Over the past several years, mass shootings have been the catalyst used to push for stricter regulation on nearly all aspects of firearms—manufacture, transfer, and ownership—in the United States. The following are common arguments in favor of gun control voiced by the mainstream media and corresponding counterarguments for each.
Claim #1: The second amendment applies to the military (or militia), not to American citizens individually.
Counter #1: The Second Amendment is written specifically to provide citizens the right to keep and bear arms against all threats.
Though I’ve only heard this argument once, it allows the opportunity to provide historical context for the Second Amendment which states:
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.
The assertion that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals is divorced from historical context considering the Revolutionaries’ heavy reliance on civilian soldiers, dubbed Minutemen, to defeat the British in the Revolutionary War. Having just defeated the most powerful military force on the planet, the Framers wrote the Second Amendment with the intent to recognize American citizens’ right to protect themselves against all threats, foreign and domestic, including that of a tyrannical government. In fact, the Framers foresaw the potential for the United States government to become tyrannical and provided the people with the means to protect themselves against it.
A similar anti-gun argument refuted by historical context is the idea of a national firearm registry which would force any individual purchasing a firearm to be registered in a national database. Historically, disarming law-abiding citizens has presaged brutal dictatorships including the Soviet Union under Vladamir Lenin/Joseph Stalin, China under Mao Tse-Tung, Cuba under Fidel Castro, Venezuela under Hugo Chavez, and Cambodia under Pol Pot. Foreseeing this, the Framers recognized the right of the people to keep and bear arms; enacting a federal gun registry would grant the government the ability to effectively remove firearms from the citizenry—the very safeguard the amendment is designed to protect.
Counter #2: Supreme Court Precedent (Heller vs. DC, 2008)
Although I do not consider Supreme Court precedent a strong argument in favor of an individual’s right to bear arms—since precedent can be overturned—it is still worth noting. The 5-4 majority ruling in DC vs. Heller affirmatively stated that “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense at home” -Justice Scalia. [Emphasis added]
Counter #3: The Second Amendment does not grant the right to use firearms unlawfully.
As important as it is to define what the Second Amendment is, it is necessary to state what it is not. It is not the right of American citizens to use firearms unlawfully (e.g. murder or armed robbery). It is not the right of citizens to set up in hotels or colleges, high schools, or church campuses, or military bases and engage in killing sprees.
Claim #2: Regarding the Second Amendment, the framers did not foresee, and therefore does not apply, to current weaponry.
Counter #1: Many automatic and other “assault weapons” existed around the time of the writing of the Second Amendment.
Brown Bess: though not necessarily falling under the “assault weapon” category as used today, this firearm shoots a .75 caliber round. Any round above .50 caliber is restricted by the government today. For reference, a typical 9mm handgun shoots a .35 caliber round.
Cannons: legal for citizens to own at the time; considered an artillery weapon—draw your own conclusions.
Mortars and hand grenades (not firearms, but still very lethal weapons).
Belton Flintlock: capable of firing about 20 rounds in 5 seconds with one pull of the trigger.
Girandoni Air Rifle: capable of firing 22 shots in under 1 minute with no reload.
Puckle Gun: the world’s first “machine gun” patented in 1718.
Counter #2: If the Framers did not foresee advancement in weapons, it is logical to conclude they also did not foresee advancement such as social media and therefore freedom of speech could be significantly prohibited.
This argument is based in the premise that the Framers had never witnessed or anticipated any advancement in weaponry at the time they wrote the Second Amendment. Some advancements they were aware of at the time: rocks and other blunt objects giving way to sharper objects like swords, arrows, and spears then eventually the invention of gun powder for weapons such as those listed above.
Context is important. Question whether the Framers foresaw the extensive use of the internet and social media as a means of freedom of speech and whether that is also unprotected. Extend the analogy to the Second Amendment. If one amendment can be altered without the provided constitutional amendment process, this opens the door to restricting rights recognized by others.
Claim #3: The Second Amendment does not apply to “assault weapons” or “weapons of war”.
Counter #1: Historical context is to provide citizens protection against their government (and the military by extension).
This counter is a combination of the reasoning for the above counterpoints. Inherent in the Second Amendment is the understanding that citizens have the right to protect themselves against threats like the government which controls the military. Necessarily, citizens require the means to defend themselves against their government or foreign invaders which would appear to include weapons used by the military, or at least comparable.
Counter #2: Define “assault weapon”.
The devil is always in the details. “Assault weapons” (a.k.a. “weapons of war”, “military-style weapons”) have no universally recognized definition and is often used as a buzz word to invoke fear, especially when associated with mass shootings. Pressing on these terms allows:
The ability to determine a person's credibility on the topic. “Assault weapon” as the term is used today, classifies most firearms and ranges from an automatic firearm such as an AK-47 to a semi-automatic handgun. Specific policy recommendations often stem from this largely undefined term as well as others such as capacity, magazine, automatic, semi-automatic, and caliber which are objectively important terms to understand when advocating for policies using them as delimiters. Unfortunately, as seen in several of Steven Crowder’s “Change my Mind” segments, people are often very un- or misinformed on these terms and other significant concepts when advocating to strip away Americans' rights.
The ability to snuff out a red-herring or disingenuous argument. E.g. if a person understands that semi-automatic weapons include handguns commonly used for self-defense and still wants an outright ban of them, it is clear the intent is to ban all firearms, not just “assault weapons”.
Counter #3: According to the FBI, more people are killed by blunt objects and personal weapons such as knives more than rifles.
Counter #4: Handguns are the most common choice of weapon for mass shooters and are statistically more lethal (per hit target) than rifles when used in mass shootings.
The shooter responsible for the deadliest mass shooting in the United States (Virginia Tech in 2007) used a handgun.
An AR-15, the most commonly touted “assault weapon”, is a semi-automatic weapon, is not used in the military, is comparable to other hunting rifles, and is less powerful than common hunting rifles.
Claim #4: More guns means more gun deaths. America has a “problematic” gun culture.
Counter #1: The United States ranks 20th, 28th, and 66th in the world per capita for firearm-related deaths, firearm-related homicides, and mass shootings, respectively; this is despite having the highest per capita firearm ownership in the world by far.
PBS ranks the United States 20th in the world for total firearm deaths per capita behind countries including Venezuela, Columbia, Brazil, Greenland, and Mexico. Note: Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws in the world and Venezuela has outright banned law-abiding citizens from owning firearms.
Despite having the highest firearm ownership rate in the world at roughly 121 firearms per 100 people (for reference Yemen ranks #2 with only 55 firearms per 100 people), the United States ranks 28th in the world in firearm-related homicides per capita.
This not only refutes the point that more firearms is less safe, since the country with the highest per capita ownership of firearms is not at the top of any per capita list, but appears to indicate that legal firearm owners in the United States commit proportionally fewer crimes than legal firearm owners in 27 other countries. Additionally, the United States ranks 66th in the world for per capita mass shootings—the catalyst which drives the most support for strict gun-control measures.
Counter #2: Firearms are used preventatively in the United States exponentially more than they are used to do harm.
The CDC reports between 500,000 – 3,000,000 “defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender)” each year. This is almost certainly an underestimate since this does not consider would-be offenders deterred by the known or potential threat of firearms (e.g. civilians open-carrying, armed security guards, burglars avoiding occupied homes) or incidents that didn't warrant the trouble of reporting to authorities. This indicates that firearms are effective in preventing between 12.5 and 75 times the number of deaths taken by firearms assuming 40,000 firearm-related deaths per year. If only firearm-related homicides are included (14,542 of a total 39,773 firearm-related deaths in 2017), this would indicate firearms are more effective in preventing between 34 and 206 times the number of deaths maliciously taken.
Additionally, the report found that defensive use of firearms results in lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims attempting to fend off a criminal using less effective means such as a knife or pepper spray.
Violent crime also follows a trend: the majority of the most violent cities are all run by Democrat mayors with strict gun-control laws on the books. Violent crime of all kind is also very highly correlated to poverty (which is strongly linked to poor education) which also tends to exist in higher rates in Democrat-run, urban areas. This source provides a relatively objective look at firearm violence and death in major US cities; however, it omits some factors such as the concentration of crime in certain areas of cities (impoverished and less educated).
Counter #3: The overwhelming majority of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones.
94% of mass shootings occur in “gun-free” zones according to an updated 2014 study conducted by the Crime Prevention Research Center.
Counter #4: Firearms are inanimate objects and do not kill people.
The logic that firearms should be banned because “guns kill people” naturally extends to a ban on cars, cigarettes, fast food, and other common tools and activities which kill people. Note: be careful using this counterpoint as it can easily be misused to advance a slippery slope fallacy.
Counter #5: Total US firearm-related deaths are primarily from suicides and gang/drug-related criminal activity.
In 2017, 23,854 (~60%) of the nearly 40,000 firearm-related deaths constituted suicides. This makes up only 51% of total suicides in the same year (47,173) conducted by other means, i.e. method substitution. Note: a common pivot from this counter is that the United States has an unusually high suicide rate which is enabled by easy access to firearms. The United States ranks 27th in suicide rate worldwide, behind countries which are largely unfree and have highly regulated gun-control.
According to the CDC, 8,900 of 11,100 firearm-related homicides in 2011 were gang-related--approximately 80% of firearm-related homicides in the United States in 2010 and 2011. There is no indication that this rate has changed in recent years.
75%-80% of Chicago’s homicides are gang-related (though this source does not specify firearm-related homicide, it is reasonable to assume that a majority of gang-related homicides are conducted with firearms).
Counter #6: The United States’s “gun culture” stems from the fact that having won victory over a tyrannical government rather than submitting to one, the Framers fundamentally mistrusted government and understood the necessity of an armed populace.
The United States is globally unique in that its Bill of Rights recognizes certain unalienable rights for all of its citizens; the right to freedom of speech is recognized by no other country in the world. These rights are not granted by government, in which case they could be taken away, but are specifically recognized as inherent to all United States citizens. To protect these rights, the people need firearms in the event that a tyrannical government, foreign power, or domestic threat such as a criminal attempts to infringe upon these rights. The Framers intended to maintain the ability for the United States to fend off another tyrannical government including its own when the time came. This fundamental mistrust of government institution is why the United States has its unique “gun culture”.
Recognition of the desire for power in the human condition is inherent in the Second Amendment. It is not a conspiracy theory or outlandish idea to believe that a tyrannical government is a real threat even within the United States. Rights are often stripped away in a matter of decades or generations (e.g. the Holocaust, the Iranian Islamic Revolution, Australian gun rights, Mao Tse-Tung’s Chinese Cultural Revolution). This is very possible and is already gradually occurring in the United States, i.e. infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Claim #5: The Australian gun buy-back program was successful there, so the United States should implement a similar version. Australia now has less mass shootings than before.
This refers to the Australian government’s National Firearms Agreement (NFA) passed in 1996 as a reaction to the mass shooting in Port Arthur where 35 people were killed.
Counter #1: The Australian government does not recognize an individual’s right to bear arms, whereas it is recognized in the United States. Such legislation in the United States is unconstitutional.
A buy-back program would also mean tax-payer dollars would be used to purchase firearms from Americans and would only obtain firearms from compliant, law-abiding citizens, not criminals. To that point, any previous law-abiding citizens choosing not to hand in their guns would be made into a de facto criminal.
Counter #2: No statistical effect on reduction in suicide or homicide rate resulting from the NFA.
According to a study conducted by the Melbourne Institute “the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates”.
Although the NFA did not increase the homicide rate in Australia, this metric had been downward trending since at least 1990, and the NFA contributed no statistically significant reduction of this metric.
Counter #3: Australia now has more firearms than ever and lower firearm-related deaths than before the ban.
In 2015, Australia’s estimated firearm ownership totaled nearly 3.8 million (some estimates are as high as 4.5 million), a 580,000 increase in gun onwership compared to 1996.
Concurrently, the total number of firearm-related deaths in Australia dropped from 516 in 1996 to 230 in 2014, a 55% reduction in firearm-related deaths. Note: approximately 75% of these deaths are suicides, shown to be subject to method substitution when firearms are restricted, i.e. people find other ways to commit suicide.
Counter #4: Mass shooting comparisons before and after the NFA are not apples to apples comparisons.
Data suggesting a reduction in mass shootings in Australia is based on a change in how mass shootings are defined. Mass shooting statistics typically used a 4+ victim definition prior to the NFA and is being compared against mass shooting statistics using a 6+ victim definition. Do the two additional lives not matter? Furthermore, there is not enough evidence to suggest that a lower number of mass shootings is due to the NFA considering Australia had no mass shootings from 1900-1970 when there was no gun buy-back law.
Note: The Washington Post confirms this practice in an article posted in May 2018 in which it used 4+ victims as the accepted definition of a mass shooting. Only two years earlier, the Washington Post chose to use a 5+ victim definition while claiming in an article that the Australian buy back resulted in no mass shootings.
Claim #6: What about the gun show loophole? We need more regulation controlling who can obtain firearms.
Counter #1: The “Gun Show Loophole” is a myth.
According to the Cato Institute, all vendors selling firearms (since 1938) are required to obtain a Federal Firearms License (FFL) which requires FBI authorization for every point of sale of one or multiple firearms for each customer. This background check prohibits any individual with a felony, violent misdemeanor, domestic abuse or sex offense, or is deemed mentally unfit from purchasing a firearm. Buying a firearm without a background check is not a loophole, it is a felony.
Note: a private seller is not required to have an FFL, but is still required to know and adhere to local, state, and federal laws.
Counter #2: Universal background checks already exist.
Background checks are required for all individuals purchasing a firearm at an FFL dealer (for each point of purchase). A firearm cannot be legally obtained without submitting to a background check, and the ability to purchase a firearm is immediately denied to anyone who does not pass it. Additionally, firearms bought online cannot be shipped to a private residence; they must be shipped to an FFL dealer.
Counter #3: An unarmed populace is a vulnerable populace.
Firearms serve as a deterrent for violent crime. This is why celebrities and politicians have secret service and armed guards, why banks have armed security guards, and why police are armed. Criminals are significantly less likely to commit a violent crime when they could face death via firearm. This is also why most mass shootings occur in gun-free zones and non-gun-using crime victims sustain more injury than gun-wielding counterparts.
Counter #4: Firearm restrictions only prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining a firearm.
Threat actors intent on breaking the law using a firearm (e.g. murder, armed robbery) are past the point of being deterred by a potential firearm violation; gun-control laws serve as an obstacle to a law-abiding citizen to protect oneself with a firearm.
Where there is demand, there will always be supply; one need only look at Prohibition in the 1920s or the War on Drugs which did and does have successful black markets. In fact, Joe Scarborough pointed out in 2015 that legally obtained firearms make up a small percentage of firearm-related violent crime. While criminals can obtain firearms on the black market, citizens will be defenseless against them.
Yorumlar