Ten Arguments Gun Advocates Make, and Why They're Wrong

Paul Waldman

December 15, 2012

A guide to the debate we'll be having, or at least we ought to have

There has been yet another mass shooting, something that now seems to occur on a monthly basis. Every time another tragedy like this occurs, gun advocates make the same arguments about why we can't possibly do anything to restrict the weaponization of our culture. Here's a guide to what they'll be saying in the coming days:

1. Now isn't the time to talk about guns.

We're going to hear this over and over, and not just from gun advocates; Jay Carney said it to White House reporters today. But if we're not going to talk about it now, when are we going to talk about it? After Sandy hit the East Coast, no one said, "Now isn't the time to talk about disaster preparedness; best leave that until it doesn't seem so urgent." When there's a terrorist attack, no one says, "Now isn't the time to talk about terrorism." Now is exactly the time.

2. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Maybe, but people with guns kill many, many more people than they would if they didn't have guns, and guns designed to kill as many people as possible. We don't know if the murderer in Newtown was suffering from a suicidal depression, but many mass shooters in the past were. And guess what? People suffer from suicidal depression everywhere in the world. People get angry and upset everywhere in the world. But there aren't mass shootings every few weeks in England or Costa Rica or Japan, and the reason is that people in those places who have these impulses don't have an easy way to access lethal weapons and unlimited ammunition. But if you want to kill large numbers of people and you happen to be an American, you'll find it easy to do.

3. If only everybody around was armed, an ordinary civilian could take out a mass killer before he got too far.

If that were true, then how come it never happens? The truth is that in a chaotic situation, even highly trained police officers often kill bystanders. The idea that some accountant who spent a few hours at the range would suddenly turn into Jason Bourne and take out the killer without doing more harm than good has no basis in reality.

4. We don't need more laws, we just need to enforce the laws we have.

The people who say this are the same ones who fight to make sure that existing laws are as weak and ineffectual as possible. Our current gun laws are riddled with loopholes and allow people to amass enormous arsenals of military-style weapons with virtually no restrictions.

5. Criminals will always find a way to get guns no matter what measures we take, so what's the point?

The question isn't whether we could snap our fingers and make every gun disappear. It's whether we can make it harder for criminals to get guns, and harder for an unbalanced person with murderous intent to kill so many people. The goal is to reduce violence as much as possible. There's no other problem for which we'd say if we can't solve it completely and forever we shouldn't even try.

6. The Constitution says I have a right to own guns.

Yes it does, but for some reason gun advocates think that the right to bear arms is the only constitutional right that is virtually without limit. You have the right to practice your religion, but not if your religion involves human sacrifice. You have the right to free speech, but you can still be prosecuted for incitement or conspiracy, and you can be sued for libel. Every right is subject to limitation when it begins to threaten others, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that even though there is an individual right to gun ownership, the government can put reasonable restrictions on that right.

And we all know that if this shooter turns out to have a Muslim name, plenty of Americans, including plenty of gun owners, will be more than happy to give up all kinds of rights in the name of fighting terrorism. Have the government read my email? Have my cell phone company turn over my call records? Check which books I'm taking out of the library? Make me take my shoes off before getting on a plane, just because some idiot tried to blow up his sneakers? Sure, do what you've got to do. But don't make it harder to buy thousands of rounds of ammunition, because if we couldn't do that we'd no longer be free.

7. Widespread gun ownership is a guarantee against tyranny.

If that had anything to do with contemporary life, then mature democracies would be constantly overthrown by despots. But they aren't. We shouldn't write laws based on the fantasies of conspiracy theorists.

8. Guns are a part of American culture.

Indeed they are, but so are a lot of things, and that tells us nothing about whether they're good or bad and how we want to treat them going forward. Slavery was a part of American culture for a couple of hundred years, but eventually we decided it had to go.

9. The American people don't want more gun control.

The truth is that when public opinion polls have asked Americans about specific measures, the public is in favor of a much more restrictive gun regime than we have now. Significant majorities would like to see the assault weapons ban reinstated, mandatory licensing and training for all gun owners, significant waiting periods for purchases, and host of other restrictions (there are more details here). In many cases, gun owners themselves support more restrictions than we currently have.

10. Having movie theaters and schools full of kids periodically shot up is just a price we should be willing to pay if it means I get to play with guns and pretend I'm Wyatt Earp.

OK, that's actually an argument gun advocates don't make. But it's the truth that lies beneath all their other arguments. All that we suffer because of the proliferation of guns—these horrifying tragedies, the 30,000 Americans who are killed every year with guns—for gun advocates, it's unfortunate, but it's a price they're willing to pay. If only they'd have the guts to say it.

Comments

BBunsen

Fri, 2012-12-14 22:34

"...for gun advocates, it's unfortunate, but it's a price they're willing to pay."

I think it's more accurate to say "it's a price they're willing for someone else to pay." They're usually not the ones being shot up or losing children and other family members.

bubba.crunch

Wed, 2013-01-30 00:08

They're not the ones being shot up because they have guns to protect themselves. Think before you speak, Libturd.

conrruption

Sat, 2013-02-16 16:14

Such a simple answer for a complex situation. As for speaking maybe you should learn some vocabulary. I know that it takes rational thought and that is to much for irrational people but you could at least try and post and answer that shows why you might be right instead of a hate filled one.

conrruption

Sat, 2013-02-16 16:18

It comes down to being in the wrong place at the wrong time not having a gun. Most gun nuts thing they would act responsibly with a gun let alone take down an active shooter. There are videos that show different.
http://samuel-warde.com/2012/12/concealed-carry-permit-holders-live-in-a...

tlockr

Sat, 2012-12-15 00:42

I don't think this list makes any good points, but let us say for the sake of arguing that we should place a ban on guns or enforce very strict laws. How would you do that without undermining the Bill of Rights? "Sure, you have a RIGHT, as long as, you prove worthy first. It doesn't matter that these rights are GUARANTEED to citizens." Anyway, I warn you that pursuing laws that weaken the footings of a certain right weakens the footings of all rights. You yourself mentioned that it has already happened with religion. I don't believe any religion should be persecuted based on the actions of a few of their members. I don't believe in persecuting anyone based on their Muslim sounding last name. Don't be a hypocrite like those others people are that you point your finger at.

Your only ethical course of action then is to remove the 2nd amendment altogether. And there is a reason that altering amendments is very, very difficult to do. But, hey, if the vast majority of Americans believes as you claim they do then you should have no problem voting out the 2nd amendment. Good luck! It will never happen.

earthboar

Sat, 2012-12-15 15:04

The list makes very good points. You are trying to convince us that no restrictions on any of the Constitutional Amendments somehow weakens the Constitution, but you don't say why it is unwise to restrict religion from allowing human sacrifice, for instance. You just sort of make the statement "pursuing laws that weaken the footings of a certain right weakens the footings of all rights." That only makes sense if you don't think about it very deeply. And what does " I don't believe any religion should be persecuted based on the actions of a few of their members" mean? Are you saying there shouldn't be laws against bigamy, or not allowing your sick child to go to a doctor or hospital, or human sacrifice, or any of the numerous deadly ceremonial rituals of religion?

the First Amendment guaranties free speech, yet it has already been established that you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. You're saying such laws weaken the Constitution, or the amendments as intended by the Authors? If you think the Founding Fathers would not have restricted the use of firearms, you are sadly mistaken, because they already did: "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." Yes, the right to bear arms is predicated on the necessity of a well regulated militia. And the right of the people to keep and bear arms, what does that mean? We keep arms in a well regulated militia, and in our law enforcement, and in our national guard.

I'm in agreement with others here that the Constitution can and should be periodically revised to reflect our present needs, not the needs of 18th Century colonialists.

muddy

Mon, 2012-12-17 23:02

Your examples of human sacrifice and theater safety are not remotely similar to a person owning a gun. Owning a gun does not cause injury to another person. A gun can cause injury in the wrong hands, but the ownership of a gun is not a violation of another's basic right to exist. By that argument all pencils should be outlawed because they can be used to stab someone to death. And you can do that one because pencils aren't protected by the Constitution.

sunstroked

Tue, 2012-12-18 07:50

Pencils are specifically designed for writing. That is their sole function. Guns are designed, and only designed, for killing. That is the difference. Since murder is illegal and writing is not, we need to strictly control the use of things that can commit murder. Make sense? If another gun advocate points out that cars kill more people than guns I am going to take their car keys away and shove them up their ass.

prospect

Tue, 2012-12-18 13:51

I noticed the part where you jumped from "killing" to "murder," without further discussion. Do you really think readers won't notice your nonsense, perhaps if you make "humorous" comments about shoving car keys up someone's ass?

Guns are designed for killing and sport shooting. Look it up, if you're not sure about that. I hope you actually know what "killing" means, so I won't belabor that point, but there are many cases of "killing" that are not "murder."

I realize that your point is diminished if you talk about the other (positive) uses of firearms, but you're being dishonest if you ignore that part of this complex issue. If guns are only used for murder, then why do police and armies need them?

The point is that a gun is a tool. It can be used to give a weaker victim a fighting chance against a stronger attacker. It's called self-defense, and it's more than a Constitutional right. It's a natural human right. As long as there are people in the world that would use their strength to do evil to others, there is a moral imperative to allow self-defense as a fundamental human right.

echosierrapj

Wed, 2012-12-19 00:42

@prospect.
"Do you really think readers won't notice your nonsense" you say.

I don't know if YOU really think that intelligent readers agree with your nonsense.

People don't kill people, people kill people mostly with a gun.

majorlogica

Tue, 2013-02-12 01:52

Alright.. here's my two cent son this issue. Assault weapons should be at least restricted. The ammunition for assault weapons should be even more heavily restricted, in order to accommodate enthusiastic Gun collectors. If you have a gun in your collection, you don't necessarily take it out, load it, and shoot it off. There's a difference, usually, between a collector's item and a utilised item, even if they are of the same type and class.

Next is the support of heftier waiting periods, Mandatory training, discipline and background checks for prospective gun owners. I am as liberal as they get, but I'm not an idiot. I believe an armed populace is a safe populace and it should be a fundamental right to own a gun or any other kind of weapon... however, I agree also that certain types of weapon classes (assault weapons, for example) should be more restricted, possibly even banned since there is no practical civilian need or use for them.

finally, I want to make an analogy: Certain martial arts disciplines are bred for killing or severely harming an opponent in the swiftest and most decisive manner possible. Many Martial arts disciplines can and are used to turn one's body into a lethal weapon. For example, Marines are trained in Unarmed combat styles that are meant to kill in the event a Marine has to fight unarmed. legally an unarmed Marine is considered a lethal weapon in and of himself.... the same is true for many Martial artists who reach black belt level. Should we start controlling what martial arts disciplines are taught in our country? It's nearly impossible to tell at a glance who is trained to use their body to kill in a matter of seconds. Thus, one's martial arts discipline might as well be a concealed weapon, right? I feel that if we start controlling Guns by banning them or making them a god awful pain in the ass to obtain for law abiding citizens or seemingly law abiding citizens alike (since sometimes you can't tell, due to some dangerous people not having criminal or psyche records) to obtain, then should we also start dictating who can learn what martial Arts style, based on lethality reputation of the style in question? And what of our military veterans who are trained to kill with their bare hands on par with a Black belt? What do we do about those who might have PTSD and may eventually become prone to snapping very suddenly, only to use their hand to hand combat skills to kill an innocent person? Granted, it doesn't happen as often, but the possibility remains. Perhaps anyone trained in martial arts disciplines bearing lethal reputations should be handcuffed and escorted from place to place by police? (yes, I'm being ridiculous there, but think about it)

In my opinion, it's much much easier and more reasonable to simply support a ban on assault weapons, if not restrict them and their ammo moreso, institute mandatory training and safety classes, stricter background checks, and a mandatory Psychiatric analysis (bet you all didn't think of that last bit, eh? As much as Shrinks suck, they might just be useful here) than to get all up and arms about banning or setting ridiculous restrictions on guns because a few bad apples went and killed a bunch of people.

cyclefit60

Wed, 2012-12-19 10:52

Sunstroked, I have been making the same point over and over again - I do not understand the pro gun folks (specifically the pro weapons of mass destruction, aka assault weapons people) not seeing the difference between the two. As I look around the room I am in, I could pick up and use several things to kill someone; the snow globe, the vase, the fireplace poker...etc. They could be used to harm someone but their creation was not intended to kill. Guns were created for one purpose - to kill! Period... Civilized man keeps making deadlier guns and ammunition for what reasons again? I still need one good reason why we need so many deadly weapons designed to people in mass. One? So when I hear the "pencil" or "car" that could be used be used a deadly weapon (it's the people not the object) I just want to puke! We don't make Kevlar penetrating pencils and cars designed to kill large groups of people. Not the same thing now is it? The pro gun people who attempt to rationalize the old "guns don't kill people, people kill people " crap, clearly have problems stringing lucid and
rational thoughts together . In fairness, the problem is much, much broader than just more gun control and bans - it will take a wholesale change on how we view and value life in general.

Andrew.David.Herbst

Mon, 2013-01-07 14:29

Re "If another gun advocate points out that cars kill more people than guns I am going to take their car keys away and shove them up their ass.": I entirely understand your frustration even though I do not think its helpful to express things this way.

As I suspect you will agree, many of the arguments used to support gun rights employ obvious errors of logic and / or errors of reasoning. A prime example is this comparison to the car that is often used to defend gun rights. The presence of so many obviously bad arguments raises the question as to whether the people who use them actually know they are bad. Wayne Lapierre must be a smart person. When he says "the only solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun", he surely must know that many other things need to be established before such an assertion can be made with confidence. So it would certainly at least appear that he is "playing games" with the viewers by "hiding" the many assumptions that underlie this "slogan".

But perhaps many others are simply not properly educated as to what constitutes a valid argument, and that we should ensure that the general population is trained in the basic skills of proper reasoning. That may sound enormously patronizing but I suggest it may well be the case that the public needs such basic training (which, of course, is not tied to the specifics of the gun issue).

bubba.crunch

Wed, 2013-01-30 00:15

You are stupid. If that is how you interpret the Constitution then you need to move back to Syria. And I hope you do because all you do here is tear down my country. You disgrace me and my fellow patriotic Americans. Uphold the Constitution or GET THE FUCK OUT!!

techtrainny

Sat, 2012-12-15 19:14

"I warn you that pursuing laws that weaken the footings of a certain right weakens the footings of all rights."

I have found that people who are against all gun control laws are often not as keen to protect the freedom of religion, which necessarily includes the freedom from religion. The collocation is not true in all cases, but often enough to be noticeable.

robgmartin67

Sun, 2012-12-16 00:13

When it comes to the Constitution you really need to understand both the original intent AND further Supreme Court findings.

There were originally, believe it or not, 2 versions of the 2nd Amendment both worded the same but with different capitalization and punctuation.

1st Version (as passed by the 1791 Congress and written by William Lambert the Penman (Engrosser) of the Constitution. This version is in the National Archives):
"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."

2nd Version (this is the one that went to the states for ratification and was authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State at the time).
"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."

Notice that both talk of a "well REGULATED militia" (my emphasis). The concept of a militia was a "citizen soldier" i.e. a farmer who, like the Minuteman during the Revolutionary War, could be called up and be able to provide his own firearm. This "citizen soldier" idea is carried into today with our National Guard but now primarily resides in military service in the Armed Services so the necessity of a "militia" per se is now a moot point. The Supreme Court in 2008 and 2010 clarified the 2nd Amendment and said that it protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. So, yes, the "militia" idea has been modified to state that an individual has a right to own a firearm but for "lawful" purposes. It still must, according to the Constitution, be "well regulated". So, yes, you can own firearm but the government DOES have a right to control aspects of how you can acquire said firearms. Most rational people in this discussion are not telling you that you can't own a firearm. What we are saying is that their should be, at the very least, some common sense laws in place so that law-abiding citizens can both feel protected but also see that guns, being as they are deadly weapons, are controlled.

Btw, removing the 2nd Amendment COULD potentially make things even worse. You know have no control over regulating firearms. I know you are going to say "Well the government, without the 2nd Amendment, can know take away my firearms". However, on the other hand taking away the 2nd amendment means their is also nothing in place to prevent regulating firearms and would, potentially, allow ANYONE to own a firearm, i.e. the "well regulated" part of the Constitution is now gone.

robwbright

Tue, 2012-12-18 20:06

Only partly true on original intent. You left something out in your militia discussion.

George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.”

James Madison: “A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”

Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.”

The National Guard is nothing like what is being described by Madison, Lee and Mason. And it shouldn't be a "moot point", and we shouldn't even have a standing army - the Founders you selectively quote were opposed to having a standing army. They did, in fact, make provision in the Constitution for a Navy to protect our shores. Without a standing army, the U.S. wouldn't have troops in over 100 countries and we would be focused on protecting our own country instead of Japan, Germany, South Korea, Iraq, etc...

Then there's this:

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

George Mason: “To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.”

Noah Webster: “The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops”

George Washington: “A free people ought to be armed.”

Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights: “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”

Patrick Henry: “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”

George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

You seem to disregard the "shall not be infringed" portion of the amendment. A proper reading of the amendment in the context of the writings of the Founders is:

"Without a standing army - which we are opposed to and specifically stated that no appropriation for an army shall be for more than two years - a militia is necessary. Since a militia is necessary, we want everyone to have guns and know how to use them - from their youth up. While perhaps not every person in the country will be a current member of the militia, we want them all familiar with guns so that they will be prepared to assist us in the militia if we need to expand it in the event of some sort of attack on the country - from within or without."

echosierrapj

Wed, 2012-12-19 01:18

Any reasonable individual will agree that the circumstances present when these words were written are not the same as they are now. The interpretation of the 2nd amendment is biased by the gun lobby and by the NRA. It is also based on the most ridiculous of "Conspiration Theories" where the "government has to be kept in check and militia might need to stop it from taking away our "liberties"
The world changes and so does the environment in which people presently exist.
To refuse any changes to gun control laws is un-American.
To refuse changes that would prevent innocent kids to die is un-American.
To permit the possession of merciless killing machines shooting 60 bullets per second in our country is un-American.
To accept all the false rhetoric from the gun manufacturers and the NRA about the reasons to own and use those guns is not only un-American but actually lobbies for the bullet and gun makers and plays right in their business strategy, regardless of damage to the innocent people who become casualties. Are those considered "co-lateral" damage?
Wake up and look at the kids and the innocent dying for nothing because of this insane, abusive and delusional interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

dnields

Mon, 2013-01-28 15:55

I can't believe that people are still using these crap, false quotes that are wrongly attributed to the Founding Fathers.
Please check your facts (and that goes for anyone) before you start parroting the same B.S. that everyone else does.

http://saf.org/pub/rkba/general/BogusFounderQuotes.htm

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/spurious-quotations

http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2008/06/liberty-teeth-g...

Philo Vaihinger

Sat, 2012-12-15 09:24

The Second Amendment should be repealed. Guns in our time destabilize democracy and constitutional lawfulness; they do not offer a deterrent to tyranny. But there are so many hundreds of millions of guns in so many tens of millions of hands in the US that even a flat ban on all gun sales would be like shutting the barn door after the horses are out. The truth is you would need some active measures of disarmament. And that won't happen soon in America.

deantroutte

Mon, 2012-12-17 12:21

Why don't you tell that to the unarmed people of Egypt that were recently beaten, gassed, and shot by Morrisey and his hijacking of the new "democracy". The first thing every tyrant has done is disarm the citizens. I'll bet there we Germans that said the same thing you did before Hitler took power.

trito43

Mon, 2012-12-17 14:01

Yeah, like when the United States beat Japan in WWII and enforced a strict anti-firearm law that eventually became the law of the land. I wonder what became of that....

Japanese gun deaths (Population ~128 million):
2006: 2
2007: 22
2008: 11
American gun deaths (Population ~311 million):
2006: 25,423
2007: 31,224
2008: 28,983

accident55

Tue, 2012-12-18 05:07

I know your brain doesn't actually function, but even YOU have to see how ignorant it makes you look to compare the cultures of US and Japan as if it is all guns faults.

the saddest part about your worthless, miserable, lonely life is that when you posted that, you actually thought it made you seem intelligent.

cyclefit60

Wed, 2012-12-19 13:16

"I know your brain doesn't actually function" "the saddest part about your worthless, miserable, lonely life" You extracted all this from the post you replied to? Wow, what a perceptive individual you are! You by chance don't own any assault weapons do you? Attacking others in this manner shows a lack of intelligence

oddjob

Sat, 2012-12-15 15:37

Well stated points ,all.
Time will tell.Money trumps logic and reason.
The best Democracy money can buy will be put to the test.
GOD help us.

sans

Sat, 2012-12-15 18:09

Since when does a well regulated militia = summary execution of school children?

accident55

Tue, 2012-12-18 05:07

It doesn't, idiot. That is why what he did was ILLEGAL.

prospect

Tue, 2012-12-18 13:53

You're the first one I've heard propose such an equivalence. Maybe it's just you.

badbusinessbureau

Sat, 2012-12-15 19:08

"If only everybody around was armed, an ordinary civilian could take out a mass killer before he got too far.If that were true, then how come it never happens? "

It already has happened. Armed citizens prevented several potential tragedies from occurring in 2012. Samuel Williams came to the rescue of several patrons utilizing an internet café in Ocala, Florida. And in Garden Grove, California, a 65-year old woman sent five burglars fleeing from a jewelry store. In both cases, security cameras captured the heroic efforts of armed citizens who sent the bad guys fleeing — even tripping over themselves, as they stormed out the doors.

* Five years ago this month, Matthew Murray entered a large Colorado Springs church, armed with several weapons and a thousand rounds of ammunition. But a woman with a concealed carry permit critically wounded him, thus saving the lives of hundreds of people.

* And at a Salt Lake City mall in 2007, an off-duty police officer brought a shooting rampage to an abrupt halt. “I was in a situation that I was carrying my gun,” the hero, Ken Hammond, told reporters.

In all the above cases, where citizens were able to stop evil, the good guys were carrying guns. There was no time to run to their cars. There was no time to run home.

The lesson is clear: good guys with guns save lives. And while bad guys may be evil, they are not stupid. They don’t typically target gun stores or police stations to perpetrate their crimes. No, they consciously select areas where their victims are disarmed by law.

racerx9961999

Sun, 2012-12-16 13:17

Unfortunately you left-out several truths in both the cases you listed above:

1) Jeanne Assam, the woman who wounded Matthew Murray was a former police officer who was a hired armed security guard for the church.
2) Ken Hammond exchanged shots with Talovic in Trolley Square, but did not take him out. Not a single shot fired by Hammond ever hit Talovic. A SWAT team killed him in a hail of gunfire in which Hammond and another on-duty, uniformed police officer were almost shot in the SWAT team's crossfire.

In both cases the defenders were trained police officers who handle guns every single day in their career and re-certify their shooting skills and gun handling capabilities on a regular basis. They are also trained in the mindset required for extreme situations like this. They practice facing armed opponents in drills and exercises on a regular basis. In other words, they were doing the job they were trained to do. Regular ol' Joe Citizen with two hours in a class for a concealed carry permit does not have this. They have neither the training or the presence of mind in such a high stress situation to confront a shooter and live to tell the tale or not hurt everyone BUT the shooter when they draw their gun.

dplesq

Sun, 2012-12-16 20:32

Then the solution is to require this type of training for any ol' Joe Citizen who wants to carry, not new legislation further restricting gun ownership for the law abiding.

trito43

Mon, 2012-12-17 14:03

More murder, more death. That's the solution!

The world isn't a perfect place, but making guns more accessible to everyone (which would naturally include people who want to kill others) is just stupid.

hcalhoun

Thu, 2012-12-20 23:47

". . . they consciously select areas where their victims are disarmed by law."
Yeah, like Fort Hood, right? Right.

Tom P

Fri, 2012-12-21 11:05

Actually yes, that is right, Fort Hood. The off-duty soldiers that Hassan killed, were by law not armed. According to the rules of the base, off duty soldiers are not allowed to carry their weapons, army-issued or personal weapons. So, the soldiers murdered were, by law in a 'gun-free zone' and helpless against Nidal Hasan. Your example proves the opposite point you intended.

badbusinessbureau

Sat, 2012-12-15 19:11

The Soviet Union was a giant gun free zone. Cambodia was a gun free zone. Communist China is a gun free zone. and NAZI Germany was a gun free zone. Was anyone safe? No, they were not. Over 100 million were murdered by tyrannical rulers when the people were disarmed.

trito43

Mon, 2012-12-17 14:08

Are you safe? Do you really believe that if Barack Obama or some other president wanted to become a despot, he could? If so, do you really think you could revolt against a government that spends more in one year on the military than the rest of the world combined? You and your AR-15 aren't going to get taken out by a drone or just "disappeared" quietly in the night?

If you think the United States could turn in to a fascist, communist or despotic state then you can't honestly believe you would have any power to stop it, even with a pistol.

scholan2

Tue, 2012-12-18 09:55

Dead wrong man. Even if a tyrannical government had the full support of the military and police(impossible) the armed citizens of the US would pick them apart. An insurgency armed with over 300 million guns would wreck the shit out of any conventional army(US military has a little over 3 million guns).

Tom P

Fri, 2012-12-21 11:07

Huh, well it certainly didn't stop the people of Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan for trying. At least 2 of those 3 were pretty successful. You think that 300 million Americans with 300 million guns couldn't do as well?

custserv

Sat, 2012-12-15 19:43

It's interesting you mention Wyatt Earp. He usually preferred to pistol whip miscreants he was arresting. And he would often be arresting them for carrying guns into town where they were not allowed - towns like Dodge had zones where guns weren't permitted, & a big part of the Marshall or Sherrif's job was to enforce that.

Ben Leet

Sun, 2012-12-16 15:00

The American Prospect previously ran an article promoting gun control, it said, 'For example, according to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine, during the nine years after the District of Columbia enacted a handgun ban, D.C. saw gun-related homicides fall 25 percent compared with contiguous areas in Maryland and Virginia. International comparisons yield similar results. One study found that stringent gun control works, while modest regulation does not.

The data from the research are complex and controversial, but the bottom line is this: Whatever significantly reduces the number of handguns in general circulation—-whether through culture or regulation —reduces homicides. Other measures such as waiting periods, required training for gun owners, and enhanced sentences for criminals have no discernable effect."
See -- http://prospect.org/article/how-gun-control-got-murdered

Ben Leet

Sun, 2012-12-16 15:17

Japan had 2 gun-related murders in 2006, the U.S. 12,000, and the U.S. has a gun-related murder rate 20 times most developed nations according to this Atlantic Monthly article: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-...

The U.S. has 10 times the average rate among high GDP nations according to this article: http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/jan/27/jim-moran/rep-...

dplesq

Sun, 2012-12-16 18:47

Your argument @ 3 is absurd. Where is your evidence that, at any of these mass shootings, there were armed civilians who did nothing to subdue the killer? The reality is that in most jurisdictions in the country it is exceedingly hard to get a concealed carry permit. Further, many states' laws prohibit carrying firearms into public venues or schools. It is this very prohibition that makes these places easy targets for killers. Do you think one of these clowns would try to shoot up a police station or army base, for example??? I think not as they know their odds of being successful are slim to none. Where do you think this is more likely to happen, Connecticut or Texas???

Your argument @4 is equally flawed. Don't forget the mother owned the guns in this case. Supposed we had restrictive gun laws which would have prevented this guy from buying the guns. What good would that have done if he had access to his mother's. And before you go down the road of easy access for the mother, let me tie in to your fifth argument. Yes, criminals will always have access to guns. They don't care about how restrictive the laws are. If anything, having the knowledge that it's even less likely that someone will retaliate will make them bolder. Black market guns are easy to access.

trito43

Mon, 2012-12-17 13:26

You mean like when Nidal Hassen shot and killed 13 and wounded 29 more ON AN ARMY BASE IN TEXAS?

Yeah, that could never happen. /s

There is no good reason for the public to have access to semi-automatic weapons. Their only purpose is to kill people. If the Newtown killer's mother had a hunting rifle and revolvers instead of an AR-15 and Glocks, not nearly as many would have died by simple virtue of the fact that the shooter would have had to spend time reloading.

The more guns there are in public, they more they will get used. It's as simple as that.

Tom P

Fri, 2012-12-21 11:02

"You mean like when Nidal Hassen shot and killed 13 and wounded 29 more ON AN ARMY BASE IN TEXAS?"
Actually yes. Off duty soldiers at Fort Hood are not allowed to carry guns. By the rules of the base, the soldiers were UNARMED. Hassan shot up a 'gun-free zone', just like a school or a mall, etc. Your point proves the opposite of what you think it does.

vipersandvultures

Mon, 2012-12-24 13:24

You mean like when columbine had two armed officers on location that took shots at and failed to do anything to the assailants, resulting in the largest school shooting?

funlol

Sat, 2013-01-26 19:54

"I warn you that pursuing laws that weaken the footings of a certain right weakens the footings of all rights."
I have found that people who are against all gun control laws are often not as keen to protect the freedom of religion, which necessarily includes the freedom from religion. The collocation is not true in all cases, but often enough to be noticeable.
http://www.motorinsuranceinfo.net

jrs1

Sun, 2012-12-16 23:52

First of all I am very liberal in many, many ways however I also support the fundamental right for law abiding citizens to own firearms. Your arguments about the countries that have lower gun deaths is flawed because there actually are a large number of hunting weapons in some of those countries yet those are not used for these types of violent crimes. Switzerland has more guns per capita than any other nation yet they are the safest place in the world to live by crime statistics so your argument about less guns equals less gun deaths is not accurate based on known facts. You also made the assertion that some accountant that spent a few hours at the range couldn't make a difference in the real world also just isn't true. You would be surprised when faced with this type of danger how much difference an average person with some training can make. One only needs to look at the heros of United Flight 93 on 9/11 to see how average people that didn't train at all for this event can save potentially thousands of lives. I am sure had it not happened you would say that this bravery was impossible as well. People that talk gun control the way you have written almost without exception do not have personal experience of any depth with firearms. They generally are nervous about them and since they don't care to have one then no one should have one. I don't close the door to regulating certain things about firearms and when it is figured out how to do it there needs to be more mental health screening and far more resources available to help people without the stigma that is usually attached. Those types of things would help more than the normal knee jerk reaction, time to take away the guns. It always comes from well meaning people that just don't know what they are talking about. Let's talk about why any of these people do these sorts of things given that in Switzerland they have far more guns per capita than we do and young people are taught how to shoot and hunt and it is common for a young person to have their own gun and yet there is almost non-existent gun violence there. So the problem lies within our society obviously unless you were just looking for a reason to talk gun control. In looking at why anyone would commit such atrocities I am left to think there has to be some motivation in their twisted thinking about the amount of media attention that is garnered from such crimes. Why else would these people pick random targets trying to create even more mayhem than the last shooter? Nothing else makes sense. So this has been brought up before but the media makes an even bigger splash with each escalating incident making all of these people that commit these horrible crimes very famous names. So if they are thinking about killing themselves why not go out famous instead of a small blip on page 27 of the local newspaper? It is thinking that makes no sense and is hard to imagine but I can so no other reason for their actions. I would like to see more journalists actually look at all the facts including what their own industry is doing to create the problem instead of totally distorting the truth to make it sound like banning the sale of any more assault rifles will solve everything.

thegreatturtlea...

Mon, 2012-12-17 02:49

These arguments are propagandized, heavy-hitting and do not invite intellectual response, but instead irrational and emotional response. They are seriously devoid of facts, and blatantly miss state the data from other countries as well as willfully neglects to mention relevant reasons why we should stack up against countries in the first place (we don't).

I find that using human tragedy and the dead as political currency for policy changes (while we are heavily emotional and irrational!), is morally and ethically bankrupt. Pointing your finger at an object that cannot defend itself as the source of our sorrow and pain is an easy way to make yourself feel better without having to address the person and people at fault for such crimes against humanity.

We don't like talking about taking social or personal responsibility to take care of ourselves or the PEOPLE-part of the problem, do we?

Didn't Timothy McVeigh kill over 168 people with a fertilizer based home-made bomb? Yeah. I guess, by the logic presented here, that we should have Home Depot report to Uncle Sam every time we re-fertilize our garden beds.

trito43

Mon, 2012-12-17 13:34

And what did we do after McVeigh killed all those people with an ammonium nitrate bomb? We regulated the ammonium nitrate! You can't buy it without registering with the Department of Homeland Security and being screened through a terrorist database, among other regulations.

http://americancityandcounty.com/security/ammonium-law-passes

But it's a false argument. Fertilizer has a use in our society. We need it to grow food. Why are semi-automatic weapons necessary?

Tom P

Fri, 2012-12-21 11:19

People use the term semi-automatic weapon like it is an anti-aircraft weapon or something. It only means you pull the trigger and 1 bullet comes out. Then afterward, you can pull the trigger and another bullet comes out without you having to reload. It is the vast majority of all guns available today. Automatic weapons, machine guns, are banned and cannot be purchased by any Joe off the street.

Guns are tools. Can they be used for ill? Of course. Lots of things with otherwise positive benefits can be. Human Society was infinitely less just in the days before guns. Is that because of guns? I don't know, perhaps it is better investigating methods for crimes, maybe it is a more prosperous world society? I don't know, but saying that less guns would mean less crime and murder without any statistical basis is akin to me saying 'the murder rate in Medieval Europe was many times was it is in 2012 America, it must be because of guns that there is less.'

If you believe that gun control will make it harder for criminals to get guns, you must be someone who has never used an illegal drug, and must not know anyone who has ever smoked pot. Prohibitions don't work so well, they just create black markets and make put the prohibited things in the hands of criminals. I'll spare us all the discussion of Chicago gangsters in the 20s.

You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)

Advertisement