20 Not Very Merry Gun arguments from the far right
Fact-Based Reporting by Rob Roman
Gun-grab, gun-free zones, murder magnet, good guy with a gun, Constitutional right, right from God, tyrannical government, first step to gun grab, laws on books not enforced, arm the teachers, everyone get a gun, AR-15 for home defense, inanimate object, mental health only, armed militia, cars kill more, not a gun problem, not a problem, not my problem
1) The Government just wants to grab my guns. Pry my gun out of my cold, dead hand, etc. (1)
The Gun – Grabber argument is no argument at all. The 2nd Amendment is here to stay. It has been recognized by the Supreme Court as an individual right, not attached to any militia. This is a government of the people and a government of laws. No one is coming to take your guns away.
This would require a repeal of the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. This requires the votes of 2/3rds of both the House and Senate. Then it must be ratified by 3/4ths of state legislatures. Another way is for 2/3rds of the States to call a convention and then 3/4ths of all State legislatures must approve it.
Can you imagine 67 Senators and 290 Representatives voting to repeal the 2nd Amendment? Can you imagine 34 state legislatures then calling for a Constitutional Convention and then 38 States approving a repeal? It’s never going to happen, so relax. And if it did happen in the future, it would be the will of the people.
2) A ban or more controls on certain types of semi-automatic military-style rifles and high capacity magazines would just be the beginning. This is an assault on law abiding gun owners. (2)
3) Guns are just a tool. They are inanimate objects. People are responsible for misusing guns. Don’t blame the gun.
Guns are a special kind of tool or inanimate object. They are an inanimate object designed to kill. When animated, they can easily cause instant death from both a physical and emotional distance. Not all gun owners are responsible or reasonable. So, we need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable and other unqualified people.
4) Knives, forks, cars, and bathtubs are just as dangerous as guns. (4)
The controlling idea here is that it is the person, not the “inanimate object” which wounds and kills. Knives, forks, cars, and bathtubs are not designed specifically to kill. A person armed with a fork or a knife would have a real difficult time killing 26 people in 5 minutes.
An accidental death by car or bathtub is not the same as an intentional killing with a gun. Cars are heavily regulated and insured. The problem is the combination of an impulsive, irresponsible, or mentally disturbed person with an instrument which is designed to kill many people quickly and easily.
5) An “assault weapon” is fully automatic”. A semi-automatic military style rifle with high capacity magazines is not an “assault weapon”. (5)
There’s no need for semantic games. The AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16 military assault rifle. The main reason this weapon was developed was to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible.
Guess what? The AR-15 can be easily converted to fully automatic, and many owners know this very well.
The .223 caliber hollow point round, used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School, was preferred over higher caliber rounds in combat because you can carry more of the smaller rounds and because the round Yaws through the air at 880 meters per second (963 yards per second) .
It then explodes on impact causing baseball sized holes in the flesh. Internally the bullet causes a massive baseball sized explosion. The bullet then fragments into multiple shards which spin, ricochet off bones, and rip through vital organs.
Emergency Room Doctors will tell you that they don’t see injuries from this weapon very often because most victims never even make it to the hospital and usually bleed to death. (6)
(5.56 mm / .223 gunshot wound)_
6) I need my semi-automatic military style rifle and high capacity magazines to protect my home and my family.
Is your name Tony Montana? Are you expecting a coordinated assault on your home? No one needs this kind of weapon for home defense.
7) A ban or further regulation of military style rifles and high capacity magazines will not help save the 500 plus victims killed by handguns each year in Chicago.
This is a classic. There are two separate issues here.
The first is an effort to reduce the rate and lethality of mass shootings. The second is general gun violence.
Irresponsible gun owners try to tie the two together. Then they say that further regulations on certain rifles and magazines won’t stop general gun violence. This is obvious, it’s not meant to do that.
8) Gun free zones are “murder magnets”. We can’t reduce the rate and fatalities of mass shootings unless we get rid of “gun-free zones” and allow concealed or open carry in all schools and other public places.
This argument assumes that if more “good guys” have guns in schools and other public places, then the “good guys” can stop the “bad guy(s)”.
First of all, there have been mass shootings where there was a good guy with a gun. Columbine and Arapahoe High Schools both had armed Resource Officers who were ineffective. This argument doesn’t take into account the chaos, the unknown, and the overwhelming fear coming from a shooter with heavy firepower who is ready to kill and to die.
In Sparks, Nevada, what if the math teacher had a gun? At that point in time, only one student was wounded in the shoulder. Do you think this teacher would then be emotionally ready to shoot a 12 year old to death?
Would he then be sued? What about mistakes? Innocent people will be shot in the confusion and people will get caught in the cross-fire.
Even armed police at a shooting enter the fray slowly and carefully. By that time, people have already died. The killing usually happens in a matter of a few minutes, and the shooter always has the element of surprise.
The shooter will change tactics to address the presence of armed staff in a school. The “good guy” with a gun might have a spouse and children, and only very few would heroically charge into a firefight with a mentally disturbed killer armed with superior firepower.
9) An FBI background check did not stop the Boston Bombers. More people were killed by drones authorized by President Obama than were killed in mass shootings in the USA during the Obama years.
What? These are entirely separate and unrelated issues.
10) My 2nd Amendment rights come straight from God almighty and are meant to establish an armed militia against a tyrannical government.
This is a nation of laws. If government tried to act in defiance of the 2nd Amendment, it would be stopped by the courts. We have three branches of government, the Legislative branch, the Executive branch, and the Judicial branch. (I find it amazing that a great number of Americans actually don’t know that).
The Constitution assures that these branches are co-equal and balance each other out. Two of these branches are elected directly by the people. So what are you talking about?
11) Gun homicides, suicides and gun accidents have declined dramatically since 1994.
Gun homicides were at an alarming rate and peeked in 1994, which spurred the passing of the assault weapons ban and other legislation. The crack epidemic led to a great deal of this violence and Tech-Nines were in use all over.
The rate of gun homicides, suicides, and accidents has remained rather constant since the late 90’s. They are poised to escalate, as many new gun owners have appeared on the scene due to fear and hysteria raised by the far right and gun lobbies trying to convince people that their gun rights will be taken away or severely reduced by the government.
Domestic violence gun homicides and suicides have remained quite constant over the last few decades.
12) If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
Guns are not going to be outlawed. Please come up with a newer or more convincing argument.
Way too many unarmed people are being shot to death by citizens who used to be law-abiding gun owners right up to the point where they lost their common sense or control and killed an unarmed person with their gun. (Please see “The Law-Abiding Gun Owner)
13) Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
Right you are, so we will need some sensible gun safety legislation, to make gun use safer, and to keep guns and especially the most dangerous guns away from people who should not have them.
14) Laws won’t help because criminals don’t obey the laws. We have enough laws on the books but they are not enforced.
The laws on the books are not fully enforced because law enforcement has a limited amount of resources and must make difficult decisions about priorities.
If you are talking about going after people who fail the background checks we do have, you cannot go after, arrest and jail people for failing a background check.
The people who make these arguments are the same people who don’t want to help fund the enforcement because it’s “against their core values”.
15) Chicago has the most gun laws and the most gun deaths, so there!
Chicago has the most gun laws precisely because they have the most gun deaths. Local legislation is overwhelmed by lax laws in other cities and states, which make guns available to “bad guys” via straw purchasers, the lack of background checks at gun shows and numerous other outlets.
The Chicago gun homicides are mostly related to gangs and drug crimes. Would you like to help attack this problem by spending more money to apply more Federal resources for more prevention and enforcement projects in Chicago?
16) We don’t need gun control, we need a mental health solution. A mental health only solution is the answer to mass shootings.
Mental health is definitely a component of mass shootings, but if you want to have more mental health services available, are you willing to help fund them?
A mental health only solution is not the answer to reduce the rate and lethality of mass shootings without a gun safety component. The problem at Sandy Hook was not that a mentally disturbed man came to the elementary school and exposed himself or threw crayons at the students.
He came armed with two semi-automatic pistols, an AR-15 semi-automatic military-style rifle and ten 30-round high capacity magazines plus 10 magazines for the 9mm Glock and 10mm Sig Sauer. Before this, he shot his mother 4 times in the head with a .22-caliber Savage MK II-F bolt action rifle.
So the problem is not only mentally disturbed people. It is mentally unstable people who can too easily get their hands on highly lethal firearms.
A mental health solution and gun safety are inextricably entwined when it comes to preventing or lowering the rate and lethality of mass shootings.
17) Mass shooters are mostly liberals and most general gun violence is caused by liberals.
This is an over-simplification and an attempt to avoid the issues. Many mass shooters are in their teens and twenties, and the majority of young people start out as liberals.
So, this may be true about mass shooters, but many of them were rebelling against their conservative parents who had introduced them to firearms. Also more conservatives are usually more reluctant to seek psychiatric help for their children.
18) Millions of AR-15s are in circulation and are being safely owned and operated by law abiding gun owners as we speak.
That’s true, but more and more it has become a sort of conservative right of passage to own and carry weapons. Owning an AR-15, like Nancy Lanza did and like George Zimmerman does is the crowning achievement which gives you street cred. among far-right conservatives. It means you are in the club and you belong.
Ownership of this type of firearm is becoming more main stream. Instead of avid hunters, sports shooters, and veterans owning the majority of these weapons, more and more rash, hot-headed, impulsive, irresponsible and unstable people have them or have access to them and more people are not as qualified in their safe keeping and operation.
So that’s a good reason why there should be more controls on this particularly dangerous weapon class.
19) The Universal background check is not good, fair, necessary because ….. because ….. uh … please see reasons 1 through 18.
There is no valid legitimate reason for not passing a Universal background check for all weapons purchases and transfers. The Gun Industry, the gun lobby and irresponsible gun worshippers cloaked in the American flag and constantly citing our Constitution, just don’t want any further regulations or controls on these weapons, no matter what.
We have a serious societal problem which directly affects gun owners, and some feel absolutely no responsibility to help to do anything about it (even initiatives not involving firearms). Their answer is we should do nothing and their attitude is they don’t care. Isn’t it?
These are the people who want us to eliminate gun free zones. They expect us to count on them to pull their pistol and go rushing towards a chaotic situation with a highly disturbed shooter armed with a high powered rifle and high capacity magazines. The good guy with a gun will save the day. It ain’t never gonna happen.
Mass Shooters will ALWAYS seek out schools, malls, theaters, and other public places to make their statements, no matter what. By the time the shooter is in the school or other public place with the element of surprise, it’s already too late no matter how many good guys are legally carrying concealed weapons.
The person you depend on to save you is the same person who watched 20 six and seven year-olds and six educators get shot to pieces and basically said “ I don’t care”, “It’s not my problem”, and “it’s not the gun”.
20) In this country, and especially in certain parts of this country, we are the most vocal, we are the vocal minority and we will never compromise and nothing about gun safety will ever be done.
I think responsible gun owners, many NRA members, mothers and other concerned citizens who are not gun owners will all get together to pass sensible gun safety legislation such as the Universal background check and mental health legislation with a gun safety component.
This will only strengthen the 2nd Amendment and make gun ownership more acceptable and responsible to the community.
You are the loudest right now, but the will of the people will prevail and you will still have access to all kinds of firearms. (The Constitution, the American flag, and our system of government belong to all of us).
All comments are welcome and appreciated
all rights reserved
(1) “A new amendment repealing the amendment in question. It must be done exactly the same way, because the repeal itself is an amendment. To begin, a proposed amendment must be voted approved by a 2/3 majority of both legislative bodies of the US Congress. The Proposed Amendment must then be sent to every individual State’s legislature for consideration. Each state follows its own parliamentary process to arrive at a yea or nay on the Proposed Amendment.
For the Proposed Amendment to become a Constitutional Amendment, 3/4 of the individual American States must vote a final yea. With the current body of States numbering 50, the required number of State ratifications to adopt the new amendment is 38. Upon the confirmation of the 38th yea, the Amendment becomes part of the Constitution, amending, or changing, whatever the subject of the amendment covers–whether it be a new cause, or eliminating an old Amendment.”
(2) “United States Supreme Court DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER, (2008)
No. 07-290 Argued: March 18, 2008 Decided: June 26, 2008
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
2. “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.””
3. The distinction of the fact that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill people is relevant because as a society, we tend to regulate physical items themselves based on a combination of a few things, including 1) their primary purpose (i.e., benefit) and 2) their lethality. Guns and other weapons are different from other items because their primary purpose/benefit and their lethality are one and the same.
Another common comparison gun advocates make is “well, heart disease kills way more people a year—600,000–why don’t people focus on regulating cheeseburgers?” or “cars kill 30,000 people a year too–why don’t we get rid of all cars?” The answer is that we do regulate cars and cheeseburgers and try to prevent their related deaths, but we do it with a logical relationship to their primary purpose and their immediate lethality. I assert that as Americans, we regulate guns in an illogical manner as compared to everything else we regulate.
4. “When you get in your car and turn it on, the goal in mind is to get from wherever you are currently to wherever you are wanting to be. A successful drive of a car involves you and your passengers if applicable arriving at your destination, all involved are unharmed. Vehicular injuries or deaths generally arise as a result of some form misuse (either negligence or carelessness), badly designed road or badly designed vehicle. If you attempt to use a vehicle for its intended purpose and nothing goes wrong, nobody gets harmed.
On the other hand with guns, when you pick up a gun and pull the trigger, the idea is the thing its pointed at gets maimed or killed- i.e. that is its designed purpose. If you point a gun at something and pull the trigger, and the thing its pointed at isn’t injured or killed, either you didn’t use it well (i.e. you missed) or it isn’t a very good/well designed gun.
When we’re talking about vehicular deaths, they are referred to as “accidents,” whereas when someone gets killed by a gun its referred to as a “shooting.” In the firearm scenario, the “shooter” has successfully carried out a “shooting,” where as in the vehicle scenario the “driver” has had “an accident.”
The argument under consideration clarifies that, when it comes to murders, people are the ultimate cause and guns are merely proximate causes—the end of a causal chain that started with a person deciding to murder. But nothing follows from these facts about whether or not guns should be regulated. Such facts are true for all criminal activity, and even noncriminal activity that harms others: The ultimate cause is found in some decision that a person made; the event, activity, or object that most directly did the harming was only a proximate cause. But this tells us nothing about whether or not the proximate cause in question should be regulated or made illegal.
5) “Because of their deadly design, assault weapons amplify the carnage of public shootings. A review of mass shootings between 2009 and 2015 by Everytown for Gun Safety found that incidents where assault weapons or large capacity ammunition magazines were used resulted in 155% more people shot and 47% more people killed compared to other incidents. When access to assault weapons is restricted, deaths due to mass shootings decrease. A 2014 study found that “both state and federal assault weapons bans have statistically significant and negative effects on mass shooting fatalities.”