SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    10 Common Arguments For Gun Control, Debunked
Page 1 2 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
10 Common Arguments For Gun Control, Debunked Login/Join 
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted
Federalist
March 21, 2018

An attorney and former sniper team leader for the U.S. Army explains why 10 of the most common gun control arguments don't make sense.

School shootings have dominated the news cycle and the common theme anti-gunners express is how gun control can somehow solve the problem.

The most common gun-control arguments of today go something like this: “These shootings would stop if we banned AR-15s or other semi-auto rifles; raised the minimum age for firearm ownership; and/or created tougher gun laws.”

These are emotion-based arguments and will do nothing to solve the problem. In fact, they can even make the problem worse while infringing on the liberties of Americans. Let’s explore, and debunk, 10 of the most common gun-control arguments.

1. The Second Amendment Only Gives the Right to Own Guns for Use in a Militia
Our Second Amendment reads: “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.”

Our Constitution does not give us any rights. Rather, it affirms rights that we already have in order to safeguard them. Note that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” isn’t given by the language above. Instead, our right to keep and bear arms, which exists outside of the Constitution, is protected from infringement.

The militia is mentioned as the goal for the protection of our right to keep and bear arms — it is not a requirement. A helpful analog from an unknown author goes like this: “A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books, shall not be infringed.”

In this example, it should be easy to see that the right to read and compose books is not reserved only to those that are registered voters or well-educated. Instead, the goal is a well-educated electorate, for which tools of education are needed. Likewise, our right to keep and bear arms is protected in the event a well-regulated militia is needed to defend our country.

2. The Second Amendment Only Applied to Muskets
Anti-gunners often claim that “modern/rapid-fire” arms are not protected. This argument assumes that muskets were the only type of arms in existence when the Second Amendment was written, and therefore our founding fathers never intended our protections to extend to modern firearms.

First, repeating rifles were in existence for more than 100 years before our Bill of Rights were included in our Constitution. Second, muskets were military-grade firearms. Our founding fathers wanted to protect our ability to overthrow a tyrannical government, which would include the capability to match whatever arms an opposing military possessed.

Third, if this argument were valid, then smartphones and social-media would not be protected as forms of speech under the First Amendment, because these “modern/rapid-fire” forms of communication were not around back then.

3. Criminals Won’t Have Guns if We Ban Them
Simply, law-abiding citizens will obey the law and criminals won’t. That’s how life works. After all, that’s the definition of a criminal: someone who doesn’t obey a law. Keeping guns out of criminal’s hands because they’ve been banned will be just as successful as our ban on crystal meth.

If the crime of, and penalty for, murder doesn’t stop criminals from conducting mass shootings, neither will another law. As an example, bombs are already illegal. However, neither the penalty for murder nor the penalty against making bombs has stopped the Oklahoma city bombing, the Boston marathon bombing, or the serial bomber in Austin.

Not only will a gun ban not work, it will ensure that the only people with guns are criminals.

4. AR-15s/Certain Semi-auto Rifles Should Be Banned
Again, criminals won’t obey laws. The France mass shooting mentioned above was carried out where those types of rifles were already banned.

Also, rifles, although popularized by the media, are not regularly used in violent crimes. In fact, according to the FBI, hammers and blunt instruments are used in more murders than rifles are.

Rifles have been used in some recent mass shootings. However, the shooters at Maryland, Ft. Hood, and Virginia Tech did not use rifles. Even if they did, rifles are merely a tool used by a murderer, much like box cutters by the terrorists on 9/11.

Likewise, vehicles are most commonly used by drunk drivers and those texting while driving to kill people. No, these people don’t have a murderous intent, however, many more deaths are caused in this manner and it is still the fault of the person and not the tool used.

5. We Must Raise the Rifle Purchase Age to 21 Years Old
Currently, under federal law, an 18-year-old can legally purchase a rifle or shotgun, but a purchaser must be 21 years old for a handgun. Either 18-year-olds are adults or they aren’t. If an 18-year-old is not responsible enough to purchase a rifle or shotgun, then he or she isn’t responsible enough to vote, join the military, drive a car, or be treated as an adult in crimes.

Raising the minimum age to purchase firearms wouldn’t have changed 29 of the 30 worst mass-shootings in U.S. history. Twenty-six of the 30 were committed by someone 21 years of age or older, one (No. 4) was committed by a 20-year-old who stole his mother’s firearms, another (No. 7) was committed by students who used a pistol they couldn’t legally purchase, and a third (No. 22) was committed by a 16-year-old who couldn’t purchase any firearms legally.

The most recent shooting in Maryland was committed by a student with a handgun and who was 18 years old. It is yet another example of a minimum age law not working.

6. Gun-Free Zones Are Safe Spaces
No. In fact, the opposite is true. Gun-free zones are a magnet for mass shooters — almost every mass shooting we have experienced has occurred in a gun-free zone.

It is logical that these monsters prefer unarmed victims. In fact, most of the shooters are stopped once they are confronted with armed resistance. If politicians believe that gun-free zones work, why do they hide behind armed security themselves?

7. Places With Strict Gun Laws Don’t Have Shooting Problems
Not true. Take a look at Chicago, a city with some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. In the year 2016 alone, Chicago saw 762 gun deaths and experienced 4,331 shootings.

Or France, where there were 532 casualties from mass-shootings in 2015. As a comparison, America, experienced 527 casualties from mass-shootings over an eight-year period from 2009 to 2016.

Those numbers mean that France, which has incredibly strict gun control and is one-fifth of our population, experienced eight times the amount of casualties from a mass shooting in one year. Clearly, 2015 was an anomaly for France. However, the comparison is used to show that gun control does not prevent gun violence.

Also, note the rampant violent crime in much of Europe, which generally maintains very restrictive gun laws.

8. Reducing Guns Will Reduce Gun Violence
For the reasons above, we know that this isn’t true. However, even if it were true, our goal should be to reduce all violence. Completely eradicating gun violence wouldn’t have stopped the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Boston marathon bombing, the serial bombings in Austin, Texas, or other violent crimes.

According to FBI crime stats, in 2004, after the 1994 federal “assault weapons” ban ended, violent crime actually fell. In fact, violent crime has fallen by more than 50 percent since 1997, when the ban was in effect. Since 2004, sales and ownership of AR-15-style rifles have skyrocketed. Thus, contradicting claims made by gun control components, violent crime fell when the number of guns owned by the population significantly increased.

Often Australia is used as an example for how banning guns works. Yes, their firearm-related crime went down, but their violent crimes, to include sexual assault, kidnapping, manslaughter, and robbery, have all stayed the same or increased.

Also, gun restrictions can lead to an increase in violence when law-abiding citizens are unable to protect themselves. Everywhere would be a gun-free zone.

9. Only Law Enforcement Should Have Guns
When seconds count, law enforcement is often minutes away. According to the Department of Homeland Security, “the average duration of an active shooter incident at a school is 12.5 minutes. In contrast, the average response time for law enforcement is 18 minutes.”

A firearm is the best method of self-defense for a single mother defending her children from a home intruder. If police officers need firearms because of the violent people they encounter, then surely average citizens need firearms even more. We’re the ones who must face the violent people without backup and while the crime is being committed.

Additionally, the argument that only the government should have guns defies the purpose behind our Second Amendment protections. It is baffling how many of the people who vilify law enforcement are also the same ones insisting that only law enforcement should have guns.

10. High-Capacity Magazines Should Be Banned
In addition to trying to ban guns, anti-gunners also try to vilify another inanimate object: “high-capacity magazines.” Typically, the most popular target of their ire are magazines with the capability to hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, especially AR-15-style magazines. They claim that by stopping to reload, a mass-shooter can be stopped.

The facts don’t support this. One of the Columbine shooters used 10-round magazines, and the Virginia Tech shooter used mostly 10-round magazines. The shooter from the recent Florida school shooting, although he had an AR-15-style rifle, used 10-round magazines to commit the crime. And Maryland, where the most recent school shooting occurred, already has laws banning the purchase of “high-capacity” magazines.

The common theme among most of these arguments is that more laws will make us safer. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case. Criminals don’t obey laws. Instead, maybe it’s finally time to realize that gun-free zones don’t work and that we are our own best defense against being a victim.

Link




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 48369 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
quote:
First, repeating rifles were in existence for more than 100 years before our Bill of Rights were included in our Constitution.


Not too sure about this one.

BOR made it into constitution within a short time of the ratification of the Constitution itself.

When were repeating rifles in use?




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 48369 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Another excellent article JAllen, thanks for the post!
 
Posts: 1700 | Registered: November 07, 2015Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Too old to run,
too mean to quit!
posted Hide Post
I have given up even considering an argument/discussion with libtards regarding anything to do with firearms.

Just plain tired to death of trying to spread logic to those incapable of understanding anything but free shit at my expense.


Elk

There has never been an occasion where a people gave up their weapons in the interest of peace that didn't end in their massacre. (Louis L'Amour)

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. "
-Thomas Jefferson

"America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." Alexis de Tocqueville

FBHO!!!



The Idaho Elk Hunter
 
Posts: 25640 | Location: Virginia | Registered: December 16, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of sigcrazy7
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by JALLEN:
quote:
First, repeating rifles were in existence for more than 100 years before our Bill of Rights were included in our Constitution.


Not too sure about this one.

BOR made it into constitution within a short time of the ratification of the Constitution itself.

When were repeating rifles in use?


Henry VIII (1509-1547) supposedly owned a Peter Kalthoff style repeater. Although repeaters didn’t get practical until the Henry Repeating rifle in the later 19th century, they did exist. However, to the article’s point, George Mason would have certainly been aware of them when he penned the draft of the 2A, and would have easily supposed that the future would bring them into common use, and, therefore, could not have meant for the Second Amendment to only apply to muskets.



Demand not that events should happen as you wish; but wish them to happen as they do happen, and you will go on well. -Epictetus
 
Posts: 8200 | Location: Utah | Registered: December 18, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Puckle gun 1718. A repeating crew weapon.
Belton Repeating Flintlock 1777.

Just two off the top of my head....

There is no known examples of the Belton Repeating Flintlock, (we) only know about it because of correspondence with Congress, so yeah, the Founding Father's had no clue that repeating firearms we're possible or existed.


ARman
 
Posts: 3146 | Registered: May 19, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Leemur
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Elk Hunter:
I have given up even considering an argument/discussion with libtards regarding anything to do with firearms.

Just plain tired to death of trying to spread logic to those incapable of understanding anything but free shit at my expense.


This is where I’ve settled as well. Screw the soap eating, gender fluid morons that cry at the sight of a super soaker. This whole article could be rewritten as follows:

1) Screw you commie idiots, we’re not budging.
 
Posts: 13735 | Location: Shenandoah Valley, VA | Registered: October 16, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Oh yeah, I forgotten about the Lorenzoni system that was developed in the 1600 in Italy. Yep, founding fathers would have no clue about repeating firearms.


ARman
 
Posts: 3146 | Registered: May 19, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Fortified with Sleestak
Picture of thunderson
posted Hide Post
Lewis and Clark carried a repeating 46 caliber Girandoni air rifle. It had a magazine of 20 rounds that it could fire at 500fps and was capable of firing 30 rounds at useful pressure before recharging.

Girandoni air rifle



I have the heart of a lion.......and a lifetime ban from the Toronto Zoo.- Unknown
 
Posts: 5371 | Location: Shenandoah Valley, VA | Registered: November 05, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Corgis Rock
Picture of Icabod
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by thunderson:
Lewis and Clark carried a repeating 46 caliber Girandoni air rifle. It had a magazine of 20 rounds that it could fire at 500fps and was capable of firing 30 rounds at useful pressure before recharging.

Girandoni air rifle


And it was silent.



“ The work of destruction is quick, easy and exhilarating; the work of creation is slow, laborious and dull.
 
Posts: 6060 | Location: Outside Seattle | Registered: November 29, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of tenmm
posted Hide Post
The Ferguson rifle was used briefly during the Revolutionary War.


_______________________________________
Do you only play? Or can you shoot too?
 
Posts: 760 | Location: Alaska | Registered: December 29, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
While not strictly speaking repeaters, multi-barrel weapons were relatively common. I think private parties also had cannons.
 
Posts: 3853 | Location: Citrus County Florida | Registered: October 13, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
There is a world elsewhere
Picture of Echtermetzger
posted Hide Post
Perfectly sane, logical, full of facts.

and it won't do a bit of difference because the anti-2A types are motivated by emotion, not reason. Facts are irrelevant for people, it's how something makes them feel that is important.


A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.
 
Posts: 6685 | Location: The hard land of the Winter | Registered: April 14, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Oriental Redneck
Picture of 12131
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Leemur:
quote:
Originally posted by Elk Hunter:
I have given up even considering an argument/discussion with libtards regarding anything to do with firearms.

Just plain tired to death of trying to spread logic to those incapable of understanding anything but free shit at my expense.


This is where I’ve settled as well. Screw the soap eating, gender fluid morons that cry at the sight of a super soaker. This whole article could be rewritten as follows:

1) Screw you commie idiots, we’re not budging.

Exactly! Definitely not for hardcore gun grabbing commies and their useful idiots. But, it might help, when discussing gun control with those who are on the fence, those who are honest and willing to listen to well thought out arguments to help them decide. They are out there, plenty of them.


Q






 
Posts: 26203 | Location: TEXAS | Registered: September 04, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Leemur
posted Hide Post
I start out that way but as soon as the obvious Libidiot bullshit starts I shut down. They already think I’m some gun crazed Rambo that wants kids to die for my “hobby” so I won’t waste my breath trying to change their nonexistent mind.
 
Posts: 13735 | Location: Shenandoah Valley, VA | Registered: October 16, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of lkdr1989
posted Hide Post
You can't be rational with the irrational.

quote:

Excerpt from: Raging Against Self Defense: A psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality

Denial

Another defense mechanism commonly utilized by supporters of gun control is denial. Denial is simply refusing to accept the reality of a given situation.(9) For example, consider a woman whose husband starts coming home late, has strange perfume on his clothes, and starts charging flowers and jewelry on his credit card. She may get extremely angry at a well–meaning friend who suggests that her husband is having an affair. The reality is obvious, but the wronged wife is so threatened by her husband’s infidelity that she is unable to accept it, and so denies its existence.

Anti–gun people do the same thing. It’s obvious that we live in a dangerous society, where criminals attack innocent people. Just about everyone has been, or knows someone who has been, victimized. It’s equally obvious that law enforcement can’t protect everyone everywhere 24 hours a day. Extensive scholarly research demonstrates that the police have no legal duty to protect you(10) and that firearm ownership is the most effective way to protect yourself and your family.(11) There is irrefutable evidence that victim disarmament nearly always precedes genocide.(12) Nonetheless, the anti–gun folks insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that "the police will protect you", "this is a safe neighborhood" and "it can’t happen here", where "it" is everything from mugging to mass murder.

Anti–gun people who refuse to accept the reality of the proven and very serious dangers of civilian disarmament are using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of feeling helpless and vulnerable. Likewise, gun owners who insist that "the government will never confiscate my guns" are also using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of contemplating being forcibly disarmed and rendered helpless and vulnerable.


http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ra...ainstselfdefense.htm




...let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one. Luke 22:35-36 NAV

"Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves." Matthew 10:16 NASV
 
Posts: 4330 | Location: Valley, Oregon | Registered: June 03, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 12131:

...But, it might help, when discussing gun control with those who are on the fence, those who are honest and willing to listen to well thought out arguments to help them decide. They are out there, plenty of them.


There are MANY of them who are willing to listen. Talk to them in a calm, rational manner, offer to take them to the range.
 
Posts: 15898 | Location: Eastern Iowa | Registered: May 21, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Oriental Redneck
Picture of 12131
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sigmund:
quote:
Originally posted by 12131:

...But, it might help, when discussing gun control with those who are on the fence, those who are honest and willing to listen to well thought out arguments to help them decide. They are out there, plenty of them.


There are MANY of them who are willing to listen. Talk to them in a calm, rational manner, offer to take them to the range.

Yes. Talk to these folks, not the hardcore commie maggots.


Q






 
Posts: 26203 | Location: TEXAS | Registered: September 04, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of RichardC
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Icabod:
quote:
Originally posted by thunderson:
Lewis and Clark carried a repeating 46 caliber Girandoni air rifle.


And it was silent.


Probably quieter than firearms of the time, but modern pre-charged pneumatic air rifles are pretty loud unless suppressed.


____________________
 
Posts: 15841 | Location: Florida | Registered: June 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Little ray
of sunshine
Picture of jhe888
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by JALLEN:
quote:
First, repeating rifles were in existence for more than 100 years before our Bill of Rights were included in our Constitution.


Not too sure about this one.

BOR made it into constitution within a short time of the ratification of the Constitution itself.

When were repeating rifles in use?


Repeaters of one sort or another existed as described, but weren't practical at the time.




The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
 
Posts: 53117 | Location: Texas | Registered: February 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    10 Common Arguments For Gun Control, Debunked

© SIGforum 2024