2A Watch: The 10 Worst Gun Control Arguments
The terrorist attack last week in San Bernardino was a horrifying event on many levels. For me personally, this attack hit a bit closer to home as I used to work merely blocks away from where the shooting occurred. I never thought the unimpressive streets of Colton or Loma Linda would gain the attention of the nation, but unfortunately it occurred in the most awful way possible.The fourteen poor souls who lost their lives surely never expected to have a peaceful holiday celebration interrupted by gun fire spewing from the firearms of two sick individuals. It has been confirmed by government agencies that the husband and wife who carried out these vicious attacks on innocent people had been brainwashed by the cult commonly referred to as radical Islam.Predictably, gun control advocates immediately began to use this tragedy as a vehicle to carry their mission to disarm the populace. Recently, these gun control propagandists have been tossing every argument for gun control at the wall, hoping something would stick.As a strong proponent for the right to bear arms, I’ve reached my saturation point for bad gun control arguments. Every time I look at my Facebook or Twitter feed, my blood begins to boil as I’m bombarded with illogical, tyrannical or just plain idiotic gun control propaganda.Rather than sit back and let these gun control trolls muck up the interwebs with their garbage argument, I figured I’d have a little fun and break down the 10 Worst Gun Control Arguments.
Federal magazine limits would make it harder for an individual to carry out a mass shooting
As of today eight states and many local governments ban or regulate the use of magazines based on capacity. The United States does have a history of legislating magazine capacity at the federal level as well. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, which expired in 2004, banned the manufacture or importation of a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition, but not the sale or possession. Definitions vary by state as to what qualifies as a "large capacity" magazine. For example, New York banned rifle or shotgun magazines that hold more than 5 rounds.Support for the banning of "high-capacity" magazines is an easy way for politicians on the left to score points with the gun control crowd, but it does nothing to prevent mass shootings or to keep the public safe. Obviously, many mass shooters plan ahead and take the time to prepare many pre-loaded magazines, regardless of capacity. This video proves that it takes seconds to change an empty magazine for a full one regardless of skill level, so in reality these laws only restrict the law-abiding citizen's ability to defend themselves in the event of an attack or home break-in, because normal law-abiding citizens don't pre-load multiple magazines for defense.https://youtu.be/MCSySuemiHUBan “assault” rifles! Who cares if there is no agreed upon definition?A recent article on Reason does a fantastic job of categorizing the gun control crowd's confused understanding of the definition of an "assault" rifles. I highly recommend giving it a read. One main point underscores how many on the political left, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton included, seem to think that many recent mass shootings were carried out using firearms that they refer to as being "automatic", sometimes even calling them "machine guns." They repeatedly claim there is no place for these "weapons of war" on the streets.To the contrary, fully automatic guns are strictly regulated by the federal government, which has banned sale to civilians since 1986.There is a common misconception that the "assault rifles" that gun control advocates seek to ban are "powerful". This could not be further from the truth. Many of the firearms that fall under the largely undefined "assault rifle" umbrella fire low-caliber rounds that are much less damaging and deadly than those used in most handguns. On top of that many have a "loose" trigger, which makes it much more difficult to shoot accurately. Which is exactly why most people choose to own handguns for self-defense purposes, rather than the more complex and intricate "assault rifles."
Close the "gun show loop-hole”
How many mass shooters have exploited the "gun show loop-hole" in order to gain access to a firearm?None that I'm aware of.The gun show loophole, probably more aptly named the "private-party sale loop-hole", refers to the unregulated sales of firearms by private sellers, sometimes completed at gun shows. This leads to the misunderstanding by many in the gun control movement that all sales at gun shows do not pass through a background check. This is simply not true.The majority of sales are made by federally licensed dealers and require a background check.
Australia banned guns and now they’re super safe
President Obama has continuously referenced Australia as a model for the US to follow to reduce gun homicides and suicides. The 1996 National Firearm agreement on Firearms was rushed through Australian parliament in less than two weeks when emotions were running high after a young man shot and killed thirty-five people. The Aussie gun control measure all but prohibited auto and semi-auto rifles, stiffened licensing, instituted a gun buyback program that took 640K "assault weapons" off the streets, put in place a requirement to demonstrate a "genuine need" for a gun, and made firearm safety courses mandatory.Did the law reduce firearm related suicides and homicides?There is no clear-cut answer. Firearm suicides did fall after the laws passage, but this occurred during the same time that non-firearm suicides dropped at a much faster rate. Australia's gun-homicide rate was already low when the law was implemented, but gun homicides actually increased immediately after the law and gun buyback programs were executed. The homicide rate then returned to it's prior decreasing trend.The measures taken to remove guns from the populace seem to have had no impact whatsoever.
People on the “no fly list” shouldn’t be allowed to own guns
Here's an idea. There shouldn't even be a "no fly list." The idea of a "no fly list" runs in opposition to one of the fundamental principles in which a free society is built: due process. And getting your name on the list is much easier than you might think, and in no way requires you to be a terrorist.It's bad enough that this rights-infringing list even exists in the first place. But proposing to use the no fly list as a tool to limit gun ownership is downright unacceptable.
You’ll never be able to defeat the federal government with your guns
Really?No rational advocate for individual liberty desires armed conflict, but this statement blatantly ignores history.Have you noticed that a ragtag bunch of radical Islamic fanatics known as ISIS have been able to stave off the most powerful countries in the world and grow an expanding criminal enterprise in the Middle East? If the existence of ISIS isn't enough to convince you that an under-trained and underfunded groups can ward off the world's most powerful military, then study up on the history of Afghanistan.
The 2nd Amendment applies to the 18th Century, not modern times
Rights do not degrade over time.An individual who has the right to defend their life in 1790 in any way they so choose has the same right to defend their life in 2015.That is the essence of the Second Amendment at its core. End of story.
Gun owners need more training
This is probably the most illogical argument spouted by the gun control crowd. Incredibly, they seem to believe that more gun training would lead to a reduction in gun crime. Next time you find yourself in a debate with someone over gun rights and they bring up the need for more training, ask them if they expect a sociopath to think about leaving the safety on while on the way to the scene of a mass shooting?
It takes many cops to stop a mass shooter, so one concealed carry holder would be ineffective
This "theory" neglects to take into account the fact that many shooters are attracted to "gun free zones" in order to carry-out their crimes, because of this, in most cases no one at the scene is armed. Police always enter the scene of the crime during or after many have been killed or injured. Therefore, much of the police attention is diverted to getting the injured and those trapped to safety, while simultaneously trying to track down the perpetrator of the crimes in a chaotic situation.On the flip side, if someone at the scene of the crime had been armed they would be better positioned to take the shooter by surprise and would have the benefit of being present as the crime developed. It might only take one shot to take out a bad guy with a gun, or halt the actions planned as the attacker realizes their plan isn't going as they had hoped. Many of these people may simply opt to flee when faced with unexpected gunfire, which also saves the lives of those targeted.I'd rather individual's at least have the option to take a shooter by surprise.
Society would be safer without guns, just as kids are safer on a playground without sticks
I saw a post about this on Facebook so it must be true! Here it is.
Oh God. Where to start with this one. This is obviously supposed to be a metaphor to communicate the need for gun control in society.
This simplistic story backfires on the gun control advocate by highlighting that their argument lacks reason. The "story" above implies that the problem is caused by the existence of sticks on the playground, tempting the children to harm or injure each other. However, the real problem with this scenario is that the children have not yet been taught a basic understanding of the rights of their classmates.
Rather than teach the children about rights and when it's unacceptable to use violence, they advocate eliminating "weapons" that the children could use to violate - or in some cases defend - their classmates' individual rights. Instead of telling the children that it is not acceptable to harm another student with a stick, they completely miss the boat.
This is the intellectual equivalent of telling a child that they can't play in the middle of the street. And when they ask why you respond by saying, "because I said so." By keeping blinders on the children - or adults in the case of gun control - an opportunity is missed to teach the difference between right and wrong. This lack of reasoning is especially dangerous because it fails to address when it unacceptable to use force i.e. "a stick", and when it is acceptable, as in the case of self defense.
That's my top 10 list of the worst gun control arguments. Did I miss anything? What would you add to the list? Please join the discussion on Facebook in the Lions of Liberty Forum. We promise to approve your request to join as quickly as possible.
Give a listen to Marc Clair's interview with Gun Owners of America's Executive Director, Larry Pratt.
Download this episode (right click and save)Check out previous editions of Second Amendment Watch!The Lions of Liberty are on Twitter, Facebook & Google+Check out our YouTube Channel!Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!Join our private Facebook Group: The Lions of Liberty Forum
