Two Gun-Control Arguments That Do NOT Work

[jimkeller]

As most of you know, I have friends who are all over the political spectrum. Recently, gun control has been a hot topic of conversation on all sides. I'm going to do all you anti-gun advocates a huge favor here, and fill you in on two common arguments I'm seeing a lot of that are actually weakening, not strengthening your position:

Comments

[gotham_bound]

You know. What I hear, as an anti-gun advocate (I guess? I'm not for repealing the 2nd Amendment, I'm for looking at the statistics of gun violence and seeing that if they were a disease we would be trying to end it, rather than trying to find a way to live with it), is "your emotional reaction is dumb, my emotional reasons for keeping a gun are more important." And so I shut down my emotions and try to see what my gun-owning friends (whom I love dearly and regularly pray that nothing bad happens to them every bit as hard as I pray that nothing bad happens to people who've elected to live unarmed lives) are trying to say about taking responsibility for protecting themselves, their families and their property.

And, emotionally, I've about had it. I've been hearing all the intellectual reasons for against owning a gun for my entire life, but why don't my emotional desire to live in a society where people don't arm themselves against the what-if get as much weight as the gun-owners paranoia? WHY DO I HAVE TO CURTAIL MY ARGUMENTS?

[jimkeller]

Emotionally, I'm with you. I want to live in the society where people don't arm themselves. And I think people on both sides are there with us. I don't think you should curtail that argument at all.

I do think, however, that both sides are going to have to admit that gun violence is a problem but that we can't magically make all guns go away, and think creatively about how to address it. The disease analogy is a good one. Let's use it! How do we stop swabbing at symptoms and treat the underlying causes? Where can we agree instead of shouting at each other?

(And, for the record, I think instant universal background checks was a great start. If you live in a state [we don't] with a senator who voted against that, please let them know that they're now in their last term.)

[gotham_bound]

This is everything that is where I've been intellectually. This is where I think a huge - majority, possibly even - of the country is. But there are people who fight reasonable positions like trying to simply reduce the accidents and the incidences that just don't need to happen on the basis of their right to be armed always and everywhere. And when I and my unarmed advocates for sense try to take on those arguments we get treated like we're naive newborns lost in the loaming.

I think if we could make guns magically go away then gun violence would end, QED. But somewhere in junior high I realized that magic was highly unlikely and everything would just have to happen through unmagical hard work. Ever since then i've been trying to talk about causes and look at what brings a gun into a situation and how a situation changes when a gun is introduced versus when it isn't

[stacymckenna]

The gun rights issue suffers from the exact same thing as the health care issue in this country - personal "freedoms" outweigh societal benefit, and thus we all suffer. It's asinine, as anyone who's dealt with gun related violence or the US health care "system" can tell you. It's illogical, it's reactionary, and it actively hurts innocents in our country on a daily basis.

And the majority of the developed world mocks us for it.

Much like gotham_bound, I'm sick of pandering to the lowest common denominator with regards to issues that directly harm me and mine when so much of the rest of the world demonstrates simply by existing the methods by which so much of this insanity could be eliminated.

[bovil]

So the practical thing about guns as personal/home defense?

Very few people are buying guns that are good for personal/home defense.

If you want a gun to defend yourself in your home, you want a pump-action no-choke shotgun loaded with buckshot.

The "kachunk" of chambering a round is enough to make any assailant think twice (and probably turn tail and run, solving your problem). It's a sound every American will recognize.

Point it roughly in the right direction, and it's going to hit. It's going to do a lot of damage too.

Drywall will stop buckshot, so you don't have to worry as much about accidentally hitting people in other rooms you're not trying to shoot.

Of course, there's still the problem of mistakenly assuming someone is an intruder and shooting them, but pro-gun activists seem to find that acceptable.

[jimkeller]

I must admit, when I have the nightmare in which armed klansmen are climbing the hill to my house in large numbers, I want something with a high-capacity magazine and rapid-fire capability, but if I ever do end up living somewhere where I feel the need to own a gun for self-defense, a classic double-barrel will be my weapon of choice.

Though, frankly, a simple AirSoft with a convincing silhouette is just as likely to send someone scurrying, and the risk of it killing you or someone in your household is substantially lower than the risk that your bathtub will...

[bovil]

I learned "it only counts if you hit your target."

Having shot high-capacity semi-automatics, they give "spray and pray" a bad name. Fun from an engineering and make-noise perspective, but not effective if you're not a practiced expert. Not really good for klansmen or zombies.

Having lived with a very serious gun enthusiast with a collector's heart and an engineer's thoroughness, I'm still with the pump-action shotgun. The only gun that's not locked in the armory (and his house has an armory) is his shotgun. Everything else fails his very rigorous requirements.

Of course, he also believes in sensible gun regulation, not this free-for-all we have now.

[jonahmama]

I really take issue with this: "Please, everyone, if you see police activity, grab your phone and videotape it. It's legal, and it's invaluable evidence for whichever side is in the right." Maybe I am naive, but I actually think the vast majority of the time the police are trying to do their jobs as well and as safely as possible for all concerned. The last thing they need is you and your phone getting in the middle of a volatile situation. If you see police activity, please stay well back at what is considered a safe distance, and out of everyone's way. If you want to videotape from there, fine. But when people are risking their lives to defend yours, that is NOT a chance for you to become a star on YouTube

[jimkeller]

I should clarify here that I, too, mean that videotaping of police activity should be done from a safe distance and you should not be injecting yourself into the situation.