Deconstructing the three most common anti-gun control arguments used by gun nuts
…snip…
The thing that defies logic, that I simply cannot understand from the pro gun community is this blind dedication to the following three points they keep regurgitating.
1) Guns don’t kill people, people kill people
2) We have the right to defend ourselves3) It’s our right to own guns under the second amendment
As rationally as I can I’m going to de-construct those arguments.
Firstly you’re most correct, a gun on its own on a table can’t leap up and start killing people. I’ve been to the USA a few times now and have never been accosted by a lone hand gun. I suppose if the gun were loaded and left to time, the decay of the parts inside could cause at some point an explosion of the shell inside. But that would take thousands of years. At a guess. Guns do however help to kill people, massively so. They also help severely disturbed people kill people, massively so.
Secondly, yes you do have the right to defend yourselves. Why you need an Boeing AH-64 Apache is beyond me. Think about it, if no one had guns, you wouldn’t need one to defend yourself.
Thirdly and most frustratingly is this blind fanaticism surrounding the 2nd amendment. Adopted on December 15th 1791 (Exactly 221 years ago today) it 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.’
Which 221 years ago I assume means ‘To stop the British coming to fuck up our shit’. Doing a tiny bit of reading on Wikipedia (quiet, I’m aware it is patchy) I found that ‘In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defence within the home.’ I then went on to read a bit more of the Wikipedia entry on the 2nd amendment and found nowhere that says shooting up an entire class of children is legal, nor what the founding fathers would have wanted.
Which brings me to my point. How many piles of defenceless dead children are the pro gun lobby going to tolerate before they stop blindly following something written on a piece of paper 200+ years ago? There is zero logic in it. Why not ask the question “actually, is this relevant any more and what is relevant for a safe society?”
I’m seeing a lot of similarity in the mind sets of these people here. I’ll make an assumption and say that your average gun nut isn’t big on gays. Both things are validated by text on paper written over 200 years ago. I’ll say this, just because it’s written down doesn’t make it right or true.
Posted by Joey_Nova at 14:19
