This one is really interesting:
I will frequently talk about anti-gun boilerplate. You know the “We need Universal Background Checks” after a spree killer passes a background check, then breaks the law taking his legally owned gun into a Gun Free Zone and commits mass murder, or “If it Saves Just One Life”, or “The United States has the highest ‘Gun death’ of any civilized, english-speaking, high-income, developed nation!”, or “We should register and license guns like we do cars!”
Honestly there are too damn many for me to rattle off. Still I will sometimes dismiss an article FULL of boilerplate because I’ve addressed each point made several times before, and just because THEY repeat themselves incessantly, doesn’t mean I have to join in!
Still how many of the spots on the bingo card are taken up by pro-gun talking points that are damn valid observations that are NEVER really addressed by the antis.
-John Lott is frequently attacked for various mistakes and oversights he’s made, but that’s all political nit-picking to attempt to dismiss wholesale the bulk of his work.
– The “Criminal Don’t Obey the laws” point is frequently addressed by the antis, but it’s almost always a Straw Man argument that this statement in an appeal to total anarchy. Ie: “Bad Drivers also ignore stop signs and traffic lights, so we should get rid of those too!”, when really what we are directly addressing is the redundancy of gun control laws. ie: It is illegal in all 50 states for criminals or adjudicated mentally ill to buy or own guns….but since criminals disobey the law and acquire guns on the black market, we should pass universal background checks that make all private sales black market deals. A non-gun argument would be the Interstate 95 around Boston’s speed limit is 55mph, but unless there is a traffic jam, the average speed is around 70 MPH…the solution to this is to make the posted speed limit 35!
-The (alleged) “Victim Blaming” by noting that the location of a shooting was a gun free zones, so the victims were KNOWN to be disarmed: The antis generally address this with the brush-off that we are dancing in the blood of the victims…which actually would be valid if the antis didn’t immediately propose hobbyhorse gun laws that were completely irrelevant to the crime committed even before the bodies have cooled. They also often trot out “Studies” or just blanket statements that somehow spree killers DON’T exclusivity target gun free zones, or they make some speculation that if somebody HAD been armed it would have somehow resulted in MORE carnage than what had happened, despite there being several cases where spree killers were stopped by armed citizens, and countless defensive gun use stories where even somebody with minimal training and sub-par marksmanship still managed to successfully defend innocent lives with no major drawbacks.
Honestly that’s about the only squares on that card that I’ve seen directly addressed by antis, some are indeed just chest-beating ejaculations. I understand the whole “God Given Right” bit, but it’s pissing into the wind when you’re talking to somebody who A) Doesn’t believe in God, and B) Doesn’t really believe in rights. I mean if they don’t think you have the right to speak your mind if it offends them, or that the only people who should have guns are cops and soldiers….but see killing their unborn babies as a “Right”, and believe they have a right to Free Health care/ housing/ food/ a job ect, you can see how pointless that statement is. Same with “Cold Dead Hands” and “Shall Not Be Infringed”.
Still when seconds count, aren’t the cops minutes away? I mean it’s not like we don’t have lots of spree killers who’s victims called 911 on them while they were shooting? Isn’t it honestly too early to talk about gun control when you don’t know anything about the criminal, the crime, and the weapon used? I mean most of those squares are REALLY good points, but by simply calling them “Boiler Plate” they can pretend like they already addressed them…but they really haven’t.