Putting Four Arguments Against Gun Control To The Test
By Arianna Israel
On Monday, a shooting occurred at the Washington Navy Yard, claiming 12 lives and injuring 8. Mass shootings, unfortunately, seem to have become a cyclical, unavoidable occurrence unable of motivating a serious response from the government.
As a society, we have already resigned ourselves to the implausibility of gun control. After the recall elections in Colorado last week resulted in two Senators in support of gun control measures being voted out of office (due in large part to extensive NRA support of their opponents), it’s just not worth the risk for politicians. If the mass murder of 20 children couldn’t convince Congress to ignore the NRA’s political pressures and address the flaws of the system, then we can rest assured that they’ll remain relatively indifferent to the death of 12 adults at a military site.
I have come to realize that it is impossible to have a reasonable conversation about gun control. Let me introduce you to some of my all-time favorite arguments.
1) The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
I am pretty sure that this is the NRA’s catchphrase by now, but there is a major issue with this argument. The “good guy with a gun” is not necessarily an Olympic marksman. Real life is not a choreographed action sequence in a James Bond movie. It is much more likely that a public shootout will result in massive collateral damage. Furthermore, we don’t need untrained vigilantes because we already have good guys with guns; they are called trained police officers.
2) You know what the first thing Hitler did? He took away the guns.
It just wouldn’t be a party unless someone invited a Hitler analogy (especially a factually inaccurate Hitler analogy). Germany did ban gun ownership in 1919 to comply with pressure from the international community in the form of the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler, when he assumed power, actually passed a law to reduce the gun restrictions. Even if he did take away all the guns, gun control policies are not inherently evil by association; there is no proof of causality. Just look at failed artists. Sure they’re not the greatest segment of society, but at the same time they’re not automatically mass murderers.
3) Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
This argument has the right words, wrong order. People with guns kill people. Although someone could theoretically go on a murder spree armed with a bucket of stones, chances are they wouldn’t kill twenty people in less than fifteen minutes. Guns have the uniquely terrifying ability to be extremely efficient at killing people. If rocks were good weapons, I am sure the federal government would enjoy providing the military with the much cheaper alternative. As you may have guessed, they don’t.
4) Gun control laws wouldn’t work since criminals won’t follow them.
Considering the definition of a criminal is one who does not abide laws, there is a partial truth to this. But at the same time, should we not make laws just because criminals won’t follow them?
Gun control arguments seem to digress quickly into apocalyptic predictions of a day when Supreme Overlord Obama comes to the door of every American and demands his gun and his wife. This overshadows the validity of points on both sides of the debate and makes reasonable conversation nearly impossible. In a world where the NRA purposefully induces paranoia and spreads false narratives with its immense funding and huge lobbying force, gun control will remain an elusive and dangerous political objective in a Congress held hostage by the gun lobby.
