Refuting the Opposition: Gun Control

Welcome to the second installment of Refuting the Opposition: why have an actual opinion when you can just prove why other people are wrong instead? This one will discuss gun control, and expand on my earlier and shorter post on this topic.

"The 2nd Amendment is about protecting yourself from a tyrannical government." I understand that, and that's fine, but let's think about this logically for a second: How could any private citizen protect himself from the government nowadays if the government really wanted to off him? How can one person with a bunker and a collection of assault rifles expect to stand a chance against unmanned drones, machine guns, and a whole array of other weapons that are illegal for the average citizens to own? The 2nd Amendment was supposed to apply to state militias that could arm themselves and maybe back in those days, in high enough numbers, they would stand a chance against the federal government. But something like that is not going to happen these days. Also, considering the feds can't work together on anything, it's really doubtful they'll put aside their differences for the purposes of forming an autocratic state.

"Background checks would not have stopped Newtown or Aurora or many other mass shootings." This is true. But is stopping mass shootings our only goal? We should be trying to save anyone we can from being murdered and it seems like preventing criminals and the insane from easily purchasing guns seems like a good starting point. It's just common sense. We can't stop every bad thing from happening, but I'd like to hear someone besides Wayne LaPierre explain why background checks are a bad idea. You have to get background checks to work at Wendy's for God's sake - why can you buy a powerful weapon without one?

"If we let anything be done, any small victory for the gun control supporters, Obama will come for  all of our guns." Yeah, no. Our good-for-nothing Congress stands in the way of anything being done in the first place, and even if something is pushed through, you can always count on them to block future legislation. If we've learned anything in the past few years, it's this: Congress is no longer a legislative body, but a legislation-killing body. Also, the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy, and thus invalid. Next question please.

"Even if assault weapons are illegal, crazy people will find ways to kill people." Seems legit. But the thing about assault weapons is that they are so much more lethal than any other weapon. There have been people in America and China recently who have attacked dozens of people with knives, stabbing them. But here's the thing: no one died. No one. Knives and even less powerful guns are nowhere near as lethal as assault weapons. Not to mention, it's considerably easier to take down someone with a knife (they have to get close to you to hurt you, so you have a chance for self-defense) than someone with a gun. So, yes, murder will still happen, obviously, but successful mass killings would be fewer in number.

"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." First of all, sweeping generalization much? Second of all, there were armed guards at Columbine. And how did that go? There are a lot of people (like me) who don't want to have to carry around a gun and who think that we shouldn't have to in order to be safe. I mean, if the "bad guy" doesn't have a gun then... what's the issue?

"If guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns." This is a clever saying, so props for that. And yes, criminals will still find ways to access weapons, but at least in doing so they would be committing a legal offense and would be arrested if caught. But the real issue with this argument is - no one's trying to outlaw all the guns! Just a select few that have already been outlawed in the past. Actually, fewer guns are candidates for banning than were banned last time around.

I'm still "holding my ground," if you will, on this issue and would like to see something done. Soon.

You know what would be even more fun than me arguing with myself? If some of my lovely readers sent in "oppositions." Whether you agree or disagree with me, send me a statement that you think I'd disagree with and I'll do my best to refute it. It can be on gun control, or any other topic really, preferably something political, but you can always do something like "Sherlock sucks" and I'll gladly destroy you. So leave a comment if you have anything to say :) Let's get some interaction going on in here!