I found one a little while back which wasn’t very serious (tho I suspect the author intended it to be so) and it turns out the author is a total lunatic.
Still here’s a new one, and I must say this one is MUCH more serious, and rather well written: “How To Argue For Gun Control: 5 Anti-Gun Regulation Arguments, Debunked”
Its a fisking-style article citing a pro-gun talking point, then attacking it. So I’ll cite the point, and the argument, then rebut.
Common Argument #1: Gun control laws violate the Second Amendment.
Your Response: The Second Amendment says “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.” Are you really arguing that, in the 21st century, citizen militias are necessary to secure American sovereignty? If so, you’re clearly unfamiliar with how powerful the U.S. military is.
Yes, the Supreme Court did rule in 2010 that the Second Amendment extends to private citizens who aren’t in militias — but that same ruling, McDonald v. Chicago, also found that gun regulations are well-within the bounds of the Second Amendment.
In any event, if you think the Second Amendment prohibits any and all restrictions on gun possession in the U.S. no matter what the circumstances, then you must believe that convicted murderers have the right to carry machine guns in prison. Right?
I’ll stand down on the Militia vs Military bit, as it comes up later. Still they admit that this talking point is indeed true, they just want to argue the finer points of it…and they really don’t. Indeed Heller and McDonald to agree that some restrictions are permissible. They do cite that concealed carry permitting is one of those permissible as is the restrictions on felons and the mentally ill….which makes that little straw man at the end even more ridiculous.
Still the limitations were left vague and non-controversial overall, I assume so they can be hammered out in less broad decisions, or simply handled by the other branches of the government. I can understand Heller was a HUGE case and the idea that the supreme court would throw out nearly 100 years of laws on one ruling is a big step. Further while I’m a second Amendment absolutist, and personally WISH Heller was broader, when thinking of a broader scope and of the Republic, its safer if the courts keep things narrow. It didn’t take one day to sign all these laws, it frankly shouldn’t take one day to repeal or amend them.
Still what was struck down was handgun bans, and bans of other firearms in “Common Use”, kinda like all those guns that are being talked about for bans. Really this response sets the tone for the article. He doesn’t start on a strong point, and openly shows his bias and lack of commitment to even do simple research of the issue. Also each point has graphics and animations between them, which are often crass, or incoherent. Still this point closes with the most rational graphic…and I unfortunately have to use that term lightly.
Dunno if you can see it, but read what’s behind the asterisk! “excluding Mexico”. Yep, this is another “high income, developed world, modern nation, etc” graph. Essentially you can read these classifications as “Cherry Picking”. Essentially They pick nations with low reported “gun death” and include America for effect. Makes a shocking graphic, what it doesn’t make is much of a point.
Common Argument #2: You know who else took people’s guns away? Adolph Hitler.
Your Response: No, Hitler actually relaxed gun control laws in Germany. You’re probably referring to the Weapons Law of 1938, which Hitler signed, but that was a deregulation of guns in Germany. The Weapons Law eliminated permit requirements for shotguns, rifles, and ammunition, which opened the door for unregulated sales of all weapons other than handguns. Hitler also made more people eligible for permits, lowered the age limit for gun ownership from 20 to 18, and extended the length of gun permits’ validity from one year to three. In an extensive 2004 study on the topic, Bernard E. Harcourt concluded that “the Nazi regime relaxed the gun laws that were in place in Germany at the time the Nazis seized power.”
This is actually true…well except if you were a Jew in Germany during the Third Reich
Jews (§ 5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt 1, p. 1332) are prohibited from acquiring. Possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.
§ 2
Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew’s possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.
But why would Pro-Freedom, Pro-Gun Hitler want to ban not only guns, but impact weapons and stabbing weapons for the possession of Jews???
(For gun banners, that’s a rhetorical question)
Common Argument #3: Citizens have the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.
Your Response: There’s no easy way to say this, so let’s just say it: If you believe that your personal firearms are any match for the firepower that the American government has at its disposal, you are deluded. If you believe that any group of private U.S. citizens would be able to accumulate the weaponry necessary to stand up to the U.S. military in an armed conflict, you need to step back, take a deep breath, and acknowledge objective reality.
The U.S. military has, among other things, invisible tanks, hydrogen bombs, one-handed shotguns, blindness rifles, remote-controlled grenade launchers, unmanned drones, and a wave gun so powerful that it’s been nicknamed “The Goodbye Weapon.” You may not like the fact that an armed domestic resistance against the American government would essentially be impossible, but it’s a fact nonetheless. Deregulating gun laws will not change this fact, unless your idea of deregulating gun laws is to make rocket launchers available and affordable to the entire U.S. population.
There’s no easy way to say it, because you’re corollary argument requires an army of fanatically loyal soldiers who are willing to exterminate their own people on their own sovereign soil, likely to defend laws that go against the Constitution they have sworn to uphold and protect.
Further he also ignores the recent military actions against primitive people fighting an asymmetric war. Viet Nam, Iraq (while I consider the installment of Parliament and free elections a “Mission Accomplished” as Bush declared, the next several years of quagmire were NOT a victory), and Afghanistan.
Still we can dip back to the Hitler point. It seems that in modern times a tyrannical government never oppresses and armed population. So the whole “Second Amendment Option” or the “Cartridge Box” part of the Ballot Box, Soap Box, trinity is really a bit of a catch 22 when it comes to this point. We have guns to protect us from an oppressive government, but our government will never oppress us (at least overtly) so long as we have guns, and they know we’ll use them.
Look at Connecticut, they have every right to send in the SWAT teams and collect all the known “Assault Rifles” and “High Capacity Magazines” (which are arms and accessories “in common use”, so I guess they really don’t have ANY right at all) but they are standing down and looking at alternative approaches to round up these formally legal items. Why? Because they know at least ONE of those houses will be a blood bath. Now note I am NOT saying that a person or group of people going toe-to-toe with a SWAT team are going to WIN, and then maybe take over the police department and declare themselves Chief. But that impending full-on fire-fight is NOT something the Police want to do, nor our Military. It just isn’t worth dying for, so they stay their hand.
Common Argument #4: If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them.
Your Response: I’m not arguing that we should outlaw guns. I’m saying we should erect legal barriers that make it more difficult for individuals with a higher propensity for violence, such as convicted felons or the mentally ill, to obtain guns.
Look at the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). It was enacted in 1994 and established, among other things, a centralized database of individuals who are federally prohibited from buying guns — namely, convicted felons, domestic abusers, and fugitives. It’s one of the most significant gun control laws in American history, and since it was put into place, 2.1 million outlaws have been blocked from purchasing guns. So really, gun control does the opposite of your argument.
Man this one is really easy. No it didn’t! NICS does essentially nothing. If there was a medical screen for a deadly disease that had a 95% false positive rate, Doctors would not administer it….even if it would, as the antis say, “Save just one life!” as it would cause horrible harm to most of the lives that took the test.
So you’re not for banning guns, you’re for expanding a system that simply doesn’t work, oh and has a simple work-around. The Black market. Here in Massachusetts we got rid of Private Sales of firearms (they still CALL them “Private Sales” but its as private as a phone booth or ATM stall) and yet the criminals still have guns. The antis say “well they get them in other states!” First no they don’t, and second if they are (and they aren’t) that is also illegal, so why do we need ANOTHER law?
So you don’t want to ban guns, and the solutions you want are proven to not work, does that mean we’re done here?
Common Argument #5: Gun control doesn’t make a country/state/city safer.
Your Response: Actually, most studies suggest that gun laws reduce violence. In the United States, the South consistently has more deaths by assault than any other region. It also has the most lenient gun control laws. A Harvard study from last year showed that between 2007 and 2010, states with fewer gun control laws generally had higher gun-related mortality rates than states with stricter gun control. Another study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association confirmed that finding; and a meta-analysis of other studies, also from Harvard, showed that higher gun ownership rates was correlated with higher homicide rates, both within the U.S. and amongst different high-income countries.
Cherry pick, cherry pick, cherry pick. Well if gun control laws don’t make us safer….why are we safer? Why has violent crime (not just “Gun Death”) be going down for years as we get more guns in more private hands?
The simple solution is you’re wrong, and maybe the fact that they were working hand-in-hand with a gun control group for said study, there might have been some bias?
He then closes with some “Gun Death” hand-wringing, with points that I’ve refuted here pretty heavily.
Overall it was one of the better attempts of an anti-gun person to make a rational argument. He cites his facts (tho maybe he didn’t read them very well), he doesn’t resort to dick jokes, name calling, or outright hyperbole, unless you count the “Murderer carrying a machine gun in prison”, and those bizarre graphics.
Still he doesn’t have a single leg to stand on. It seems the crux of his argument is a faith-based one. He believes America is one of the most dangerous and violent nations in the world. (we’re not), he believes restricting guns is a solution to this. (it isn’t) He believes the NICS system works. (it doesn’t) And he believes that if we stand up for our rights our military will murder us on our own soil.
Didn’t take much effort to refute all his points, but it was a breath of fresh air compared to what comes out of most gun-banner’s talking points.
