A friend of mine flew in from Texas for business yesterday, so he and I met up at a local pub for a couple drinks and to chat. As the night progressed and the quantity of beverages people consumed increased, things started to become quite interesting on the conversation front.
Seated next to me was an older man I had never met before and seated near him was one of the two owners of the place, with whom I've butted heads with in the past regarding some things - namely politics. When the owner went outside for a smoke, the man next to me began talking about the national gun debate and started his tangent by saying, "I've been an NRA member since I was 18-years old..."
When I initially heard this, I thought to myself, "Oh boy, this is going to be an interesting conversation. Perhaps I should bring in my most recent book - LOL at the GOP - Volume 3: Guns Don't Kill, Cars Don't Drive, and Ovens Don't Bake." Oddly enough, though, this NRA member is quite upset with the organization, is thinking about cancelling his membership, and not long into his spiel, I soon realized this man and I appeared to be in almost perfect agreement with one another regarding the need for stricter gun laws.
Toward the tail-end of this man's verbal essay, the owner returned from his smoke break, overheard the conversation, and felt the immediate need to confront this man on his points. You see, this owner, while a good guy and a friend of mine, is quite the libertarianesque Republican, who enjoys arguing politics more than rock stars enjoy groupies. While I'm usually able to stay quiet when he's ranting about politics, there have been a couple of occasions when I've felt the need to chime in with some fact-checking, and let's just say that didn't warm his heart or alter his opinion any.
In response to this NRA member's words, the owner rebutted with the following:
- "What about Chicago? Whenever someone talks about strengthening gun laws, I immediately point to Chicago, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation and also one of the highest homicide rates."
- "No matter how strong the gun laws are, criminals are going to commit the crimes."
- "Why should law-abiding citizens have some of their rights stripped because of criminals' violent actions?"
Those were the three main counterarguments this individual made, and while I stayed pretty quiet and allowed the NRA member a chance to respond himself, I have to say these are all very common right-wing talking points - all of which have been discredited through either fact or reason (or both).
With regard to the owner's first point, it's a very weak argument to have, but one which makes gun-rights die-hards feel better about their position on matters. While it's true that the city of Chicago has rather strict gun laws and high homicide rates, other parts of Illinois and adjacent states have more lax gun laws. So how in the world can we say that just because gun crime is high in the city of Chicago, that stricter gun control laws are not at all effective? Also, believe it or not, but the number of homicides have decreased in Chicago since the implementation of the stricter gun laws. We would not know just how effective stricter gun control laws would be unless the same laws were applied nationwide. Let's compare it to the legal age of alcohol consumption. Let's pretend these laws differed among cities and states - perhaps the legal age to drink in Columbus (Ohio) is 21, while the legal age in both Cincinnati and Cleveland is 18. If there were still a number of alcohol-related driving arrests, accidents, and deaths in Columbus, how could we tell just how effective or ineffective the stricter laws were given the fact underage kids could drive a couple hours north or south on weekends to legally drink alcohol (or have friends from those two cities legally buy alcohol there and take it to Columbus)?
I've touched on the second point this man made quite a number of times. There's no such thing as a perfect law. Laws are going to be broken. Only in a perfect world could laws prevent 100% of crimes from occurring (in a perfect world, we wouldn't even need laws). Laws are there to provide a more efficient flow to life and also to leave people less prone to being victims of crime. Stricter gun laws wouldn't prevent 100% of gun crime in this country. However, they would likely make people less prone to being victims of gun violence. Just because there will be people whom still commit crime doesn't negate the fact there's still a need for law. There are many traffic laws in this country and at one point or another, these laws will be broken. Does this mean there's no point to having these laws in place? If we feel that since criminals will break a law, there's no reason to have a law, then what's the point of having any laws? Just because gun violence still exists in the fact of stricter gun laws doesn't mean the gun laws haven't been effective in decreasing such crimes and through that, making people less prone to being victims of them.
His last point revolved around expanding background checks. If a person is a law-abiding citizen, as he claimed to be, then how does expanding background checks strip him of his 2nd Amendment rights? At the end of the day, whether or not background checks are expanded, if he is a law-abiding citizen, he will get his gun. This doesn't strip law-abiding citizens of their 2nd Amendment rights. It helps to prevent felons and the mentally unstable from acquiring such weapons.
Oddly enough, this individual ended his NRA membership a few years ago and is perfectly okay with NSA surveillance. Yet, through his words, it sounded like a person brainwashed by the NRA's paranoia-inducing slogans and talking points, feeling that the government is going to take away his guns. It was a fascinating conversation to observe, as a current NRA member and I were in lockstep with one another, while a former NRA member combated every word we uttered. Perhaps last night was a foreshadowing of what's to come in the future, as a current NRA member spoke out against the organization, will likely end his membership, become an advocate for stricter gun laws, and hope that other NRA members follow his lead. I truly hope that's the case, because if an increasing number of NRA members become angered with the group, end their memberships, and start speaking in favor of more sensible gun laws, the NRA will begin to lose its power politically, and stricter gun laws will become more likely to get passed in Congress.
Seated next to me was an older man I had never met before and seated near him was one of the two owners of the place, with whom I've butted heads with in the past regarding some things - namely politics. When the owner went outside for a smoke, the man next to me began talking about the national gun debate and started his tangent by saying, "I've been an NRA member since I was 18-years old..."
When I initially heard this, I thought to myself, "Oh boy, this is going to be an interesting conversation. Perhaps I should bring in my most recent book - LOL at the GOP - Volume 3: Guns Don't Kill, Cars Don't Drive, and Ovens Don't Bake." Oddly enough, though, this NRA member is quite upset with the organization, is thinking about cancelling his membership, and not long into his spiel, I soon realized this man and I appeared to be in almost perfect agreement with one another regarding the need for stricter gun laws.
Toward the tail-end of this man's verbal essay, the owner returned from his smoke break, overheard the conversation, and felt the immediate need to confront this man on his points. You see, this owner, while a good guy and a friend of mine, is quite the libertarianesque Republican, who enjoys arguing politics more than rock stars enjoy groupies. While I'm usually able to stay quiet when he's ranting about politics, there have been a couple of occasions when I've felt the need to chime in with some fact-checking, and let's just say that didn't warm his heart or alter his opinion any.
In response to this NRA member's words, the owner rebutted with the following:
- "What about Chicago? Whenever someone talks about strengthening gun laws, I immediately point to Chicago, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation and also one of the highest homicide rates."
- "No matter how strong the gun laws are, criminals are going to commit the crimes."
- "Why should law-abiding citizens have some of their rights stripped because of criminals' violent actions?"
Those were the three main counterarguments this individual made, and while I stayed pretty quiet and allowed the NRA member a chance to respond himself, I have to say these are all very common right-wing talking points - all of which have been discredited through either fact or reason (or both).
With regard to the owner's first point, it's a very weak argument to have, but one which makes gun-rights die-hards feel better about their position on matters. While it's true that the city of Chicago has rather strict gun laws and high homicide rates, other parts of Illinois and adjacent states have more lax gun laws. So how in the world can we say that just because gun crime is high in the city of Chicago, that stricter gun control laws are not at all effective? Also, believe it or not, but the number of homicides have decreased in Chicago since the implementation of the stricter gun laws. We would not know just how effective stricter gun control laws would be unless the same laws were applied nationwide. Let's compare it to the legal age of alcohol consumption. Let's pretend these laws differed among cities and states - perhaps the legal age to drink in Columbus (Ohio) is 21, while the legal age in both Cincinnati and Cleveland is 18. If there were still a number of alcohol-related driving arrests, accidents, and deaths in Columbus, how could we tell just how effective or ineffective the stricter laws were given the fact underage kids could drive a couple hours north or south on weekends to legally drink alcohol (or have friends from those two cities legally buy alcohol there and take it to Columbus)?
I've touched on the second point this man made quite a number of times. There's no such thing as a perfect law. Laws are going to be broken. Only in a perfect world could laws prevent 100% of crimes from occurring (in a perfect world, we wouldn't even need laws). Laws are there to provide a more efficient flow to life and also to leave people less prone to being victims of crime. Stricter gun laws wouldn't prevent 100% of gun crime in this country. However, they would likely make people less prone to being victims of gun violence. Just because there will be people whom still commit crime doesn't negate the fact there's still a need for law. There are many traffic laws in this country and at one point or another, these laws will be broken. Does this mean there's no point to having these laws in place? If we feel that since criminals will break a law, there's no reason to have a law, then what's the point of having any laws? Just because gun violence still exists in the fact of stricter gun laws doesn't mean the gun laws haven't been effective in decreasing such crimes and through that, making people less prone to being victims of them.
His last point revolved around expanding background checks. If a person is a law-abiding citizen, as he claimed to be, then how does expanding background checks strip him of his 2nd Amendment rights? At the end of the day, whether or not background checks are expanded, if he is a law-abiding citizen, he will get his gun. This doesn't strip law-abiding citizens of their 2nd Amendment rights. It helps to prevent felons and the mentally unstable from acquiring such weapons.
Oddly enough, this individual ended his NRA membership a few years ago and is perfectly okay with NSA surveillance. Yet, through his words, it sounded like a person brainwashed by the NRA's paranoia-inducing slogans and talking points, feeling that the government is going to take away his guns. It was a fascinating conversation to observe, as a current NRA member and I were in lockstep with one another, while a former NRA member combated every word we uttered. Perhaps last night was a foreshadowing of what's to come in the future, as a current NRA member spoke out against the organization, will likely end his membership, become an advocate for stricter gun laws, and hope that other NRA members follow his lead. I truly hope that's the case, because if an increasing number of NRA members become angered with the group, end their memberships, and start speaking in favor of more sensible gun laws, the NRA will begin to lose its power politically, and stricter gun laws will become more likely to get passed in Congress.
Comments
Post a Comment