Gun Arguments

I don’t have strong opinions on the matter, other than I like my guns, but I put together a list of bad arguments I have heard.


Second Amendment: By virtue of the fact that it’s an amendment, it’s changeable. Obviously. It sets the bar pretty damned high, but it’s not on it’s own a justification.

Mass Shootings: Not in and of themselves as compelling as we want them to be. When taken as a whole, these are incredibly rare. The muslim argument applies here. Mass shootings in this country really don’t account for many more deaths in this country than muslim terrorists. (Many many times more, but in pure numbers, it’s very small)

Defense of freedom: Probably the stupidest argument of all. I like my guns, and shooting is a blast. However, they are just toys, and shooting is just a hobby. Keeping guns as a defense against the government is like keeping your wooden spear to defend against a possible nazi invasion. I could take you out at any time always, and your little ar-15 would have nothing to say about it. This isn’t because I’m a badass, but because the US Military is… and because you aren’t. You don’t really even believe in this argument, and if I loaded you up with sodium pentothal, you would admit it.

Liberals don’t know anything about guns: If someone arranged a quiz-show type competition about guns between donald trump and hillary clinton tomorrow, I would put $50k on hillary. I’d have roughly even odds. The point is you don’t have a choice, someone who knows nothing about guns is going to make the decision. More importantly, it isn’t really even that important. What is important is the science behind them. It doesn’t matter if you don’t know the difference between a banana clip and a flash suppressor, so much as you know the science behind what is and isn’t dangerous. To that end, the CDC should absolutely be researching it. The gun lobby has lobbied heavily against such research which sort of has to mean that they didn’t like the reality.

Nobody needs military style weapons: This is pretty weak, mostly owing back to the muslim argument. These weapons are horrifying when they are used in this manner, but it is very very rare. There are lots of dangerous things we don’t need, and that kill more people.

Registries will be used to ferret out dissidents: See freedom argument above. Moreover, except for the U.S., pretty much all of the freest countries on earth have strict gun control and registries, and aren’t orwelian dystopias. The crappiest countries on earth have none. By the way, for the sissy ****** bags that carry their sks into a starbucks: The only other place you see that is in these war torn s-holes.

Laws didn’t stop them/most shootings occur where gun laws are in place: This one is pretty bad. Murder laws exist there too, and yet people are still murdered. It doesn’t follow that we should wipe laws against murder off the books, or that we should expect anything to be 100% effective.

There are too many to control at this point: This is probably the best point there is. Getting salt out of the ocean is a possibly insurmountable task.

It’s a mental health issue: Textbook false dichotomy, of course there is a giant mental health component here. And, it needs to be addressed with alacrity and not just wrt guns. That being said, it’s not either/or, they feed on each other, and if we are going to say that we can’t make a law that will get rid of all the guns, we sure as HELL can’t get all the mental cases.

More guns make us safer: I don’t think the science bears this out. Moreover, just using logic, it seems like comparing the tiny tiny probability of jumping to the rescue in an active shooter situation compared to the likelihood of some idiot recently dumped or fired getting drunk then starting to shoot is a massively uneven ratio.


Overall conclusion seems to be this: Regulation makes the most sense. It won’t stop all killings, and may not even make a dent in the mass shootings, but it will most likely save thousands of lives. There is going to be an economic cost, regulation isn’t free, but freedom really won’t be affected, and lives will be saved. Banning is probably not reasonable or possible. What have I missed?

As a side note, as much as you may hate to admit it, cnn does way way way more to protect freedom than guns do. Something to think about.

 

How do you "regulate" guns?

 

Guns are not a problem in this country. Violent people are. If we can recognize that truth, and do something meaningful about it, then we will be well on the way to a peaceful solution.

 

It's not a bad question, and one that would need some thinking. However, to start with there's no reason not to approach it the same way we approach cars and airplanes. Registration and licenses.

 

Again, false dichotomy.

 

Nosir. Plain truth.

 

This is an honest question, I'm not trying to be a dick, but: Do you know what "false dichotomy" means?

 

Great idea. When you change the constitution and make it a privilege to own a gun instead of a constitutional right, I may agree.
After that is done will you allow me to sue you personally for proposing this law if a criminal refuses to follow the new regulation and licensing procedures?

 

False equivalency since cars and airplanes aren't enumerated rights.

Let's start with a basic question: Do you believe the Constitution grants rights to citizens or empowers, but limits government?

 

That is a possibility that is built into the constitution. It seems like the logical thing would be to do just that.

What happens if an unlicensed driver runs over you on the sidewalk?

 

99.99691% of the gun in the US were not used to commit a murder in 2016.

 

I believe amendments by virtue of being amendments are themselves amendable, and it seems that logic would dictate that we do so. I don't see a reason for this to be in the constitution.

 

Yes, they are amendable, but what are they? Limits on citizens or limits on government?

 

It takes just 13 states to stop an amendment; the 13 states most likely to oppose such an amendment represent 7% of the US population.
Good luck.

 

Same thing with cars. And, incidentally, muslims.

 

Your point?

 

Doesn't really matter. If it doesn't make sense, and it's costing lives, then it shouldn't be there.

 

So you concede it isn't a problem?

 

Just that your point wasn't a point.

 

I agree, it's not likely to happen. Just saying that it doesn't make logical sense.

 

We regulate cars, and are at war against muslim terrorists.

 

Cars cost more lives than guns. Drugs cost more lives than guns. Why do you only care about the 11,000+ gun murders and not the 30,000+ dying in cars or 64,000 dying of drug overdoses (not to mention the thousands whose lives are ruined by drugs)?

 

Are cars a right? There are 1.6B Muslims in the world. How many are you warring against? What percentage?

 

It is a huge, salient point.
It clearly demonstrates the impossibly small problem guns in the US represent.

 

Because...?