Argument: People intending to commit acts of violence will find the means to do so, regardless of preventative legislation
Rebuttal: This is a rather sloppy argument against stricter gun legislation, and it is contradicted by federal government policy in nearly every other instance. This argument arises from a fundamental misunderstanding of the aim of domestic policy; the government does not intend to completely eradicate all issues through legislation, and the notion that anti-gun activists believe this quixotic ideal is more of a clumsy straw-man than anything else. But simply because government policy cannot entirely resolve an issue doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be actively addressed- in fact, if the government dismissed every problem it could not amend to perfection, the nation would soon descend into anarchy, so this whole “why bother” counterargument is really just a caricature of epic proportions. For example, immediately following 9/11, the government enacted the most stringent air travel security measures to date, and even provoked controversy with the Patriot Act, which prioritized national security over personal privacy in order to make almost 100% certain that a mass terror attack using passenger planes never took the lives of Americans again. So it is perfectly within both reason and precedent for the American government to take preventative measures against an issue such as gun violence- which deals unspeakable harm to the country each year in the form of hundreds of thousands of deaths- even if, like all other legislation, these measures are not a catch-all guarantor of Americans’ safety.
Argument: The Second Amendment guarantees personal gun ownership as a basic right that is not to be infringed
Rebuttal: This argument fallaciously presupposes the sanctity of the Second Amendment without providing any rational, defensible claims about why the right to own a weapon capable of tremendous damage to human life is an inviolable right of the same moral significance as the other rights protected under the Constitution. The blind deference to the Second Amendment is religious in its implication that the Second Amendment is a body of unquestionable authority, whose validity need not be defended on the grounds that it is self-evident. Many Americans genuinely believe that a simple deference to the Second Amendment is sufficient to counter arguments for stricter gun legislation; they are under the dangerous delusion that certain ideas, so long as they are expressed in documents regarded as sacred or infallible, are immune to the same intense criticism and reconsideration that this blog post is, and that to critique their efficacy is somehow tantamount to attacking the most basic of human rights. It is not, and the Founding Fathers conveyed this with incredible foresight when they implemented the amendment process for the Constitution. For the claims or authority of a document to be of value, they must bear the same scrutiny that all other ideas are subject to under the premise of free speech, and thus they require a coherent, thoughtful, and compelling defense just as much now as they did 230 years ago. This doesn’t even take into consideration the massively controversial ambiguity of the Second Amendment itself, which has been debated ad nauseam and in which I need not go into detail here. Suffice it to say, Constitutional Amendments cannot and shall not stand as indisputable authorities in and of themselves. No idea is sacred, no principle immune to skepticism, no declaration inoculated against objection; and we need to stop pretending it is if we are ever to solve the gun problem in the United States.
Argument: The problem is with the insufficient lack of attention given to mentally ill and potentially violent individuals, not with guns themselves
Rebuttal: This argument fallaciously assumes that the two are mutually exclusive: that either mass shootings, in particular, are caused solely by disturbed and violent people, or that shootings are caused by the ease of access to guns and have little to do with the shooters’ resolve to commit acts of violence. Reality, however, lies somewhere in between. It is indisputable that most mass shooters, at least recently, have been shown to have a history of mental illness and/or violent tendencies that were either improperly addressed or overlooked entirely, and that a swift and appropriate response could have saved many innocent people’s lives. However, the ease with which these potential killers can get their hands on absurdly effective and convenient killing machines- namely, guns- cannot be disregarded either. This ties back in with the first argument that postulates that those with violent intentions will find a way to wreak havoc regardless of the obstacles in their path. As I stated before, this is a blatantly flawed way to view the government’s role in protecting the public from harm. If this reasoning had been adopted as a general principle, then we would still be strolling right up to the entry gates of airplanes and loading our duffle bags with pocket knives and 40-oz cans of cheap beer. Can, and have, terrorists found different methods for harming and murdering Americans despite this heightened air travel security? Of course they have; the San Bernardino shooters unleashed hell with firearms and killed numerous civilians. But no one has simultaneously hijacked four passenger planes and caused the deaths of over 3000 Americans in seventeen years, and I think all sane people can agree that’s for the better. The fact that even heartless killers can possess resourcefulness and ingenuity doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t hinder them as much, and as vigorously, as we can. This apathy will take the lives of countless more if we don’t choose action in lieu of it.
Argument: Guns are necessary for self-defense- “a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun”
Rebuttal: Though in principle this argument holds water, the statistics are not in support of this line of reasoning. Dozens of studies have shown that the frequency of firearm usage for unjustifiable homicide or suicide far outweighs the frequency of usage for self-defense (“justifiable homicide”). Furthermore, as advocates for stricter gun legislation have pointed out countless times, certain weapons are simply excessive to be considered for self-defense. The common refutation of this is that the line between acceptable guns and unacceptable guns is exceedingly blurry, especially for those who are not gun experts (which, I will freely concede, am I not in the slightest). However, to ignore the glaring issue of overpowered weapons (because the term “assault weapons” has been taken to be too vague) would be to commit the same kind of intellectual laziness that I addressed earlier. Just because a clear-cut line cannot be drawn between weapons whose use for self-defense is reasonable and those for which it is excessive does not mean we should remain inactive on the issue. Again, the impossibility of perfection does not invalidate the possibility for real and impactful mitigation.
Argument: Gun ownership is necessary to prevent against a potentially tyrannical government
Rebuttal: This argument is reductionist logic at its finest: it asserts that the power of the federal government over the citizens is checked only by the Second Amendment, and precludes a conversation about checking federal power from taking place. The way this argument is usually justified is by stating that this was the original purpose of the Second Amendment when it was written, and then avowing that the threat of a tyrannical government is just as plausible today as it was in the late 1700s. Taking the Constitution out of context and treating it as a document that, without exception, transcends time and situation is a practice that is as controversial as it is utilized in this country. When the Constitution was written, even the civilized world truly was dominated by absolutist, semi-tyrannical governments, and so justification for the Second Amendment wasn’t hard to find. But proponents of this simplistic argument need to ask themselves these questions: In 2018, what measures exist that prevent the federal government from assuming absolute authority? How important is each of these measures? Could we cut back on or get rid of any of these measures without jeopardizing democracy? Until these questions are answered, this anachronistic argument cannot stand by itself.
Argument: Confiscating guns would be impossible in the United States because of their sheer quantity, and thus it would be futile to even try to do so
Rebuttal: It is easy, and intellectual dishonest, to dismiss the feasibility of a certain action without being informed on the details that surround it. Though studies have shown that there are more guns than people in the United States and the number of illegal guns in circulation cannot be discounted, there is still the chance in this country to change law-abiding gun owners’ minds about the rationality of owning certain weapons, namely those which are enormously and unjustifiably destructive. Convincing citizens to voluntarily give up their weapons doesn’t necessarily entail reversing their opinion on guns in general; it entails reshaping it so that the value of human life is placed far above rights that are demonstrably subordinate to it. Just as I have previously stated and reiterated: being unable to completely resolve an issue does not give one an excuse to ignore it, and this applies to the effort to smother the cultural fetishization of guns in the United States just as much as it applies to any other policy issue.
The rabid pro-gun fervor in this country stems from toxic simplicity, selfishness, and a perverse breed of chauvinism that causes millions of Americans to gloss over the worth of human lives. Just as in every other aspect of public policy and general decision-making, it is time for reason, rationality, and a common ethic to supplant the tribalist, emotionally-charged, politically-driven mentality we are often governed by.
The mindset of the American population must change, and their net capacity for intellectual discourse must be realized, in order for us to overcome these pressing dilemmas we are presented with today.