I've had quite a few discussions on the topic of gun control lately, as those of you who follow me may be well aware, and, in doing so, I've found that I keep running into the exact same mental blocks and misconceptions in the pro-gun people that I debate. In the interest of not repeating myself thousands of times more in the future, I figured I'd write this out once so I can refer to it instead. Hopefully it'll be helpful to others in similar discussions as well.
A. "If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns!" or "It doesn't matter what laws you put in place, criminals will always be able to get guns"
It should make them really easy to spot then! Seriously, though, where do illegal guns come from? There's lots of people today for whom gun ownership is illegal, minors, felons, domestic abusers, etc, and yet lots of those people are able to get guns anyways. Let's take a look at how that happens.
First, there's the ones that just slip through the cracks. When a gun is sold by a licensed dealer, they check the NICS system is supposed to flag any reason why a person should be denied a firearm. The system is notoriously spotty; a 2014 study found 7.8 million outstanding warrants in state records but only 2.1 million in the NICS system [1], for example. For this reason, lots of people who should be prevented legally from owning guns are still able to buy them from licensed dealers.
Secondly, there's straw purchasers. Basically, a person with a clean record buys the gun from a licensed dealer and then either gives or sells the gun to a person who cannot legally purchase it. There's no hard figures on how often this happens, but a 2010 study showed that up to 20% of firearms dealers were willing to participate in a straw purchase [2] and a 2011 study found that more than 2/3 of firearms dealers had experienced attempted straw purchases [3].
Thirdly, there's the fact that, if you buy a gun from someone who's not a licensed dealer, 31 states require no background check at all and many others require a background check only for certain types of weapons [4].
Finally, there's plain theft. An estimated 380,000 guns are stolen every year according the NIH [5] and a quarter of licensed gun dealers reported experiencing firearm theft in the previous five years [3].
So where do illegal guns come from? Overwhelmingly, they come from legal guns!
In other words, if we were to outlaw guns entirely, it would be incredibly difficult for outlaws to get guns in the first place. Of course, we're not even talking about outlawing guns at this point, just closing a lot of the gaps I mentioned above. Either way, I hope this clears up why that's a bad argument; illegal guns are primarily coming from holes in our legal system of selling guns and closing those holes can, in fact, make it more difficult to get them.
B. "It's a slippery slope…"
This is basically the argument that any regulation, registration, or licensing requirement must be just the first step to total confiscation of all guns. This pretty ridiculous on its face and, for a great example of this, let's look at cars.
Every single car is required to be registered and every single driver is required to be licensed. Cars are also the subject of tons of regulations from speed limits to insurance requirements to manufacturing requirements like airbags, seatbelts, and crash tests.
Yet, despite all of this, cars have not only not been banned and confiscated, they are overwhelmingly the most common method of transportation in the United States with almost 92% of households owning at least one car [6]. There's no reason to believe that it would be different with firearms.
C. "There are 2.5 million self-defense uses of guns per year"
This statistic gets thrown around a lot so it's best to know where it comes from and all of the problems with it. The 2.5 million number comes from a study by Dr. Gary Kleck in the early 90s [7]. Kleck relied on a relatively small sample of self-reported self-defense incidents and extrapolated to the larger population. More recently, Dr. William English did a much larger survey with similar methods and came up with a number closer to 1.5 million [8]; lower, but still substantial.
The problem, though, is that these are all self-reported self-defense uses. The National Crime Victimization from 1992, around the same period Kleck conducted his study, concluded that there were likely only 65,000 defensive gun uses based on a much larger sample [9]. There's also been a good deal of research into what kind of incidents gun owners report as self-defense [10] and, when you investigate the actual circumstances of those incidents, it turns out that a lot of them, likely the majority, are not actually self-defense uses, but illegal escalations [11].
Also interesting, and indirectly related, is some research that shows that gun owners may actually be MORE likely to lose property in the event of a crime than those who use another type of weapon [12].
In other words, the number of times that gun owners use their guns to illegally intimidate other people likely outweighs the number of times that they use their guns in self-defense, but both are being reported as self-defense uses in the Kleck and English surveys.
D. "Only guns prevent government tyranny!"
This is pretty much the universal statement that gets thrown out once other evidence is debunked, and it's also provably wrong. Here's the thing, the number of privately owned guns has no correlation to the freedom or lack thereof in a country and, in fact, every single country that is freer than us has much stricter gun control laws.
It doesn't matter, by the way, which definition of freedom you use. I tend to use the ranking put together by Freedom House [13], but you can use any of them.
One argument that does get thrown around is the one put together by Dr. David Koppel in his study of the relationship between private gun ownership and liberty in which he concluded that greater gun ownership was associated with more freedom when gun ownership reached a high level [14]. However, it deserves pointing out that he reached this conclusion by averaging large categories of countries and including the United States, a statistical outlier in gun ownership, in the highest category of freedom. If one were to re-run his same study without the United States, his conclusion is no longer accurate.
It's also worth pointing out that he doesn't compare the United States to other countries in the highest category of freedoms, lumping them instead into a single category as "the top quintile of liberty". This is comparison, which I recommended above, would also show little correlation between gun ownership and individual liberty in a country.
E. "Why all the focus on guns, why aren't you trying to ban knives too?"
So this is the standard "whataboutism" argument that those opposed to gun control will resort to and the answer is simple: guns are much more powerful means of killing than just about any other instrument you can name.
Quite simply, there are more than twice as many homicides in the United States by firearm as there are by every other method combined [15]. Unless the argument is that the vast majority of murderers in the United States are deliberately choosing a less effective method, it seems that the people doing the killing think that this is the right tool for the job.
However, you should know that there's no need for such hypotheticals or data because, in the end, the person making this argument already knows that it's a false equivalence and there's an easy way to smoke them out. All you have to do is say something along the lines of "oh, so it won't be a problem if we ban guns because you'll be perfectly happy to use <> for self-defense since it's equally effective, right?"
Trust me, they'll choke very quickly and make it very clear that they are very aware that guns are more effective at killing people.
Sources
[1] https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/250533.pdf
[2] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-010-9489-6
[3] https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/19/6/412.full
[4] https://www.findlaw.com/consumer/consumer-transactions/private-gun-sale-laws-by-state.html
[5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5385318/
[6] https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/car-ownership-statistics/
[7] https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/carrying-guns-protection-results-national-self-defense-survey
[8] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3887145
[9] https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/incidence-civilian-defensive-firearm-use
[10] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
[11] https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263
[12] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091743515001188
[13] https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores
[14] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1090441
[15] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
20 notes
·
View notes
Consistently shocked by the idea that people think Bradley Rooster Bradshaw is chill and laid back. He’s actually shockingly unchill. He is the opposite of chill. He did not inherent any of his parents chillness. He’s a loser who’s too invested in everything.
Like ya hi I’m Bradley "Rooster" Bradshaw and I cut off my remaining family, surrogate father, and support system for 15 years cuz he pulled my naval academy papers because he didn’t want me to die like my biological father and because my mother wanted me to be free of the navy’s confinements and to exist outside of a system that physically uses me for their own power and political gains— gains I will never experience and feel for myself. A system that sees me as no more than a number, a soldier, something easily replaceable, as a body to be sacrificed in a war that i did not start nor will i finish.
“Bradley's chill.” No he’s not. He’s a beast. He’s a 30 something year old man whose entire purpose revolves around holding a grudge and proving his surrogate father wrong. This beast who literally said this to his surrogate father— "No wife. No kids. Nobody to mourn when you burn in." Beastly. Ghastly thing to say. 15 years and he still hates the guy who's been there for him since day one. He’s a guy who refuses to even begin to understand where Mav was coming from or to even think of what his mother wanted. He’s evil. And I love him.
Hi I’m Bradley "Rooster" Bradshaw and when someone brings up a well known, easily accessible fact that my father and surrogate father used to fly together I will try to cause physical harm against them and my friends will have to physically hold me back. I’m Bradley Bradshaw and I was willing to put my entire career on the line (the one in which I put my family aside for) so I can attack and beat this guy up.
I love his big ol’ Bambi eyes… he’s evil and fucked up and he’s not chill. Yes he wears jorts and tropical shirts, but that just means he’s gay and a fucking liar. Just cuz he looks like some surfer dude does not mean that he’s actually laid back like one. He’s lying to himself— trying to convince himself he is something that he is not and never will be. He is unchill. He’s lame. He has undiagnosed anxiety and it physically expresses itself through anger and loserly-ness. He cares so much to the point of self sabotage. He will always be unchill, no matter how much he tries to change that fact.
Y’all ever want to cradle a grown man in your arms? (graphic design is my passion)
551 notes
·
View notes