The 12 Most Common Fallacious Gun Arguments (and How to Refute Them)

It’s really hard to talk about guns and gun violence, primarily due to the fact that the NRA has spent an insane amount of money brainwashing American citizens with catchy bumper-sticker type slogans that sound logical, but fall apart upon careful examination.

To make matters worse, gun-prohibitionists often take leave of their senses and attack decent law abiding gun owners who would never consider using their gun to take an innocent life.

In hopes of bridging this gap, I have created a comprehensive list of the most common fallacious arguments used to attack basic control measures, which 90% of Americans believe will make our society a safer place.

Before we begin, let me say that I am a gun owner and I have no issue with citizens owning guns. My father is an antique gun collector. My brother works in a gun store. One of my good friends is a national champion sharp-shooter. But as a passionate proponent of logic and reason, it pains me to see people making emotional arguments masked as logical ones.

If you want to own guns, then you do not need to defend this decision to anyone. You can simply say “I really like guns.” or “My gun makes me feel safer.”

Most reasonable people will not have a problem with this.

The goal of this document is not to discourage people from owning guns, but rather to dismiss with the foolish illogical arguments that proliferate nearly every discussion on this topic, making it virtually impossible to have an intelligent discussion on the matter.

If we are going to talk about guns, let’s use facts and ditch the rhetoric.

Can someone please fire a pistol into the air so that we can get started?

Logicians to your marks…get set…

starterpistol

Fallacious argument #1

If guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns.

On its surface this seems like airtight logic. It is absolutely true that gun prohibition will not stop someone who is overwhelmingly committed to obtaining a gun from achieving their goal.

But history shows that gun prohibition makes obtaining a gun EXTREMELY difficult.

As 99% of gun violence is committed in the heat of the moment, any difficulty in acquiring a firearm means that the person who was preparing to commit an act of violence will still be able to do so, using any number of methods.

People will still strike each other with their fists.. They will pick up nearby objects and strike with them when angry. They will stab one another.

If guns were outlawed, then average normal everyday people would not risk incarceration and passion-driven gun violence would drop exponentially, but other types of violence would rise. Still homicide would drop proportionately as people simply are less willing and able to kill one another using such up close and personal methods.

Of course, there is some truth to the outlaws with guns argument. There will always be deviants who will go to great lengths to acquire guns. But in a gun prohibitionist culture, these outlaws would have to have some measure of wealth to make their gun-ownership dreams a reality, as black-market gun prices soar in countries where it is illegal to buy guns.

A quick look at the mass-shooters in America illustrates that there is simply no way that the average spree-shooter could afford to own a gun if forced to pay black-market prices.

In addition to lack of funds being a large obstacle to gun ownership for those with ill intentions, it is also laughable to think of entitled suburban white boys like Adam Lanza, pulling into a dark alley with several thousands dollars in his pocket to buy a black-market AR-15. Even if these spree-shooters had the large amount of cash required to purchase a black-market firearm, it is unlikely that they would have such deep criminal connections and even more unlikely that they would leave the scene of the attempted purchase unharmed.

This is not to say that these shooters would be unable to obtain firearms, but we can all agree that it would certainly be a greater challenge for them and would undoubtedly drastically reduce the number of mass-shootings.

This commonly used fallacious statement would be more apt if it were amended to say

If guns are outlawed then only wealthy outlaws with criminal connections would have guns.

adamlanza
Newtown shooter Adam Lanza

Fallacious argument #2

I need a gun to protect myself from my corrupt government.

Again we find ourselves in agreement. The government is certainly corrupt, but they don’t want you dead. They want you alive, working your entire life away, paying taxes and buying products from the corporations that sponsor their campaigns.

If the government wanted you dead, then your AR-15 or Glock 19 would be of absolutely zero assistance to you. Our military has the most sophisticated weapons and armor the world has ever known. There simply is no civilian weapon that could stand up to their tremendous military might. You could stand in front of an M1A2 SEP and fire thousands of rounds into it without impairing its function whatsoever. You would have even less chance of defending yourself against a drone strike that was absolutely invisible to the naked eye.

This isn’t 1786. You can’t simply load up your musket to defend against the British.

If you want to own a gun, then own a gun.

You don’t need to justify this to anyone.

But for the sake of putting our heads together and figuring out ways to keep guns out of the hands of evil-doers, let’s stop using justifications that don’t make sense in real world practice.

 

tank

Fallacious argument #3

Well knives and cars kill people! Do you want to outlaw knives and cars too?

Before we tackle this, let’s establish that ANYTHING can be used to kill someone. You could simply pick up a chair and hit them over the head. Personally, if someone is going to murder me, I prefer they use a method such as this, so at least I would have a sporting chance at defending myself.

But, you’re right. Cars and knives can be used to kill people and in fact they are used this way, every single day. The fundamental difference is that cars and knives have other uses besides killing. These things are actual tools that we use to make our daily lives easier. As a society, we all agree to a certain degree of acceptable losses accrued by the misuse of said tools, as a trade-off for the convenience that they provide to our lives.

A gun, on the other hand, only has one purpose. It is an instrument designed to kill or injure.

When a knife is used properly, you get to cut your steak.

When a car is used properly, you get to where you are going faster.

When a gun is used properly, someone or something dies or is injured.

Let’s also add to this the fact that cars and knives lack the killing efficiency of a gun. While it is true that people will use knives and cars to murder people, they will not be nearly as effective as they can be with a gun.

This is not to say that killing or injuring is always bad. Sometimes it is necessary to subdue someone with malicious intent. But let’s not murder common sense in the process.

Let’s conduct a simple thought experiment.

Someone standing 20 feet away from you says that they are going to try to kill you, but because they are a fair and sporting person, they are going to let you decide whether they drive a car at you, charge at you with a knife, or shoot at you with a gun.

Which method gives you the least likelihood of escape or counterattack?

The answer is obvious.

Let’s stop using cars and other useful objects as a comparison to guns. For the reasons listed above, this is an extremely flawed analogy.

cargun

Fallacious argument #4

Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.

While it is true that guns are not going to just go around killing people on their own, let’s not be intentionally obtuse just for the sake of trying to win an argument.

While it is definitely true that a gun is unlikely to discharge on it’s own, to eliminate the gun from the equation of gun violence is like someone saying

1+1 does’t equal 2. It equals 1.

It is abundantly obvious that guns are an essential part of the equation of GUN violence.

I am quite confident that even the most ardent Second Amendment advocates are aware of this, but they refuse to acknowledge this point due to an emotional backlash against the media’s manipulative fear-mongering about how the extreme left is constantly threatening to infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners.

We can understand the problem of massive gun-proliferation by imagining a hypothetical scenario in which everyone in America woke up one morning to find out that they had an app on their phones that would murder a nearby person every time they touched it.

Most of us would be appalled by such an app. We would want to immediately remove it from our phones. We would never, in a million years, use the app to kill anyone.

But some would!

And they would use it often!!

And having the app on your phone would offer you zero defense against a person using it with malicious intent, unless you walked around tapping it all the time in an attempt to keep nearby people from pushing the app on their phones.

Returning from the hypothetical realm, we know that this logical fallacy needs to be amended to say.

Guns don’t kill people on their own. But guns in the hands of the wrong people will kill the innocent.

Let’s stop using logical fallacies, in hopes that we can have an intelligent discussion, as a nation, that can result in minimizing gun violence against the innocent.

nratrump

Fallacious argument #5

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

There is some truth to this argument as well, but again it has been oversimplified.

We certainly don’t want to be at the mercy of a “bad guy” who has us outgunned. It is incredibly important that we have responsible members of our society who are trained to handle crisis situations or else we could fall victim to armed thugs with malicious intent.

Still, simply owning a gun does not offer much advantage versus “a bad guy with a gun.”

A gun rewards first-strike initiative and mutually assured destruction is not a factor once the aggressor has their gun already trained on you.

Imagine you are a responsible gun-owner, walking to your car one evening, when out steps a desperate man, gun drawn. The man begins telling you to give up your wallet. If you reach for your gun, you will likely be shot immediately. There simply is no time to access your gun when a gun is already trained on you. In the world of guns, he who draws first wins.

But imagine a scenario, where you are in a public place and there is an active shooter. A “good guy with a gun” can save the day, right?

Possible, but unlikely. As the assailant has first-strike initiative and strategic placement advantage, it will more than likely take several good guys with guns (usually in the form of the police) to stop this situation. If another citizen pulls out a gun against an active shooter, this will add to the confusion of the situation, and the good guy will likely be shot when the police arrive.

This is not to say that a “good guy with a gun” should not be allowed to own guns. But it is important to dispel the myth that a well armed populace makes us safer during a mass-shooting.

Guns are excellent for home-protection, but in an active shooter situation, first-strike combined with the superior fire power of the shooter, who usually strikes with a weapon that can spray bullets at a much faster rate than a handgun, makes it all but impossible for a responsible handgun owner to stand their ground, even when properly trained. And adding another gun at the scene usually creates additional confusion for the police and victims alike.

Unfortunately the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is doing everything in our power from keeping him from getting that gun in the first place.

mcclain

Fallacious argument #6

Gun control doesn’t work. Chicago has incredibly strict gun control laws and they have a huge gun violence problem.

Again there is some measure of truth in the above argument (noticing a pattern yet?)

There’s a saying in Chicago that goes

“Chicago has a serious gun control problem. It’s called Indiana.”

In other words, stricter gun control laws in one city only serve to encourage the importing of guns from neighboring cities with lax gun control.

While getting guns into Australia or Japan may prove to be next to impossible due the obvious challenges of getting guns onto a plane and then past border agents, getting guns into a neighboring city is as easy as loading up your car and driving them in.

Chicago’s gun-control laws are impotent and will remain so unless the same laws are passed as a blanket measure across the entire United States.

Tight gun control laws in an individual city are unlikely to have a major effect. Gun control laws would need to be passed on a national level in order to truly have a noticeable impact.

kids

Fallacious argument #7

What about Switzerland? They are required to own guns and they don’t have a gun violence problem.

The Swiss are NOT required to own guns, but this is a common misconception. Still Switzerland is worth discussing because they are an example of a culture that actually has a well regulated militia. Exploring how Switzerland maintains a gun culture without having excessive gun violence could provide some insight into how Americans could improve our own gun culture.

First it is important to note that it is mandatory to join the military in Switzerland for all able-bodied males. After military training is completed a non-assault weapon may be purchased from the government, by the graduated soldier. As you might imagine this means that every gun owner in Switzerland has a high-degree of gun training and is taught a healthy respect for gun safety.

Swiss citizens are required to undergo a background check for every gun purchase and the Swiss government reserves the right to strip citizens of their guns for criminal offenses.

It is also important to note that being required to have a career in the military makes gun ownership a prestigious honor in Switzerland, versus in America where owning a gun simply means that managed to accrue a few hundred dollars.

Swiss gun owners often speak of a deep sense of Nationalism that comes along with their gun ownership. Whereas in America citizens often speak of needing guns to defend against other Americans, in Switzerland the gun owners speak about using their guns in the event of having to defend their country from invasion.

Switzerland is the embodiment of a well regulated militia.

Gun advocates would be wise to take notes of the differences between the two cultures and our relationship with our firearms.

swiss

Fallacious argument #8

What about Hitler? He took away all the guns and look what happened there.

This is a commonly believed myth, when in fact the opposite was true.

After World War I, stiff gun regulations were placed on Germany as part of the sanctions for losing the war. Adolf Hitler actually loosened all gun regulations when he rose to power in 1938.

While it is true that Hitler did ban gun ownership for Jews, he simultaneously allowed all citizens with a hunting license to open carry and lifted regulations on gun and ammo purchases, while simultaneously extending all gun permits to be extended from one year to three years. Hitler’s gun control laws were so lax that German citizens under the age of 18 were allowed to apply for guns and were often successful in obtaining them legally. In other words, the citizens of Germany could have offered an armed resistance to their fascist government, but chose not to. The German citizens were tired of being poor and fell in line behind Adolf Hitler’s message of German superiority. Hitler did not support gun prohibition.

 

hitler

Fallacious argument #9

Well, drugs are illegal and yet we still have a drug problem in America.

The goal of laws is not to eliminate crime, but to limit it.

As we have discussed previously, there will always be those who choose to break the law, which is why it is important to have a criminal justice system. But no one would be so asinine as to suggest that just because some people choose to break laws, that this means that we should just give up entirely on law and order.

There will always be people who will seek to obtain illegal guns, if they are not allowed to obtain them legally.

There is simply no logical reason for making this easier on the criminal element of any civilized society.

gunmerica

Fallacious argument #10

Gun prohibition would never work. With 300 million guns already owned in America, you could never collect them all. I sure as hell wouldn’t give mine up!!

No one is asking you to give up your gun.

But since you brought it up, gun-prohibition actually does work.

It is worth reading up on how Australia accomplished this after the Port Arthur mass shooting of 1996. They enacted sweeping gun reform, offered amnesty to those with illegal guns and began a gun buy back program, offering fair market value to encourage people to sell their guns back to the government for destruction.

This is not to say that everyone in Australia participated in the gun buyback. Approximately 80% resisted and kept their guns. The same would undoubtedly be true in America. It would take decades for the idea of gun prohibition to become a reality. Over time guns break, people die and relatives turn over their deceased loved one’s guns and other guns are ceased when people break laws and there is a search and seizure.

This is not to suggest that America should follow suit and demand gun prohibition. The point is to acknowledge that where gun prohibition has been instituted that it has absolutely worked. It works in Australia, Japan and in every other country where it has been applied.

It is common for people to argue this point by posting a meme laced with false information or by pointing out an exception to the rule where someone actually did get their hands on a gun and used it in a country that practices gun prohibition.

Science is never at the mercy of anecdotal evidence, yet still the unscientifically minded will continue to argue by posting the exception to the rule. For example someone might point out that there was a mass-knifing in China or produce an article that shows how Japan still has six deaths per year from gun violence.

It is difficult to argue with people who are determined to use the exception to the rule as evidence that the rule is incorrect, when no sensible person is trying to make the argument that any method will work 100% of the time. What we are speaking of is minimizing unnecessary gun-violence, while acknowledging that eliminating the problem entirely isn’t feasible.

It’s okay to say that you love your gun, but let’s deal in facts.

Gun prohibition has been proven to work in countries where it was enacted.

australia

Fallacious argument #11

You can’t take away my right to own a gun!! It’s in The Constitution!!

Once again, this is not an article about gun-grabbing, but rather an article about fallacious arguments surrounding American gun culture. But let us remember that The Second Amendment is just that, an amendment. It was an addition to The Constitution by the government of Virginia, because the slaves outnumbered the plantation owners and Virginians were worried about slave rebellions.

The United States Constitution can and will be amended to change with the times. Just as the 21st Amendment overturned the 18th Amendment, an amendment can be passed that would overturn The Second Amendment.

If we are to keep that from happening, responsible gun-owners may want to examine what it means to have a well-regulated militia and also to examine what it means to keep and bear arms.

Obviously there is a limit to this right. American citizens are not allowed to own tanks, rocket launchers or nuclear weapons, for example.

The greatest threat to our Constitutional rights as gun owners is to continue to allow guns to fall into the hands of irresponsible citizens whose actions reflect poorly on those of us who believe that owning a gun is a responsibility to be taken seriously.

whitethug

Non-fallacious argument

I need my gun to hunt and for home protection!!

This is the best argument for owning a gun. It is logical and respectable.

Licensed hunters are an important part of keeping ecosystems balanced and it is my personal belief that every person has an inalienable right to protect their home and personal property.

I would like to take a moment to speak on the subject of clip capacity. Coming from a family of hunters I can say that I have never seen anyone use more than four bullets to take down an animal.

In the event of a home invasion, it is highly unlikely that there will be a need to fire more than a few bullets to thwart the invader(s). If your argument for gun ownership is based around hunting or home protection, I assume that you would be in agreement that we should limit round capacity to between six to ten bullets, as no one needs a military grade weapon that can fire 120 rounds per minute.

I fully support the rights of people to own guns for hunting and self defense, but if those are your actual reasons for gun-ownership then you would have no need for military grade weapons anyway.

These weapons should be reserved for the heroes who are brave enough to enlist and serve in the United States military.

march

Fallacious argument #12

Okay, you made some great points, but now is not the time to discuss gun control. It’s wrong of you to politicize a tragedy.

Sadly, there is never a time in America where there is not a mass shooting, as America averages more than one mass shooting every day. Mass shootings have become so prevalent that they usually do not even make national news unless they involve ten or more victims. If we wait until there are no mass shooting to have this discussion then we will never have it.

The time is now for responsible gun owners to stop regurgitating fallacious arguments and demand common sense gun control laws that protect their own rights, while keeping guns out of the hands of the worst members of our society.

While it is true that we will never be able to completely eradicate gun violence, it is incumbent upon all law abiding gun owners to do everything they can to keep guns out of the hands of street thugs and the mentally ill.

Hopefully this article will help you have more productive gun discussions with people on all sides of the gun debate.

Using flawed and fallacious arguments belittles us all.

dresswithgun
Michael E Sparks is a responsible gun owner who believes that common sense gun control laws protect the rights of the good citizens of America while saving the lives of the innocent. Michael is a completely independent journalist who is funded solely by his readers. If Michael’s work has value to you consider donating $1 by clicking HERE.

 

 

 

Advertisements

108 thoughts on “The 12 Most Common Fallacious Gun Arguments (and How to Refute Them)

  1. “Gun prohibition has been proven to work in country’s where it was enacted.” That should read “countries.” The apostrophe is used to denote possession, as in “my country’s gun problem.” It’s almost never used to denote a plural, which is why “CD’s, DVD’s,” etc, etc. are always wrong.
    Hey, you asked for proofreading help. Just trying to help out (and help you prevent future errors). 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Michael, there are so many fallicies and historic inaccuracies that it would take a very long time for me to address each one in detail. I’ll not do that, but here’s one example (one of a shocking number of them). “The second amendment was placed there by Virginia” ?!?? Seriously? Do you really think that’s true ? It is not even close to widely accepted historic record. The 2nd amendment was part of the first 10 amendments also known as The Bill of Rights. Are you aware of what “The Federalist Papers” are and how and why they were used ? Do you know the history of the exhaustive process it was to get all states to agree to what was originally “ The Articles of Confederation” and the inclusion of the Bill of Rights ? You can look up for yourself the answers to each of those questions, but when you said “it was placed there by Virginia “ and it was due to slaves out numbering owners, I was done reading your content. As a writer, credibly and accuracy should be among your most important goals. You failed yourself and your readers in this case. My criticism is meant to be constructive. I hope you accept it that way and that it helps. Best wishes.

        Liked by 5 people

          1. Jami, thanks but I have a much more complete education on the constitution than Wikipedia (cliff notes) can provide in a short blurb. You are not commenting to someone that isn’t educated on the topic, but thanks for your reply.

            Liked by 2 people

        1. David, your criticism on that point may be valid. But is this your way to argue that America has a uniquely good system related to guns and doesn’t need to learn from other countries? Studying American history is an honorable pursuit, but why should we obsess about what some people thought in 1789 when this is 2018?

          I understand some writer of the Federalist Papers (Madison?) thought that gun rights protected us from a tyrannical government, but there is a question about whether that was the prevalent opinion even at that time. A Militia Act was passed in 1793 that gave the president the right to call up the militias.

          I had a correspondence with someone recently who said any male between 16 and 45 is a member of the militia today. I said, “since that’s the first I’ve heard of that, I have to conclude the militias have no practical existence today.” He got me to look at the text of the militia laws online. The last time they were revised was in the early 50’s. Apparently there was danger of racial violence in the South at that time, and people in Congress thought the militias might help with that. But it never really happened. The National Guard was adequate for controlling the violence. Militias have held no interest for Congress since that time.

          Like

          1. Hi Ted,
            Those are good questions. The second amendment mentions BOTH a “well regulated militia” AND “the rights of the PEOPLE” not being infringed. The “militia” and the “people” are not one entity, they are two. Your question regarding “why should we obsess about what some people thought in 1789 vs. now” ? For the same reason we protect and defend all of our Constitutional Rights. Each of them are there for a critical reason, especially the first 10 amendments. They are the foundation of our nation. Those ideals created the most free nation the world had known. The power was to be with the people and individual states, not the federal government. The 2nd amendment and The Bill of Rights are no less valid today than they were 200 years ago in most people’s opinion. Some people want to point out that only muskets existed then rather that the advanced rifles of today and therefore it should no longer apply. That would be pretty much the same thinking as having the opinion, that Free Speech should not apply to social media, the internet or megaphones for that matter. It’s not a viable or common sense argument IMO. Does that make sense to you ? Also, history does in fact clearly show that the potential of tyranny was absolutely a consideration then when our founders were drafting the documents that would guide our nation. The age of enlightenment and many of that period’s writers heavily influenced our founders. Past history even back then showed them the dangers of too much government power and control. We are all aware of the examples of atrocities committed by governments since then when government gained too much power. The 13 million killed a the direction of Hitler, the 10’s of millions that died as a result of Moa or Stalin are perfect examples. It’s not a coincidence that each of those examples includes disarming the public. There are many reason’s the 2nd amendment exists, the possibility of tyranny is only one of them. One of the most important things to understand about the constitution is that it’s there in part to protect people from other people’s opinions. That our Rights are “natural rights”, they are not granted to us by government, they already exist and are “inalienable”. The Constitution is there to both acknowledge and protect those already existing Rights. Hope that helps.

            Liked by 2 people

            1. Dave,
              I think you are letting your gifts at argumentation get in the way of seeing some realities.

              In the time that we’ve had one constitution, France has had at least three, maybe four. I believe that the coming of a new one was generally the result of some catastrophe like defeat in war or collaboration with the Nazis in World War II. We may be overdue for a reckoning like that, too.

              You said: “Some people want to point out that only muskets existed then rather that the advanced rifles of today and therefore it should no longer apply. That would be pretty much the same thinking as having the opinion, that Free Speech should not apply to social media, the internet or megaphones for that matter. It’s not a viable or common sense argument IMO.”

              When the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written, certain principles looked good. Now circumstances are different. This isn’t just about a logical analysis of words in the Bill of Rights. Free speech still looks good; the 2nd Amendment doesn’t anymore.

              When muskets were the norm and guns had to be reloaded after every shot, that put some limits on the fantasy life of the shooter. When you can only fire one shot, I would think your focus is going to be more on cooperation with other people in your unit or militia. You’re not expecting to be a big hero yourself. You may turn out to be one, but you don’t fantasize about it. This article does a good job, I think, of showing what a “well regulated militia” can be like in this age of automatic weapons:

              https://agingmillennialengineer.com/2018/02/15/fuck-you-i-like-guns-2/

              Liked by 1 person

              1. well we have a constitutional amendment process to amend the constitution and we can have a constitutional convention where we rewrite it completely. at the time the constitution was written there were multi shot weapons. its a fallacy to say that it was only single shot muskets in play at the time. it is an opinion that the 2nd doesnt still hold water. that opinion is not shared by everyone

                Liked by 1 person

              2. ” France’s collaboration with the Nazi’s durning WWll” ???? Are you aware that Germany invaded and defeated/occupied France in WWll ? “collaborated”, I think not. Aside from that, our country has had no need to rewrite the Constitution, it has and continues to serve this country quite well. I recognize that the Constitution is an enemy to the left because it stands in the way of the left’s idea of utopia. The lovers and supporters of freedom defend the Constitution. I defend the Constitution.

                Liked by 1 person

            2. Dave,
              Even though you claim to be an expert at history, you are making some pretty well memed mistakes in here. Hitler armed the German population, Germans were “disarmed” (on paper less than in reality) post WWI – but the Nazi’s did away with almost all regulation other than an attempt to prevent Jews from obtaining any more guns. They later seized guns from Jews, but over all the fascist government armed its people, they did not disarm them.

              The Founding Fathers were frightened by a standing army, because they feared coups, militias were intended to protect us, rather than a standing army, because every man was to be able to use a gun (which is far from the case now). So Congress was meant to be able to call up the Militias, but it was not as simple as that, The southern states did not want that to be Congresses call, because they used militias as slave patrols (their militias to capture runaway slaves, quell salve uprisings, and punish instigators) and they were regulated by the states. Let’s not white wash history and pretend that the South was not concerned slavery when the 2nd amendment was drafted.

              Like

              1. EMC, please point out exactly where I “claimed to be an expert at history”. You lost credibility in your very first sentence. Am I knowledgeable ? yes, yes I am. Nowhere here or anywhere else did I claim to be an expert with history. However, I am knowledgeable enough to recognize that rather than you trying to understand the main point that I was making, you instead searched for some insignificant detail to try to discredit me. The funny thing is that the only person you discredited was yourself. LOL. Good day.

                Liked by 1 person

              2. It’s also obvious to me that you think you have expertise regarding the intent of the founding fathers regarding the Constitution. You failed to recognize or understand that the 2nd amendment refers to two different entities not one. It refers to both a militia AND the people. They are two entities not one. Forgive me for saying so but, you know a lot less than you think you do.

                Liked by 1 person

    1. If a person is hetrosexual it’s ok, if a person is gay, it’s ok if a person is fill in the blank with a sexual gender based word, it’s ok . However, if a person is an ammosexuals whom loves thier guns more then they love and respect the lives of humans then it is NOT. Ok. That’s all.

      Like

    2. If you believe that any of the arguments are defective in logic or that any of the asserted facts are untrue, then by all means present refutations. However, your comment is unhelpful and adds nothing to the discussion.

      Like

        1. Literally…you don’t understand the word literally. Also, if you can’t understand that our nation needs gun reform, you are literally ignorant. Please reread the article and try to think imagine your child was now gone from a school shooting. You can do it…another perspective.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. So you cherry pick ONE thing out of this article, and that’s what you base your ridiculous opinion on? Did you even read the whole thing? Because you literally sound uninformed, closed-minded, and ridiculous.

          Like

  2. Regarding “Gun prohibition has been proven to work in countries where it was enacted…”
    Yeah, that’s wrong. You ignored Mexico… Brazil… El Salvador… Philippines… etc.

    How can people believe gun prohibition will work when they yammer on about “ghost guns” and recognize the fact that we are already AWASH in guns. It would be like trying to confiscate everyone’s cars!

    Liked by 1 person

      1. We, the third world countries, do not have mass shootings. Please get your passport and visit us. We love music, dance, real family values , no guns. Welcome to the so called “third world”

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Excellent article, with a few questions. In #7, regarding Switzerland, you speak as if all Swiss gun owners are men with a military background. Are women and immigrants to Switzerland not allowed to own guns?
    Also, it is my understanding that, in Switzerland, the government controls the bullets, and a civilian’s purchasing thousands of rounds to keep at home is just not a possibility. Is this true?
    Finally, are the Swiss allowed to keep bullets at home, for “home protection”?

    Like

    1. He didn’t say that. He said “all men are required to serve in the military.” Which is true. He went on to say that once a person has served in the military, they are allowed to purchase non-military grade firearms. Women can and do serve, and all allowed to purchase fireams after service. Men MUST serve, women who voluntarily join can also buy.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. Please add “the solution is to arm teachers in the classrooms.” There is so much wrong with this argument because it suggests that more guns is the answer to our gun problem. I use your article a lot to refute a lot of fallacies. I would love for you to add this VERY common fallacy to your article!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. If Chicago’s gun violence problem is caused by Indiana’s slack gun laws, how come Indiana doesn’t have a gun violence problem? The great majority of gun assaults are concentrated in a few cities. It’s worth examining what these cities have in common.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Speaking as a non-gun-owning snowflake gun control advocate, this strikes me as possibly the most practical and valuable reference I’ve ever encountered. I don’t necessarily think we need gun prohibition or anything near it, but let’s all at least have a rational debate about how to regulate them that isn’t poisoned by the same illogic over and over again (at the expense of so many lives!).

    I’ll be circulating this as widely as I can. Thank you thank you thank you.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Um, yeah that’s totally not what it says, it’s what you want to see. We don’t allow “anyone”, unless highly trained and for specific purposes to handle explosives. A regular person can’t buy anything used to blow up a building. Hell, you can’t even buy certain items that are potentially used in gum making without getting flagged. Also, no one is saying all Americans, this is your own victim mentality, we’re blaming access to guns. Fuck you’re stupid.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Really? Ever heard of the Oklahoma City bombing? Maybe you should look that up. And I had no idea it was so hard to buy supplies to make gum.
          Oh, and how many guns were used on 9/11? How many of the terrorists used guns to hi-jack the planes? ummm, none. Box Cutters. So did we outlaw box cutters? No. Outlaw planes? No.
          We now search for weapons before you board a plane. And everyone seems to be ok with that. But for some reason, people aren’t ok to put in place the same security to protect our children. Go figure.

          Liked by 1 person

  7. I love how you wrote this article. I don’t agree with all of it, but well written and I love the tone. Someone from Illinois can not be a gun in Indianna. Unless they are a citizen from Indianna with a valid drivers licesence. You can buy a gun illegally, but again there is the rub. Also Japan and Australia are islands which makes a huge difference in inforcing gun bans.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You’re correct. However, people who live in Indiana could easily purchase weapons and then simply bring them in to other states. Ultimately, I feel the point he was trying to make was more so along the lines that it would take widespread reform to make an impact on the current infrastructure of gun related violence. Having stricter laws in only one city is like plugging one hole when your sinking ship looks like swiss cheese, it’s just not going to make a dent no matter how hard you try.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. It works like this: Indiana resident buys guns legally. Illinois resident goes to Indiana buys guns from Indiana resident. This is a business with multiple legal residents buying a gun and selling it to the broker. Because this is a lucrative business endeavour it is frequently run as a criminal enterprise by affiliated gangs. A second option is get an Indiana drivers license. Not that difficult and has the added bonus of lower state income taxes. A permit is only required for handgun purchases.Those who say Indiana has no gun problem are misinformed. It ranks #18 in the top 20 states for firearm deaths.

        Like

        1. So a couple of things. First off if they are buying guns to resell to a broker or anyone for that matter they are no longer legal gun purchases. This is called a straw purchase which is already illegal. Box 11.a on ATF Form 4473 which is the first attestment question. Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm listed on this form? Warning if you are not the actual transferee/buyer the dealer can not sell the firearm to you. This was slightly paraphrased as it’s a very long attestment. So at the point you check yes when you are buying it to resell, you are lying on a federal document. Which makes you a criminal no different than falsified tax returns. Second it is required by the ATF to report any transfer that is for 3 or more firearms. I would think that if you were trying to maximize profits you would try to buy several guns at once. I also don’t know how lucrative this would really be as a lot of times “Joe on the corner” has a stolen gun that he will sell for $300 when your trying to sell your new gun for $600 to make money.

          Liked by 1 person

    2. JB is correct. Gary, IN, which has a bad crime rate itself, is bordering Chicago and there are people who live there and work in Chicago. It’s not illogical to think that there would be disreputable gun-owning Hoosiers who cross into Chicago for reasons other than legal employment and use their guns there.

      Like

  8. “Michael E Sparks is a responsible gun owner ” – This is right under a picture of him holding a Baretta 9mm facing in an unsafe way and he has his finger on the weapon’s trigger.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yeah, you missed the point of that picture and of the at times, sarcastic tone of the article. You must be fun at parties.

      Like

  9. “In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”
    I can accept that defensive possession of a lawful firearm IN THE HOME for the defense OF THE HOME can be an exception to the language of the Second Amendment — but it’s application to concealed or open carry of a firearm in public goes far beyond the Heller decision.
    From the SCOTUS decision RE: Heller vs DC

    Like

  10. I like what you said, makes sense to me. The two gun owners I shared it with want nothing to do with you, can’t hear anything you say because of your stupid picture.

    Like

  11. Far too lengthy to read all of this, but at least half of your argument I agree with. But I’ll keep the few pistols I have, thank you.

    Like

  12. Good article except #11 is wrong.

    It claims erroneously that the Second Amendment was WRITTEN by Virginia to justify their slave patrols. Wrong wrong wrong. It was WRITTEN as the mechanism by which We the People would defend our government and nation in times of war in the absence of a standing military.

    The word “Nation” was changed to “State” in order to ensure RATIFICATION to get Southern Slave States on board, giving them legal justification for their slave patrols.

    This is pertinent because it speaks to original intent and the overriding purpose of the Amendment and the paradigm for national defense as envisioned by the Founders.

    It was never intended to be for anything beyond national defense. It took the Scalia Court to replace the context of national defense with self defense.

    Like

    1. Very astute clarifications. To those who now claim that it as well was designed to allow citizens to mount armed challenges against a tryannical government, meh, the fear at the time, and one reason for the well regulated civilian militia,was of the tyrannical mob (Shay’s Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, as well as slave uprisings).

      Liked by 1 person

  13. Nice article! However, a piece of constructive criticism: Bullet capacity refers to a magazine’s size, not a “clip.” A clip is a loading mechanism for a magazine, often an internal magazine; such as used in an M1 Garand.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. I’ve owned guns…pellet guns for target shooting. The only one you got really wrong here is that guns were made for killing. To me, they are more like for playing darts and a means of practicing a steady hand (for photography). And don’t say “hahaha, pellet guns aren’t real guns.” Some pellet guns have a .50 bore, and they are used for hunting big game. You could easily do almost what you do with a ‘powder-burner.’ Skeet shooting kills no one. Well, I guess I’d have to research that, but likely surfing kills as many. I’m all for gun control and stopping the ridiculous comments and knee-jerk reactions. There can easily be better more intelligent laws that don’t take away rights. Have your AR-15 at an area designated for shooting, and store it there. If that’s all you want it for, that’s all you need. Sorta like owning a yacht — stays at the pier.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. “While it is true that we will never be able to completely eradicate gun violence, it is incumbent upon all law abiding gun owners to do everything they can to keep guns out of the hands of street thugs and the mentally ill.”
    Maybe let’s not say “mentally ill”, huh? Mentally ill includes people who are pretty normal but have anxiety, depression, OCD…and as for people with more severe disorders (like maybe schizophrenia), you can totally make the argumetn they shouldn’t have guns…but the way things stand, you’re demonizing them, as if to lump people with mental illnesses in with the psychopaths who have shot people ,which is a whole other battle to gun control and mass shooting discussions. I’d recomend the phrase “mentally disturbed.”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you Rii; you have said exactly what I was going to. I will just add my two ha’pence worth. I am ‘mentally ill’. I have multiple mental health conditions. Do I want to kill anyone? No. Lumping everyone who has any mental health condition, which is a LARGE number of people, together under the heading of ‘mentally ill’ and talking as if they are the ‘real’ threat is counter-productive and cruel.

      I will add that schizophrenia is not psychopathy. Most people who suffer from schizophrenia don’t want to hurt everyone. If ‘the mentally ill’ are a problem, how about treating us like people instead of sticking stupid, cruel, inaccurate labels on us and actually do something to help instead of perpetuating the stigma and the mistreatment of us. ‘Mentally ill’ is not the opposite of ‘normal’ (another stupid label).

      Sorry this has turned into a bit of a rant but the stigmatization of ‘mentally ill’ people needs to stop, now!!!

      PS: FYI, the specific mental health conditions I have include severe clinical depression, generalized anxiety disorder, and emotional instability disorder (what used to be called BPD). Having people in the internet treat me as if ‘mentally ill’ was synonymous with ‘monster’ does not help.

      PPS: I am also autistic; do not make the mistake of believing that autism is a mental illness. It is a neurological condition that mean my brain is differently wired to those of people dubbed ‘neuro-typical’.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Let’s add to that that only around 4% of gun violence is actually perpetrated by people who are legally deemed a danger to themselves or others i.e. mentally ill. The other 96% of gun violence is coming from sane people. Mental illness is not the real problem here.

      Like

  16. Please don’t use the image of shooters. Please subscribe to the No Notoriety plea of victims and survivors. Putting the Sandy Hook shooter’s photo in the same context as Bruce Willis is even worse. Please don’t glorify them, even unintentionally. This is a great article. Thank you.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. The 12 Most Common Fallacious Gun Arguments

    Note : The above comment is a website that Gun Grabbers quote, the numbers are comments made by gun advocates and the (A:) is their answer to the question. In this case the (R:) is my rebuttal to their answer.

    1.If guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns.

    A : A quick look at the mass-shooters in America illustrates that there is simply no way that the average spree-shooter could afford to own a gun if forced to pay black-market prices.

    R : No, they would just use cheaper ways to do the same thing. In Australia mass murderers, have very successfully used fire. Others have taken to using cars or trucks. A gallon of gas and a book of matches makes for a very effective mass murder weapon. Fire has been used as the largest mass murder in US history (besides 911) — The Hartford Circus fire. And the largest in the world, the Seoul Subway fire.

    2. I need a gun to protect myself from my corrupt government.

    A : Our military has the most sophisticated weapons and armor the world has ever known. There simply is no civilian weapon that could stand up to their tremendous military might.

    R : Right because we were able to walk all over Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. These countries did an excellent job standing up to the US might. It wasn’t pretty but they did stand up; they changed their tactics and didn’t stand toe-to-toe, just hit and run. Besides the US Military is made up by a huge number of gun owners; guess who will not stand up to confiscation?

    3. Well knives and cars kill people! Do you want to outlaw knives and cars too?

    A :The fundamental difference is that cars and knives have other uses besides killing.

    R : The absolute vast majority, over 99.999% of all guns will never, ever be used to shoot anyone. They are used to poke holes in paper from a distance. They are used for sport, for hunting, for competitions. There are even several olympic events around shooting!

    4. Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.

    A : It is abundantly obvious that guns are an essential part of the equation of GUN violence. . . Guns don’t kill people on their own. But guns in the hands of the wrong people will kill the innocent.

    R : Yes, no argument there, if you remove the gun, you don’t have gun violence; that kinda goes with the term “gun violence”. Kinda like if you take Opium out of “Opium Epidemic”, you no longer have Opium epidemic. In other words, this is just a semantics answer, means absolutely nothing. No one is arguing that people who use guns to kill are the wrong people to have guns; but the blame is on the PERSON not the gun. As in the second part of the answer, put the same gun in the hands of a honest person vs a criminal and you’ll have different results. The gun didn’t change anything, the person did.

    5. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

    A : Guns are excellent for home-protection, but in an active shooter situation, first-strike combined with the superior fire power of the shooter, who usually strikes with a weapon that can spray bullets at a much faster rate than a handgun, makes it all but impossible for a responsible handgun owner to stand their ground, even when properly trained. And adding another gun at the scene usually creates additional confusion for the police and victims alike.

    R : This is just an outright wrong answer. Note that there are almost no automatic weapons; criminals haven’t used them since the 1930’s when they were banned. Thus everything else are semi-automatics. This means one pull of the trigger, one shot. Guess what, the limiting factor isn’t the weapon, almost all semi-autos can keep up with the finger, be it handgun or rifle, no difference at all. Handguns have been used, and are an excellent source of protection from a rifle; unless the rifle is shooting from a over 50 to 100 yards away. As for adding confusion, all CCWs know, as soon as the police show up, put the gun down, hands up and comply 100%.

    6. Gun control doesn’t work. Chicago has incredibly strict gun control laws and they have a huge gun violence problem.

    A : Tight gun control laws in an individual city are unlikely to have a major effect. Gun control laws would need to be passed on a national level in order to truly have a noticeable impact.

    R : The point is that it would be criminal to buy a gun somewhere else and bring it into Chicago. But since that is happening, it just proves that criminals don’t care about the laws. All it is doing is removing the guns from the hands of the honest people. While yes, more universal gun legislation is a good idea; what legislation do you adopt?

    Secondly, if Indiana is the cause of the problem in Chicago, then why doesn’t Indiana have an even worse crime rate then Chicago? But to purchase weapons in Indiana they would have to be an Indiana resident. And someone buying a mass amount of guns from Indiana and bring them to Chicago would set off a ton of flags in the background check system.

    7. What about Switzerland? They are required to own guns and they don’t have a gun violence problem.

    A : Switzerland is the embodiment of a well regulated militia.
    Gun advocates would be wise to take notes of the differences between the two cultures and our relationship with our firearms.

    R : The Supreme Court of the United States has already ruled that the term in our Constitution about a well regulated militia means the general populous. But yes, if you want to own a gun, you need to practice train with it; which is what most gun owners are trying to do but are being met with ever growing restrictions on being able to do so.

    8. What about Hitler? He took away all the guns and look what happened there.

    A : While it is true that Hitler did ban gun ownership for Jews, he simultaneously allowed all citizens with a hunting license to open carry and lifted regulations on gun and ammo purchases, while simultaneously extending all gun permits to be extended from one year to three years.

    R : They say it themselves, they want their people to be armed, but not those they are against… The Nazi’s proved the statement themselves.

    9. Well, drugs are illegal and yet we still have a drug problem in America.

    A : As we have discussed previously, there will always be those who choose to break the law, which is why it is important to have a criminal justice system. But no one would be so asinine as to suggest that just because some people choose to break laws, that this means that we should just give up entirely on law and order.

    R : No one is saying not to have laws; but more restrictions on HONEST people will do nothing to stop the criminals. Drugs prove this, honest people follow the laws do not do drugs. Those who do, ignore the laws. Adding another law, that only honest people will follow will NOT have any major impact on the criminals. BUT if there is a law that would have an impact, does not violate the Constitution or honest people’s rights, we are more than willing to hear them out and consider them.

    10. Gun prohibition would never work. With 300 million guns already owned in America, you could never collect them all. I sure as hell wouldn’t give mine up!!

    A : No one is asking you to give up your gun.
    . . .
    It is worth reading up on how Australia accomplished this after the Port Arthur mass shooting of 1996.

    R : Sadly, this looks at gun mass murders. How about looking at mass murders. In the 20 years before Port Arthur, and the 20 years after, had almost the same number of mass murders with almost the same number of deaths. Only thing changed was the method of murder. Most turned to fire. But there were at least 3 gun mass murders in the 20 years after.

    All it did was to result in almost a billion dollars spent, tons of family heirlooms and rare guns destroyed, all for a very false sense of security. On top of that, it worked so well in Mexico, Brazil, El Salvador, and the Philippines.

    20 Years Before Port Arthur
    Name of Massacre Date Dead
    1. Hillcrest Murders 25-Jan-1996 6
    2. 1993 Cangai Siege ??-Mar-1993 5
    3. Central Coast Massacre 27-Oct-1992 6
    4. Strathfield Massacre 17-Aug-1992 7
    5. Surry Hills Shooting 30-Aug-1990 5
    6. Oenpelli Shootings 25-Sept-1998 6
    7. Queen Street Massacre 8-Dec-1987 8
    8. Canley Vale Murders 10-Oct-1987 5
    9. Hoddle Street Massacre 09-Aug-1987 7
    10. Top End Shootings ??-Jun-1987 5
    11. Milperra Massacre 02-Sept-1984 7
    12. Wahroonga Murders 01-Jun-1984 5
    13. Campsie Murders 24-Spet-1981 5

    20 Years After Port Arthur
    Name of Massacre Date Dead
    1. Murder Suicide 28-Jun-1997 5
    2. Write St. Bikie Murders 08-Oct-1999 3
    3. Childers Palace Fire 23-Jun-2000 15
    4. Monash U. Shooting 21-Oct-2002 2
    5. Churchill Fire 07-Feb-2009 10
    6. Lin Family Murders 18-July-2009 5
    7. Hecktorville Siege 29-Apr-2011 3
    8. Quakers Hill Fire 18-Nov-2011 11
    9. Rozelle Fire Murders 04-Sep-2014 3
    10. Hunt Family Murders 09-Sep-2014 5
    11. Sydney Siege 15-Dec-2014 3
    12 Cairns Child Killings 10-Dec-2014 8

    11. You can’t take away my right to own a gun!! It’s in The Constitution!!

    A : The United States Constitution can and will be amended to change with the times. Just as the 21st Amendment overturned the 18th Amendment, an amendment can be passed that would overturn The Second Amendment.

    R : Agreed, that the Constitution can be amended. But to do so is almost impossible. And to call the 2nd Amendment just and amendment is kind of a poor argument. The first 10 are also called the “Bill of Rights”. These are rights granted to ALL people. The 2nd has absolutely nothing to do with slave rebellions, and has to do with keeping the government in check.

    12. Okay, you made some great points, but now is not the time to discuss gun control. It’s wrong of you to politicize a tragedy.

    A : The time is now for responsible gun owners to stop regurgitating fallacious arguments and demand common sense gun control laws that protect their own rights, while keeping guns out of the hands of the worst members of our society.

    R : There is never a good time, but some times are better then others. No laws should ever be made based on a knee jerk reaction, planning, and thought should always be spent on any law being passed — especially those that may effect someone’s Constitutional Rights.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. My response is long enough without repeating. This is a rebuttal to the rebuttal by Jenson above.

      1R. Arson or other violent acts cannot serve as parallel replacements for acts of gun violence without further concrete evidence. This would imply that the criminal of said atrocities would have otherwise used a gun. This is a huge assumption. It further ignores the specific psychology of arsonists, among numerous other specifics, regarding criminal behavior.

      Furthermore, one would need to prove the transposable parallel via a comprehensive analysis regarding number of deaths resulting from fires or knife attacks vs. shootings to support the idea that one method is no worse than another (If this is indeed your assumption).

      To be fair, one would need to look at all circumstantial evidence regarding each specific incident (total body count, lives saved, warning time, possible preventative measures, etc.) Let’s say, for example, 20 total mass murders with guns vs. 20 with knives… but knives only killed 5 people per incident, on average, while guns took 20.

      I could argue that all the criminals who would have used guns to commit heinous acts, instead gave up in frustration and became gardeners. I could then support my theory using 20 years of gun violence statistics in a given area with 20 years of subsequent legislation alongside a noted rise in gardening. However, this would ignore the specifics of other circumstantial evidence that may have resulted in said horticultural influx.

      2R. I can agree that, at times throughout human history, a smaller under-gunned opposition have thwarted or curtailed a larger threat. However, the second portion of your argument underscores your rebuttal. If a huge portion of the military are gun owners and will not back a tyrannical government, then said government becomes unable to spread tyranny. The primary way a government becomes tyrannical is by having the military firmly under its thumb.

      One could argue that local law enforcement might back a bad government decree and that armed citizens might prove necessary until the military convinces the government to back down. Then again, we might also argue that a large portion of local law enforcement are also gun owners and would not abide by government tyranny. This leaves us with old men in Washington declaring tyrannical objectives that few in their right mind would obey.

      I’m not saying armed citizens, in certain circumstances, could never serve an integral part of such a conflict… but the rational side of gun reform isn’t about disarming its citizens, only creating rational laws to make it a little more difficult for some criminals to gain easy access to deadly weapons and to make sure citizens can shoot.

      3R. I’ve never liked getting into this particular argument. It basically becomes a debate on weapon vs. tool… or a historical argument about a weapon’s origin. I don’t think the writer of this article is saying guns aren’t used for shooting holes in paper… or that a majority of times this is what they’re used for. I think he’s arguing that their intent originally is as a weapon, much as the design of a spiked mace. I may be wrong. Perhaps it should be worded differently.

      I don’t like to argue this topic because it becomes fairly senseless on both sides. What was the original intention of a knife? Do we also regulate other weapons that don’t have a functional origin besides maiming or killing? Does the origin even really matter?

      I can agree that target practice and shooting contests are a huge part of what guns are used for and, in this sense, they are ‘tools’ of sport. Again, common sense gun laws should not be aimed at keeping people from doing such harmless things.

      4R. I don’t think this is primarily an argument regarding semantics. It’s about logical deduction.

      Fred got into the party because he had an invitation. What are the two factors that gave Fred access? The invitation and Fred’s desire to attend. We can then substitute to draw a reasonable parallel regarding guns and people. Fred is the person. Party is the crime. Invitation is a gun. Yes, we must clarify one important specific… Fred’s desire to attend. When we say ‘people’, we must clarify ‘criminals’, but the argument still remains virtually intact. Both factors allow Fred into the party. Both factors allow gun violence to occur. Criminal Mind + Gun, a synthesis of the two.

      I don’t believe the writer is attempting to blame the gun instead of the person… but I may be wrong. But it’s also not a complete picture to blame the person and completely ignore circumstantial evidence regarding the tools of a particular crime. We don’t do this when criminals use other methods. We try and adopt certain rational laws to keep bombs and other dangerous weapons from easy criminal access. Though our methods will never be totally perfect… it would be unwise to say they serve as no deterrent whatsoever.

      5R. I will also agree that, under certain circumstances, a ‘good guy’ may stop a ‘bad guy’. But there’s an unstated ‘if’ to my statement. I’m not saying a big ‘IF’… but there are factors one must consider.

      I do believe guns can give an individual a false sense of security and can certainly usher in other possible dangers. I also think this argument can sometimes serve as diluting the issue of rational gun legislature.

      Outside of Hollywood, perfect scenarios do not always occur. Armed citizens will not always be competent. In fact, many might prove themselves quite significantly incompetent. Knowing this, it further reinforces the idea that we need rational gun regulations to ensure that gun carriers are well trained. People who know how to handle firearms should have no objection with being licensed and tested. You need a license for a boat.

      It might be worth considering using some tax revenue to help offset the cost of proper training (tax breaks, for instance, or limited free ammunition at federally recognized training facilities). Such measures might encourage citizens to go through such tests (if it doesn’t hurt the pocketbook and they get to shoot more for free).

      6R. The Chicago argument seems to be that we need federally mandated laws over state laws, so that such loopholes are significantly tightened.

      Keep in mind, it won’t close that hole entirely. Some criminals will find alternate ways to gain access to guns. However, this doesn’t mean we should have no rational gun laws. It also doesn’t mean that all criminals will find these alternate methods. Some might resort to a knife instead. They may kill fewer people by that decision. Others might become exasperated regarding their inability to live out their violent fantasies and instead get hooked on drugs, overdose or jump off a bridge. Who knows? It’s not a simple thing, this idea of what violent criminals will and will not do with fewer options for easy gun access. I don’t believe there’s one clear answer here.

      7R. Rational gun reform should not restrict citizens from proper gun training. In fact, it should encourage it. It should make it easier to be trained with a wider net of proper training facilities and incentives.

      Of course, some people will be denied training due to specific restrictions. We forfeit gun ownership through our own incompetence. If you get too old and can’t see, you sometimes loose your driver’s license. Our freedom isn’t based on doing absolutely everything we want, no matter the consequences. That’s the freedom defined by a child when their parents tell them to go to bed. “It’s a free country… I should be able to stay up as late I want!”

      8R. You do make a point here but, I feel, its a minor point to the entire argument. It’s not a point that should cripple our discussion of rational gun laws… the idea that, at some point, our government may become like Hitler. I’m not saying that’s what you’re suggesting but, whenever that be the case, it is fear mongering at its worse. It uses a worst case scenario to ignore implementing rational gun laws under saner circumstances.

      9R. It would be unfair to say that criminals will resort to any and every crime, that they are so obsessed with committing crime that they will scour the entire globe to find ways of undermining any given restriction. Sure, there will be holes in any given reform and we will need to spot those as they appear. The entire criminal enterprise collectively will search for holes… but not every individual criminal will. Some criminals will be discouraged and will engage in activities with some less damaging effects on the citizenry. Not all… but some. How many? That’s quite impossible to predict… but I can say that without any laws in place, you’re giving criminals a front row seat to engage in mayhem.

      Not only honest people follow laws. What?! Let’s be a bit specific here… I’m sure there are criminals out there that occasionally obey traffic laws… because they don’t want to get pulled over and ticketed, though they commit other crimes in the shadows. Drug dealers want primarily to sell drugs. Psychos want to be recognized. Some criminals, even those who commit murder, probably don’t want to die or spend their lives in jail. Guns, for criminals, are just a way of negotiating with the world without having to be play fair. There really is no clear cut definition for every criminal out there.

      10R. This is pretty much a repeat of argument #1 and I’ve addressed it already. It would require more study to assume a total one to one relationship, regarding mass murder. Furthermore, rational gun laws might also effect other areas of gun violence beyond mass murder alone.

      11R. I don’t care to get into arguments regarding history. Our forefathers had some good ideas. But some of these were just general principles that required further clarification or slight adjustment (amendments) to fit modern circumstances. They were not seers or gods. They were men. They tried to do what they thought best at the time and have helped us in forming the basis for our country.

      If any new gun created becomes an inalienable right to own, one could likewise argue the eventual right to a 40mm grenade launcher if criminals also begin using them. But criminals don’t currently use them, to any great degree, because you need a permit from the ATF. Paperwork and background checks can discourage criminals, especially lazy and stupid ones, which I do believe may prove to be a significant number of them.

      12R. This last argument is quite problematic. On one hand, the author makes a good point that there is no “good time” while the rebuttal above makes a good point about knee jerk reactions. Often the “not a good time” excuse seems an attempt to deflate and cripple gun laws entirely.

      Honestly, many good laws have been adopted as a result of tragedy. Civil rights legislation, for instance, didn’t wait for all the atrocities against blacks to end. Mass murderers are not going to end their killing sprees, giving us several months of a murder free America to figure out what we should or should not do.

      There’s also an assumption that, because an incident might drive the government to listen to its citizenry, that the lawmakers won’t use any logic to form subsequent laws. No government is ever going to be absolutely perfect. We’re back at that ‘not gods’ thing again. They’re men, some with financial interests, which sometimes compels them to ignore certain situations until public sentiment compels them otherwise. It’s really up to us collectively to push them into legislative action.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Dale,

        Thanks for your time to read though it and reply. It is appreciated. There are some good ideas as to what can be done, but too many are falling into the knee jerk reaction and just trying to do something that is fundamentally wrong. CA is doing this consistently and it is sad. We both agreed that those who do have guns should be practicing, but CA is now restricting ammo sales, adding fees to sales, restricting amounts and not allowing any online sales at all. So they have made guns more unsafe by requiring no pistol grips, and then make the ammo harder to get. Not a good combination. But the idea that all gun sales, new and used go through an FFL for a background check, good idea. There is room for both sides. The problem is, no matter what is done, if someone wants to commit mass murder, they will; but that doesn’t mean we should stop trying to stop them.

        Thanks again!
        Dan

        Like

        1. Thanks for your response Dan. I too agree that there is often room to be found, despite differences. This, I believe, is how a country thrives. Too often we seem to burn bridges over having reasoned debates. In my opinion, that’s a waste of potential.

          I’m honestly not aware of all the current details regarding CA’s recent actions… but will keep my eyes open. Thanks.

          Like

  18. There are blatant falsehoods in every single example. I thought it was interesting that someone who was supposedly a gun owner and had gun owners in their family would be so ignorant about them. For example he says when a gun is used properly something or someone dies or is injured. So Mike how many people has your “National Champion Sharpshooter friend” killed or injured, or is he not using his guns properly? He says prohibition would cause homicide rates to drop (using Australia as an example), yet homicide rates in the US have fallen faster than they have in Australia since1996.

    Then I googled his name and checked out his online presence. Enough said. I don’t believe a word this guy says.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Recently read an article about mass shooting in the US from the 60s to today. I happen to notice a very significant omission in that list. Most do not remember that Columbine was a copy cat of the Jonesboro Ark school shooting. And the Jonesboro School shooting was itself a copy cat of another school shooting in Pearle Miss. However if you look you will find that Pearle Miss shooting is left of a large number of list of school shootings. WHY you may ask? Because the shooter was stopped and the number of those killed was reduced due to the asst Principal going to his vehicle and retrieving his own person gun.Blocking the shooters vehicle with his own and holding him at gun point until the police arrived. . The shooter had killed him mom before going to school had shot up the high school and was about to go to the Jr High school to continue his killing spree before he was stopped by the armed Asst Principal.. So we have an example of a gun used properly and it actually SAVED LIVES not take any.

      Like

    2. Except in cases of domestic violence where the homicide rate goes up 5x when a gun is in the home AND 54% of all mass shootings are related to domestic violence AND the weapon of choice to kill a woman???? GUNS!!! Guess what? Domestic Violence homicide rates have not gone down.
      In case you think that is small portion of gun violence…women in the U.S. are 16 times more likely to be shot and killed than are women in other developed nations. In an average month, 50 American women are shot to death by intimate partners,and many more are injured. Nearly 1 million women alive today have been shot, or shot at, by an intimate partner.
      Another interesting thought: women being shot at means that children are witnessing it and are being shot too.

      States that require background checks on all handgun sales see 47 percent fewer women shot to death by intimate partners than states that do not have this requirement.

      Cities in states that restrict access to guns by people subject to domestic violence restraining orders see a 25 percent reduction in intimate partner gun homicides.

      Most states lax gun laws and the lack of federal law are the reason victims are left unprotected.
      PLEASE stop putting your want of a gun before common sense, fact and science. PLEASE stop being selfish and come to the table with actual information that will help prevent gun violence. PLEASE, for the love of our country and the people in it, put aside your personal desires for the good of the people.

      Like

      1. Care to explain why does your argument restricts to domestic violence?
        And that means the US has a gun problem rather than a domestic violence problem. Meanwhile Japan and North Korea bove have a suicide problem and no guns to scapegoat to.

        Like

        1. This is a post that shares the facts about how domestic violence and gun violence intersects in the usa. This is not an “argument” post at all it is simply statistics. .

          Like

  19. Just pointing out another typo for you: “seized” instead of “ceased” in the last sentence

    This is not to say that everyone in Australia participated in the gun buyback. Approximately 80% resisted and kept their guns. The same would undoubtedly be true in America. It would take decades for the idea of gun prohibition to become a reality. Over time guns break, people die and relatives turn over their deceased loved one’s guns and other guns are ceased when people break laws and there is a search and seizure.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Interesting article, and I appreciate the calm, rational approach. There are way too many oft-repeated fallacies coming from both sides of the issue. I agree with some of your points, and take issue with a number of others. I won’t delve into those, because they’re all secondary. The primary issue is the need to keep guns out of the hands of people who will use them to murder. Unfortunately, predicting human behavior is notoriously difficult, and never perfect. The only way to make SURE that every potentially murderous individual cannot get his or her hands on a gun is to make it impossible for ANYONE to possess a gun. Contrary to your assertion above, there are a LOT of people, including many in government, who want to do *exactly that*. Gun owners tend to tenaciously hold a very hard line on the issue because we know it’s a slippery slope. Even very reasonable restrictions open the door for ever more stringent prohibitions, impacting those of us who follow the law, and doing little to actually reduce the toll of the violence. Give them an inch, they’ll take your Glock 19 (which, with its 15+1 capacity is MY home defense weapon – if 3 or 4 goons are invading my house, and I have to reload after 6 shots, I’m probably toast. If it’s “highly unlikely” that I will need more than a few shots, then it is at least ‘somewhat’ likely that a few won’t be enough. Should I ever be in that situation, I have no desire to be caught short. Okay, so I delved into that one, sorry!). Back to my primary point… No one disagrees with the desire to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. How to do that is the problem, and ive yet to hear anyone offer a good, solid, realistic plan to address it that also preserves the rights of the millions of honest, law-abiding gun owners.

    Like

  21. I think a lot of what you have to say is well thought out and expressed. There are some flaws in your presentation however. You use a lot of hyperbole and absolutism that is just not accurate. I think the best examples of this are #2 & #3. The idea that Joe Schmo with an AR-15 can’t stand up to the US Army with a tank is a bit ludicrous. Not because a guy with a semi-auto rifle can’t beat a few soldiers in a tank… that’s obvious, but rather that any such altercation is going to have government forces pairing up a tank, drone, or ICBM against each and every civilian with a personal firearm. Further, a large group of armed civilians (Hopefully with decent health and a fair degree of competence) certainly could cause severe problems to an Army unit using tanks. You don’t just stand there and take shots at one another like some silly honor duel. You infiltrate the base, you disable the support crew. Yeah, it’s not likely to be easy, but it may be easier than rolling over and living as a slave to tyranny.

    Then there’s that oft-stated idea that “The only purpose of a gun is to kill people.” I would say that deterrence is a far more useful purpose, and vastly more successful at that. People who would break the law, or do other “bad things” otherwise, because they are not limited by empathy, respect, apathy, or inability, generally do not do such things, at least not casually, because they don’t want to get shot. The idea that a society where everyone is armed will be a crime free society is not about everybody shooting everybody else, but rather most people reconsidering violent actions for fear of a very real possibility of retribution. As things are, the vast majority of people out and about in public life are unarmed… just timid little would be victims incapable of standing up for themselves against someone with a knife or hammer, much less a gun. Unless in proximity by sheer luck, the police don’t get involved in such situations until long after it’s too late. With a larger percentage of people potentially armed (and hopefully trained) the risk vs reward shifts considerably, deterring the potential value of criminal/hostile action.

    I too am in favor of people owning guns, and of better (not simply *more*) gun control legislation. I think your presentation is a step in the right direction for all of us to work together, to communicate with each other more effectively, towards making gun violence less of a problem than it is. I also think it could use another pass.

    Best of luck, and keep up the god work.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. I see there OP way of refuting gun arguments is very simple. Lie through your teeth. Sadly i think this person actually believes what he says and actually thinks he made a logical argument. The City of Chicago where gun ownership is illegal is flooded with guns. Same can be said for NYC.. Do you actually think that the same people who transports drugs from mexico could not also transport guns from there also? The criminal element will always be able to get their hands on guns. THEY ARE CRIMINALS THEY DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAWS.

    Like

  23. i would expect an article calling out the logical fallacies of arguments to be free of logical fallacies. i was wrong. just biased nonsense easily debunked.

    Like

  24. The first thing that turned me off from this article was when it said to fire a pistol in the air to get started. Do you realize how dangerous it is to fire a pistol into the air? You don’t know where that round will land and the increase in velocity of a falling round from that far into the air could kill someone if it hit them. If you want to preach correct firearm facts, don’t use that analogy. Oh, and I really like guns. My gun makes me feel safer.

    Like

  25. As a foreigner, I have so much fun reading all this. But seriously. Americans really should step out of their stupid paradigm. I live in a place where or course criminals have guns, but hey, those are criminals.. They use them against other criminals and it doesn’t bother me. If somebody breaks into my house, I can be quite sure he doesn’t have a gun. Why should he? I don’t have one, no one has here. It’s a very small chance someone will enter my house without my consent in the first place. And even then I don’t think shooting somebody would be the proper response. They couldn’t steal something worth a life. And since they know I won’t shoot them, they have no reason to arm themselves against that. Of they would, they’d know the ‘Law’ would be on them like a ton of bricks…
    I have spent quite some time in Switserland. They own weapons there, some people there. But to get them ready, they need a few minutes.. Minutes enough to think about the consequenses. And don’t make a mistake.. any Swiss with a handgun will be caught an persecuted! An army rifle is ok – within limits, but it is ment to be used in cases where a foreign force is invading. Handguns will be of no use then and are out.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Keep growing the list of fallacious arguments! We need a database of answers to all of these challenges, backed up by evidence. Here are a few more I have heard.

    1. An AR15 is just a ‘scary looking’ rifle. It’s no different than any other gun. It just fires .223 caliber bullets, which are the same bullets that pistols fire. The argument centers around fallaciously stating that it’s only the caliber of the bullet that matters. The fact is that the AR15 ammunition has 2X more powder than a typical pistol round. More powder = more energy = more lethality (i.e. higher change of a kill from each bullet). The US military has compiled tables of data to that effect There’s a REASON the bullets in the AR15 are so similar in caliber and powder load to the M16.

    2. There’s this one guy who can shoot like 30 rounds in 4 seconds with two revolvers, therefore banning the AR15 accomplishes nothing. This argument ignores the fact that that guy had to practice a lot to reach that level of proficiency. The Parkland shooting proves beyond a shadow of doubt that any novice can be instantly dangerous with the AR15.

    3. They’ll just use a fertilizer bomb, so regulating guns accomplishes nothing. The first problem with this argument is, we would have seen a bunch of fertilizer bombs if it was so easy to make one. The fact is, it has been over 20 years since the last fertilizer bomb because after the Oklahoma City bombing, the feds made it hard to get enough ammonium nitrate to make a bomb. Making a bomb also requires skill. Buying an AR-15 only requires mowing 30 lawns and taking your piggy bank down to the gun store. There’s no skill barrier.

    Like

    1. #1 Nobody argues that an AR-15 round is less powerful because of the caliber. However power is not everything, at close ranges (which apply to most urban shootings) the AR15 tends to overpenetrate, delivering only a small portion of it’s full kinetic energy to the target, meaning that an AR15 is not necessarily more effective than a .45 Glock during a shooting.
      #2 Rate of fire does not have a significant impact in hitting multiple targets. The most efficient way to take out multiple targets is to target one at a time and only push the trigger when the target is lined up, not by dumping rounds as fast as you can.
      #3 If guns are harder to get, you’ll definitely see more stuff like fertilizer bombs. Heck in Australia they found a very simple solution: arson.

      Like

  27. First let me thank you for a well written article. I would like to weigh in with additional thought as opposed to emotion.
    The second amendment reads in its entirety, 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.
    So, what are arms?
    Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language (1828) reads, “Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.”
    Webster’s Dictionary (1913) reads, “Instruments or weapons of offense or defense.”
    Webster’s unified dictionary and encyclopedia (1959) reads, “Weapons of war”
    While the exact definition of arms changes over time, the one part that remains unchanged is that arms means weapons not guns. The word guns is nowhere in the amendment.
    Rocket launchers are weapons. Anti-aircraft missiles are weapons. Tanks are weapons. Therefore they all fall under the term arms.
    If one believes like I do that those weapons should not be allowed by average citizens, then you agree that it’s OK that the right to bear arms can be “infringed” sometimes. The real debate is where to draw the line.
    Additionally, the amendment reads, “the right of the people” not ”the right of mentally stable people.”
    If one believes like I do that weapons should not be allowed by mentally ill citizens, then you agree that it’s OK that the right to bear arms can be “infringed” sometimes. The real debate is where to draw the line.
    We all were concerned when we were made to believe that Saddam Hussein had amassed weapons of mass destruction. I believe semi-automatic weapons to also fit the definition of weapons of mass destruction. That is why they are designed to discharge such excessive ammunition in such little time.
    Like so many on the gun control side of the debate, I am not anti-gun. I do however believe in limitations to what any legal gun can do.
    Larry Doherty

    Like

    1. “If one believes like I do that those weapons should not be allowed by average citizens, then you agree that it’s OK that the right to bear arms can be “infringed” sometimes.”
      I don’t. And neither did those who wrote the US constitution. Anyone with enough money could have bought a ship cannon or any weaponry available to the military as long as they found someone selling them. Heck, the civilian populace had lever-action rifles decades before the military and that saved a lot of natives who could overwhelm the military with volume of fire.

      “If one believes like I do that weapons should not be allowed by mentally ill citizens, then you agree that it’s OK that the right to bear arms can be “infringed” sometimes. The real debate is where to draw the line.”
      Mentally ill people are 10× as likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators.

      “I believe semi-automatic weapons to also fit the definition of weapons of mass destruction. That is why they are designed to discharge such excessive ammunition in such little time.”
      The ability to fire lots of rounds in a short period of time makes a suppressive fire weapon, not a mass killing weapon. Real life isn’t like movies where you can whip out an Uzi, hold the trigger while waving the weapon and everyone in front of you dies. Taking pauses to aim and then fire is a far more efficient way to hit the most targets in the shortest possible amount of time. That’s why snipers have an average of 1 death for each 1.3 shots while infantry have an average of 1 death for every 50.000+ shots

      Like

  28. Michael love the article. Can you add to it why it makes no sense to spend a bunch of money reinforcing schools to make them fortresses? Certainly wouldn’t stop anyone from sitting OUTSIDE a school or any other populated place with their AK-47.

    Like

  29. Seems to be written by a “gun owner” in wolves clothing.

    The person writing this article is most certainly not a gun owner or is a gun owner who knows nothing about guns. The terminology they use for guns is completely wrong but is common terminology used by anti-gun owners. The arguments are completely opinion based and contradict the FBI and CDC crime/death stats. Nothing in this appeared to be based on any facts but a skewed interpretation half-truths.

    Like

  30. He uses the very same logic on each point that he is selling against, making it ok for his view but not for the opposing view. Lots of assumptions. He’s no more than an opportunist trying to get noticed and make a living selling words. Notice the “donate” link?

    Like

  31. “Common sense gun control” is like being a bit pregnant.
    What part of “shall not be infringed” are you having trouble with … Oh the NOT part.
    Fix the broken society we live in which produces these monsters. Then get back to me snowflake.

    Like

  32. What about all the shooting sports that legal citizens are very active in. Those sports are growing in America. Guns are not just for killing. Rethink that argument.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s