluntarily just at the sheer horror of it all? If someone shot up an elementary school even the most hard core gun nut would have to pause and think we need some sensible gun control laws. That maybe we should make getting guns at least as hard as it is to get a car. That would do it.

shvictims

Twenty-Six shot and killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 12, 2012

Twenty-six dead. Twenty under the age of eight. And that was not enough to really enact change. And so I wake up this morning to the news that over 100 people have been shot and half of them are dead due to a gunman. And a tiny voice wonders if we will do anything at all about the easy access to guns in this country. But that voice has become barely more than a whisper because I know the truth. We will do nothing.

We sacrifice over 30,000 American lives every year and pay for the freedom to own guns with their blood. The Aztecs sacrificed lives to their Gods. Experts say they sacrificed as many as 20,000 people a year. We have them beat. We sacrifice so we can own weapons. We do not ask for volunteers. People are chosen at random and while most are poor, no matter who you are, you could be next. The fact that you have not been chosen is the only reason you still allow this to go on. Today, far too many will hear of a massacre in a gay nightclub in Florida and incorrectly think, “I don’t go to gay nightclubs in Florida and so I must be safe.”

Last night over 50 people unwillingly sacrificed their lives for your freedom to own guns. By next week you won’t remember any of their names and be just as shocked as you are right now the next time a mass unwilling sacrifice is made. And you will do just as little as you always have to stop gun violence and the easy access to guns because this is America.

– Jack Cameron

Why We Don’t Need Guns

weak

I read this article about guns. It wasn’t for or against gun control. Instead it was focused on why people want guns. This is a good question. Unsurprisingly the most common reason people say they have guns is for protection.

It may seem incredibly reasonable that in a country full of guns you may want to have one of your own to protect yourself from guns. However, it’s not very realistic. For starters, the odds of you being a victim of gun related violence are exceptionally low. According to the national safety council your odds of being shot and killed by a gun discharge are 1 in 6,699. And since we know that two out of three of all gun deaths are suicides, getting shot and killed by someone else it’s more like 1 in 20,097 or roughly the same odds as you dying in a plane crash.

 

Even if you defy the odds and end up in a life and death situation where someone is pointing a gun at you, you’re not likely to be in a situation where your gun is loaded and you’re prepared to shoot. If you look at the numbers for every person shot and killed in self-defense there are 34 deaths that aren’t. You also find that owning a gun dramatically increases your odds of suicide. And if you’re a woman there’s a 93% chance that you’ll know your killer. Owning a gun for protection from strangers with guns may seem like a reasonable choice, but as I said, it’s not realistic and actually puts you in more danger rather than less.

Another reason the article listed was recreation. Some people like to target shoot. Some people like to hunt. (P.J. O’Rourke once said that “Hunting is a replacement for murder.”) Target shooting is something that need not be done with a deadly weapon. Pellet guns hit targets as well as bullets do. As for hunting, there’s nothing sporting about taking a weapon developed by the smartest creature on the planet to kill and using it to kill things with brains smaller than a baseball. I get that some people enjoy hunting. But there’s no reason for it in modern society. And when on average one toddler a week shoots someone, I think recreation is a fairly week excuse for having guns.

A recent study says that your average gun owner has eight guns. It’s also worth noting that gun ownership overall has gone down over the years. In other words less and less people are buying more and more guns. Owning a gun when you look at the realities in present day America isn’t a very rational choice. Unfortunately, this means that reasoning our way into disarming the country probably isn’t going to work.

– Jack Cameron

An Open Letter To American Gun Owners

gunsAmerican Gun Owners,

Let me start off by saying that I know the vast majority of you are responsible law abiding citizens who are trained in the use of your weapons and would likely never shoot another human being without other lives being in imminent danger. You’re also likely not someone who is brandishing your weapons around supermarkets, department stores, and restaurants trying just to antagonize anti-gun people. Your gun likely sits in a gun case somewhere until you feel like going out to the range to target shoot or perhaps when you go hunting. Despite what many liberals might believe, most of you are entirely rational, educated individuals who are well aware of the power and responsibility inherent in owning a gun. You need not convince me of this as I already know it to be true.

Now having said that, let me also state that I don’t expect that this letter is going to change your mind about guns in the slightest. When it comes to the seemingly endless and toothless gun debate here in America, most of us have chosen our sides, dug in our heels, and will not be changing our minds anytime soon. I get that. I’ll even acknowledge that such a description likely fits me as well. We all have our reasons and our pet studies that will help back up what we already believe about guns, gun violence, and what can or should be done about it.

I’m aware that no amount of sources, studies, evidence, or data is going to result in a sudden shift in viewpoint. I’m equally aware that what I’m going to ask will likely fall on deaf ears. So before I get to that point, let me ask one quick and easy favor. For the duration of this letter, let’s step out of our fox holes for a few moments. I will not attack you with anything and you will allow if only for a moment the idea that just maybe we could do this. Can we make that deal just for the length of this post?

Every year a gun is used to kill 30,000 Americans. 20,000 of these are suicides. 10,000 are homicides. If rates continue as they are, more people will be killed yearly using guns than will be killed in automobile accidents. And despite what many in the gun lobby have told us, liberals and Obama are doing absolutely nothing to take your guns away. If nothing else, you can rest secure in the iron-clad fact that Obama is not coming for your guns.

Okay. Now let me ask you this. What if there was a way to make 100% sure that your gun was never used for a homicide or a suicide? Sure, you may have your gun locked up. You may have various methods of security to keep your gun from being used to harm other law abiding citizens, but each of these can be circumvented. Locks can be broken. Guns can be stolen or lost. It’s one of those things we think will never happen to us until it does. So I ask you to open your mind. I ask you to let in one incredibly simple idea.

The one sure-fire way to make sure that no one ever uses your guns to kill anyone else and every law abiding citizen is safe from any harm your guns might do is to simply get rid of your guns.

I know you’re already immediately dismissing this concept. I know that in some cases it’s a part of who you are. In other cases, you simply can’t imagine a circumstance in which your gun might be used to harm others. You’re probably right about that.

However, if you’re able to, I’d like you to imagine a scenario in which you’re wrong. Imagine that someone with ill intent did get their hands on your gun. Imagine they used it to take their own life. Or imagine they used it to kill someone. Imagine how that might make you feel and imagine how different it might be if you simply didn’t have the gun in the first place. Are you not afraid of that feeling and if not, why not? Isn’t that just as big of a fear as you might have of someone breaking into your house while you’re unarmed? It should be. It’s much more likely that a gun will be used to shoot the person holding it or used in a homicide than it is to be used to defend against a home invasion.

Home invasions are incredibly rare despite how popular such instances are on the news. And defending yourself from a home invasion with a gun is rarer still. Our government has drones and missiles. If they chose to be oppressive, your guns would not stop them. Most of the situations in which you might need a gun are incredibly unlikely. Truth be told, it’s also unlikely that your gun will ever be used for anything beyond target shooting. But why leave even a small chance that it could be?

You can bring your gun in to any local police station. You do not need it. Getting rid of it may save lives. It may even save the lives of the people in your home or yourself. You want to make sure your gun never takes an innocent person’s life under any circumstances? Join us and be good without guns.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. I realize that you’re not likely going to get rid of your guns. But I do appreciate your willingness to imagine it with me for a while.

–          Jack Cameron

#GoodWithoutGuns

Mistakes And Mass Shootings

policelineWhenever there is a mass shooting, there is always talk of gun control. This is a mistake. While mass shootings are certainly dramatic and terrible, they account for a very small amount of the 30,000 people who lose their lives to gunfire every year in America.

Truthfully, background checks, limited magazines, training, registration, and other common sense preventative gun control measures are unlikely to stop most mass shootings. This leads many gun rights enthusiasts to conclude that because gun control is unlikely to stop mass shootings we should not enact any gun control measures. This also is a mistake.

Of the 30,000 gun deaths every year, 20,000 of them are self-inflicted. In other words if you are killed by a gun, you’re twice as likely to be the person who also pulled the trigger. This is an area where gun control measures have an opportunity to help immensely. A suicidal person is less likely to kill themselves with a gun if they are required to go through an extensive background check and then a training course before they can even purchase a firearm. Studies show that lack of access to firearms results in lower suicide rates. 

Gun control will not stop all gun deaths or gun suicides much like owning a fire extinguisher isn’t going to stop all fires from burning down your home. Another common mistake about gun control is that many people think if it won’t stop ALL gun deaths then we shouldn’t do it at all. This is, of course, absurd.

Another mistake we often see after a mass shooting is the outcry that we should not be putting any focus whatsoever on guns and instead we should only focus on the pitiful state of our mental health care programs. We should most definitely put a focus and money and resources towards fixing the lack of mental health care in this country. But it’s a bit simplistic and outright stupid to think that we only have the ability to focus on one dangerous factor when it comes to mass shootings. We can acknowledge that our mental healthcare system needs work and then look at what other factors may have contributed to these tragedies.

This leads to another common mistake. While it’s correct to say that every single aspect of a person’s life leads them to take the actions they choose, it’s incorrect to assume that if those actions are horrific, then every single aspect that influenced those actions must be equally horrific. Correlation does not necessarily equal direct causation. Millions of people watch violent movies, play violent video games, read books on picking up girls, and listen to music with morally repugnant lyrics without committing any violent actions whatsoever. One cannot condemn something simply because a murderer may have encountered it. Of course, it’s a simple matter to use this same argument regarding guns. And again, this is why I say it’s a mistake to think gun control is going to stop mass shooters.

Whenever something horrible happens, we want to know why and we want to know how to stop it from happening again. Sometimes there are no simple answers. Sometimes there are obvious answers that turn out to be absolutely wrong. It’s important to keep an open mind and be willing to change it when presented with new evidence. Failure to do that is the biggest mistake of all.

Jack Cameron

“I Need My Gun.”

This past weekend yet another gunman committed mass murder. This time it was a Sikh temple. Immediately, the pro-gun people started posting items proclaiming their right to have guns. For years, their slogan has been that guns don’t kill people, people do. This catchy slogan sounds simple and is easy to remember, but in reality it’s just one of the many fallacies that the pro-gun lobby uses in their arguments to justify owning devices that are designed to kill as many people as they can as quickly as possible.

Let’s start off with the foundation of every gun-rights activist’s argument. The second amendment reads:  “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This amendment was ratified in December of 1791 at which time the absolute best firearm on the market was a muzzle-loaded musket.  When this amendment was written it was intended for colonists to have muskets with which to join militias to fight the British. It was not intended to let paranoid guys use handguns to shoot black teenagers in hoodies. I think it goes without saying that not one of our founding fathers was thinking of an assault rifle at the time that the amendment was written.

And yet you’ll rarely find the pro-gun person who will tell you about our need to form a militia. Quite often their arguments involve hypothetical situations that are likely never to happen.

“I Need My Gun To Stop Oppressive Governments.”

The closest you get to someone talking about militias are those who say that they need their guns in case the government suddenly becomes horribly oppressive and they have to fight for their safety. This argument may have had some merit in the past. However, in recent years, it’s been made clear that those on the government’s kill list need not worry about men with guns breaking down their door. Instead it will be some guy sitting in a trailer somewhere piloting a radio controlled drone that turns your house and you into a crater. No amount of firearms are going to stop your imminent and fairly anonymous death.

Secondly, when have you heard of the United States government encountering an individual that they simply gave up trying to apprehend because he was too heavily armed? To my knowledge that has never happened because when you get down to it, the US has an Army and you don’t. You can attempt to argue that you need your gun to stop government oppression all you want, if the government wants to get you, they’ll get you if for no other reason than they outnumber you.

“I need my gun for home protection.”

Another popular argument is that they need a gun to protect their home from intruders. The idea being that on the off chance your house is the one they break into, you will be home, awake, and ready with your gun loaded when the intruders arrive is not to different from insisting you need a parachute every time you get on a plane just in case it crashes.

It’s been found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident an average of 64,615 times annually. This equates to two times out of 1,000 incidents (0.2%). In other words, when pro-gun guys talk about their ‘need’ to protect their family, in reality, they are talking about something that happens .2% of the time. When you compare that to the 67% of murders that are committed with a gun, their justification for owning a weapon for protection quickly falls apart.

“No matter what laws you make, criminals can ALWAYS get their hands on guns.”

A common response when someone suggests that maybe we should make certain guns illegal is that criminals have no problem breaking the law and thus will simply get guns illegally if they don’t have legal means to get guns. This is a lot like saying you shouldn’t lock your door because a determined burglar will get into your house anyway. Sure, certain criminals will most definitely continue to get their hands on weapons regardless of which ones we make illegal just as some criminals don’t care about locked doors. But using this sort of logic in other areas becomes a little disturbing. Such logic would also dictate that all drugs should be legal because drugs users will always find a way to get drugs and that we shouldn’t have laws against child sex because pedophiles will always find a way to have sex with children. Such logic ultimately means we should have no laws at all because a certain segment of the population is determined enough to break whatever laws are passed. It’s a classic defeatist attitude that really has no basis in reality.

“Even if you successfully outlawed all guns, murderers would still kill people.”

A similar argument is that a dogged murderer will kill people even without a gun. The recent shooting in Aurora involved 60 people being shot in under 5 minutes. Such a casualty rate would be impossible with a knife or a baseball bat. The only other weapon that could do that sort of damage would be a bomb which is why explosives are illegal and highly regulated. Getting rid of or highly regulating guns isn’t going to eliminate the murder rate. This is true. But it will make the murder rate go down. Proof can be found looking at the murder rate in Great Britain where there were 638 murders in 2011. Fifty-eight of them were by firearm. By comparison the United States has 12,996. Of those 8,775 were by firearm. Even taking into account the population difference, the US still had a per capita firearm murder rate 30 times higher than that of Great Britain. Yes, murderers will still kill people, but less murderers will kill less people.

“Cars kill more people than guns do.”

Another frequent argument is that there are other things such as cars that kill more people than guns do. The concept here is that since no one is outlawing cars, then no one should be outlawing guns. This argument ignores a few things. The main one being that guns are designed with a single purpose in mind: to kill. The same can’t be said of cars.

“If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

Another catchy phrase is that if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. By definition this is true. It would still be true if you replaced the word ‘gun’ with ‘lollipop’. But it doesn’t really mean much of anything. First off, no one, including me, is advocating that we outlaw ALL firearms. Secondly, even if you’re armed to the teeth 24/7 as an average citizen the odds of you actually encountering an ‘outlaw’ and having to use your gun(s) is minimal at best.

You’re much more likely to shoot yourself than you are anyone else. Statistically, over half of all suicides are committed by firearm in the United States. That’s not even counting the accidental shootings. Neither of these scenarios require outlaws, but they do require guns.

“I need my guns to go hunting.”

Using a gun to go hunting is something that is entirely understandable and definitely something the founding fathers both enjoyed and endorsed. If we limited the firearms that were legal to the weapons that were used for hunting, we could effectively get rid of all handguns, all assault rifles, and a bunch of other weapons that are specifically designed to kill human beings. So anyone making this argument cannot use it to justify the ownership of an AR-15 or a 9mm Pistol.

“I like to go target shooting.”

I go target shooting from time to time. It’s fun to blow off some steam shooting targets at the firing range. I don’t see much wrong with doing so. If you just want to go target shooting, I don’t see why we couldn’t just regulate the firearms so that they’re only available at the range. It would be a relatively easy solution. Either rent the guns you want to target shoot with or purchase the gun and have it kept at your local range. Transporting the gun to another range could be done by courier. If your interest is purely in target shooting, this solution should cause no problem whatsoever.

“I just like guns.”

This last one is rarely said, but it’s usually what pro-gun arguments really boil down to. Some people just like having the power to kill their fellow human beings in their hand.  And the vast majority of those people are not the sort who should have the power of life and death over their fellow man. Most people do not actually need a gun for any reason at all. They just want one because it makes them feel safer and more powerful. These are not good justifications for owning a firearm which is why they have so many other excuses.

–       Jack Cameron

Sources:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615397/?tool=pmcentrez

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/335-156/12554-58-murders-a-year-by-firearms-in-britain-8775-in-us

http://lostallhope.com/suicide-statistics/us-methods-suicide