I've heard every argument there is to hear from NRA enthusiasts whom believe gun laws are either unConstitutional or pointless, and upon closer inspection, each and every argument fails, bigly.
Argument #1: "The 2nd Amendment!"
I'm sorry, but the Constitution is 228 years old. When writing it, our Founding Fathers didn't think to themselves, "No matter the day, no matter the year, man should have the right to bear arms! Even well into the future, when these weapons evolve into machine-gun types, with or without bump stocks, anyone from elders to newborns should have the right to fire these motherf*ckers!" I don't think so. The more technology evolves, the more out-of-date the Second Amendment becomes. Does it need to be abolished? No, of course not. But should it receive an update, or at the very least, when discussing it, should more of us take into account the surrounding context of when it was written? Absolutely. It's like my mama always said, "Just because something was right in 1789 doesn't make it right in 2017." Okay, she never said that, but I digress...
Argument #2: "Look at Chicago!"
Whenever debating gun laws, I'd say there's roughly a 2 in 3 chance a conservative will at some point say, "Well, what about Chicago? They have the strictest gun laws in the country and some of the worst gun violence!" When it comes to firearm death rate, Illinois (in which Chicago resides) ranks as the 12th safest state in the country (there are still 50). The state joined the rest of the country in allowing the concealed carry of firearms four years ago. Not only that, in 2010, Chicago's handgun ban was struck down by the Supreme Court. Lastly, according to The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Illinois was given a B+ grade and ranked 8th when it comes to possessing the strictest gun-control measures. This isn't even taking into consideration the fact that Indiana, which is roughly 30 minutes outside of Chicago, was given a D- grade by the same organization, due to their lax gun laws. So, I'm sorry, but for multiple reasons, the "Chicago" argument is a failure as well.
Argument #3: "Criminals!"
Another popular argument for conservatives when it comes to gun laws is, "No matter how many laws we have, criminals and crazies are going to find ways to get guns! So why punish law-abiding citizens?" What these individuals fail to realize is the objective of a law isn't perfection, for that's not possible. The objective of a law is to decrease the frequency of a potentially hazardous event. There is no such thing as a perfect law. If we were to do away with any law which was broken, we would be a nation without laws. Do we really want to drive in a nation without any traffic laws? I'm not thinking so. While many may still break traffic laws, traffic-related deaths have decreased due to these increased number of road regulations. The same holds true with regard to firearms. With an increased number of such regulations, gun violence decreases. These laws, like any other, may not be perfect, but they're effective, and when faced with such a choice, why on earth would we subject hundreds to thousands of additional deaths when we could prevent them?
Argument #4: "The good guys!"
After a mass shooting, it's commonplace for NRA spokespersons to tell the world, "The only way you can stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun." I'm sorry, NRA members, but that argument has been debunked as well. In a study conducted by the National Bureau of Economic Research at Stanford, it found that, within the first 10 years after enacting right-to-carry laws, violent crime increased between 13% and 15%. The FBI also released data of "active shootings" between the years of 2000 and 2013. An "active shooting" is "an incident during which both law enforcement personnel and citizens have the potential to affect the outcome of the event based upon their responses." So, of these 160 active shootings, 56% resulted in the criminal either taking his/her own life or fleeing the scene. In another 26% of the before-mentioned scenarios, the criminal engaged in a back-and-forth shootout with law enforcement, and typically wound up either injured or dead. Surprisingly (to some at least), 13% of these situations ended with the criminal being restrained by unarmed civilians. Lastly, in only 3% of these active shootings were criminals restrained by armed civilians.
Argument #5: "Guns don't kill!"
The most popular bumper-sticker slogan for NRA supporters is likely, "Guns don't kill; people kill!" I'm sorry to inform them of this, but when it comes to gun violence, there are three common denominators: 1) A shooter, 2) A firearm, and 3) A victim. Without one, we won't have an act of gun violence. So while gun violence may not occur without a shooter, it also won't occur without a gun. For a more accurate bumper-sticker slogan, it should read, "Guns don't shoot people; people with guns shoot people."
Sadly, these five arguments commonly posed by conservative talking heads and politicians are merely excuses for why they actually don't want to pass stricter gun laws - money. From 1998 through 2016, current members of Congress have received a total of $3,533,294 worth of donations from the NRA. Here's how those numbers break down:
Total: 292 representatives received a total of $3,533,294
Democrats: 14 representatives (4.8%) received a total of $120,046 (3.4%)
Republicans: 278 representatives (95.2%) received a total of $3,413,248 (96.6%)
Sadder yet, these representatives' constituents believe in stricter gun laws. According to a Quinnipiac survey which was released in June of this year, 54% believe in stricter gun laws (net +12%); 94% believe in universal background checks (net +89%); 57% believe buying a gun is too easy; and only 35% believe guns make us safer (net -22%).
For those who continue to believe stricter gun laws are ineffective, and due to that, pointless, I'll close with this. According to the grades provided by The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, as well as the numbers presented by the National Center for Health Statistics, here are the facts:
The 15 safest states
- 7.04 firearm death rate
- 2.58 GPA (C+)
- 2 F grades (13.3%)
The 35 other states
- 14.69 firearm death rate
- 0.58 GPA (I'll be nice and say an F+)
- 23 F grades (65.7%)
A grades (A+, A, A-)
- 7 states
- 5.87 firearm death rate
B grades (B+, B, B-)
- 4 states
- 9.03 firearm death rate
C grades (C+, C, C-)
- 8 states
- 10.90 firearm death rate
D grades (D+, D, D-)
- 6 states
- 11.00 firearm death rate
F grades
- 25 states
- 15.59 firearm death rate
Cherry-picking aside, gun laws save lives. To increase the odds of passing stricter gun laws, perhaps we should alter the paranoia-inducing term "gun-control" to pro-life legislation, because that's what we'd essentially be doing.
http://www.politifact.com/illinois/statements/2017/oct/03/sarah-huckabee-sanders/chicago-toughest-gun-control-claim-shot-full-holes/
http://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/fbi-report-active-shooters_b_5900748.html
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm
http://gunlawscorecard.org/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/nra-donations/
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2470
Comments
Post a Comment