idw.community

GUN CONTROL MYTHS DEBUNKED

By SpikeTalon 1 year ago

Gun control myths have and continue to mislead many of my fellow Americans into believing that more gun control legislation is required in order to keep everyone safe. A closer examination on the issue however will show how gun control measures fall short every time, and that no amount of gun control will deter criminals. The following is some of the popular myths gun control advocates love to cite.

Myth 1: Assault weapons are a problem and no one needs to own an assault rifle.

Fact: "Assault rifles are used in barely one-percent of all homicides. Most firearms-related homicides are committed with handguns, not rifles. Statistics aside for a moment, that is a reasonable conclusion as a criminal would most likely need to be able to conceal his weapon, and rifles tend to be bulky and not easy to conceal. It is also worth pointing out that a good portion of the homicides by firearm are suicides.

As for owning rifles such as an AR-15 for home defense, rifles are generally more accurate and having a weapon at the ready that holds thirty rounds could come in handy if there are multiple home invaders. One must also take into account for any possible missed shots as well, so with that in mind thirty rounds is not an over amount.

Myth 2: High capacity rifles lead to more deadly shootings.

Fact: Again, most firearm-related crimes are carried out with handguns, not rifles, and most revolvers only hold between six to eight rounds.

Myth 3: The gun rights lobby prevents gun control legislation from passing.

Gun control advocates often claim that groups like the National Rifle Association somehow control elected leaders from both the Democrat and Republican parties via campaign contributions, but this claim is absurd when one takes into account gun control legislation that has passed in certain states (California and New Jersey come to mind), some of which is rather restrictive such as limits on magazine capacity. Likewise, there are plenty of gun control advocacy groups such as Everytown For Gun Safety and March For Our Lives which constantly push for more gun control legislation, so that's a two-way street there.

Myth 4: Second Amendment rights advocacy groups like the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America are largely racist groups.

This is patently false, and actually gun control is rooted in racism. During and shortly after the Civil War, those who believed in and fought for the right to keep slaves were vehemently against any slave having access to firearms, as armed individuals wouldn't make for good slaves. That is perhaps the most absurd claim.

Myth 5: Criminals won't have access to guns if they are banned.

Simply put, law abiding gun owners will obey the law and criminals will not. That's why they are called criminals. Just how successful have the bans on recreational drugs been? Did outlawing abortion procedures prevent all abortions from occuring? I think you get the picture. Not only would a gun ban not work, it would ensure the only people with guns are the criminals.

Myth 6: Gun free zones are safe spaces.

No, and in fact the opposite is true. In the last twenty or so years, just about every mass shooting we have experienced occured in what was supposed to be a gun free zone. Just think about all the shootings that occured in schools, all of which were supposed to be gun free zones. It is only logical to conclude that would be shooters prefer their victims to be unarmed, and most shooters are stopped swiftly once they are confronted by armed resistance. The politicians who claim gun free zones are safe spaces crack me up, as most of them have armed security guards.

Myth 7: Places with strict gun control laws do not experience mass shootings.

That's not true, just look at the city of Chicago, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, and the number of shootings in Chicago have risen sharply this year- [nbcchicago.com]. As always though, criminals pay no regards to the laws whatsoever.

Myth 8: Only law enforcement should have access to guns.

I find it ironic that those who advocate for gun control measures are the very same people now who are calling to defund police departments across the country, the irony is really split thick there. When a home invasion in the middle of the night occurs and every second counts, the police are often minutes away, and that's especially true for those who live in rural areas. If police officers need guns due to the potentially violent people they could encounter, then surely average citizens need guns as well, as someone breaking into your residence in the middle night most likely didn't break in to leave you presents. Lastly, the argument that only those employed by the Government or police should have guns defies the purpose of the Second Amendment in the Constitution, which I will get to more in a moment.

Myth 9: More background checks would stop mass shootings.

It pays to keep in mind that at one point in their lives every single individual who is now considered a criminal had a clean record, and thus would have been legally able to own firearms. Background checks are all too easy to fool, someone with ill intentions could be thinking about acting out an act of violence, but as long as they haven't committed any criminal offense they would still be able to obtain a gun. I equate background checks to the likes of a placebo, it gives the feeling of doing something about the situation, but in reality you aren't accomplishing much.

Myth 10: The Second Amendment only gives the right to own guns for use in a militia.

I saved the best one for last, as this is perhaps the favorite argument of gun control advocates. The Second Amendment reads: "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." Did you notice the commas in that statement? They are there for a specific reason, the first half stated a militia is necessary to preserve the security of a free state, while the second half stated the people have a right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not ever be infringed upon. A broader definition of the term arms means anything that could be used as a weapon and any ammunition that said weapons would require to use. It's that last part, shall not be infringed, that gun control advocates conveniently love to leave out.

Another related argument the gun control advocates tend to fall back on is that the Second Amendment only applied to muskets. I can't help but wonder though... does that mean the First Amendment right to free speech only applies to the printing press, since there was no such thing as the Internet or social media back then? Repeating rifles were already in existence at the time the Bill Of Rights was established. I'd recommend researching the Puckle Gun [en.m.wikipedia.org] and the Ferguson Rifle. The [Belton Flintlock]( [en.m.wikipedia.org] is another example proving the concept of repeating firearms existed prior to the Bill Of Rights.

Conclusion:

The gun control debate is perhaps at its most heated point now, as more mass shootings make the headlines stirring up emotions. As is the case with any inanimate object, they are only as bad as the human beings that use them, people always have and continue to be the problem, not the guns. I think the recent events surrounding around the Covid-19 pandemic have somewhat turned the tide of the gun control debate in favor of the gun rights activists, as more and more of those who identify as liberal progressive have become first time gun owners due to fear of the unknown(s) during the pandemic.

Faced with defeat after defeat, the gun control advocates are now turning to one of their favorite weapons in the culture war, stigmatization. Policy is not enough, the outright shaming and ridicule of American gun owners is becoming more prevalent, with the end goal being to make private gun ownership a taboo thing. The spread of misinformation is what helped to create the current political rift in America, and the divide has only been growing bigger. Both sides of this debate clearly want a solution, a solution in which everyone benefits without the need to surrender up any rights, but little progress can be made when emotions and the "woke" cancel culture are factored into the equation.

Note: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of this website or its members.

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

6 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

3

Thank you.....well put. As a card carrying life member of the NRA, I believe that the 2'nd Amendment was written for the past, present, and future. There is no expiration date.

2

Great piece @SpikeTalon

Thank you.

1

When people attack the Second Amendment because it was written over 200 years ago so does not apply to modern circumstances, what they fail to understand is that if such arguments gain acceptance with the 2nd being erased on this point that places the whole of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution itself at jeopardy, and if they pay attention they should damn well know the federal government and wannabe tyrant governors will take that inch given and run the whole field, out into the parking lot, and just keep going. So if you don't like the 2nd, and cheer if it gets erased be ready to say good bye to the First Amendment, and all these posts you like to make criticizing the government, yeah, that will send you to an American Gulag in due time.

All the internet freedom you tend to enjoy right now, kiss that good bye. China and muslim nations who have strict control of their internet services will look like amatuers once the United States starts that kind of censorship with the likes of Bill Gates and his kind stepping up to volunteer their services. Trials, even though the legal system has almost effectively ended trial by a jury of peers already, but all trials, and right to legal representation will become a wistful memory. If you hate cops now imagine a world where they won't need anything like a search warrant or defensible probable cause to kick in your door and tear through your home any time they want.

Things like the "protests" BLM and their compatriots have been carrying out in recent weeks will see a new ending. Instead of being allowed to run rampant destroying business and property that have nothing to do with their complaints, they will see APCs coming onto the street. One of the first things to be noticed will be the 50 caliber machine gun mounted on a turret with a well trained gunner sitting behind it, then all the troops in full combat gear will be seen exiting these vehicles armed with exceptionally lethal weapons, not just tear gas and rubber bullets. Perhaps a warning will be issued for people to leave. For those that ignore the warning they will first be strafed with machine gun fire from the turrets, then the troops will come through the streets and mop up the rest.

All those 1% rich people you keep whining about. They won't be a problem. Most of them will be executed rather quickly. The problem is they will be replaced with a much smaller percentage of a ruling elite that will have life styles making the luxurious styles types like Trump, and Gates live in look a bit impoverished. There will be a middle management class, approved, card carrying members of the Party, who will have a fairly decent life as long as they do not step out of line. The rest of us, will be chattel of the state, property to do with as they please.

As the saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it".

I am talking about getting rid of the Constitution, not amending so what's your point?

@KCSantiago Who are you talking to???

Some guy commented about how the Second Amendment had been amended x amount of times, I think it was this fellow that has some number as his profile name. Just that comment with no explanation of what he was talking about, or how it related to the original comment I had made. I have seen some posts making not so complimentary things about the guy, that basically he is just trolling, so maybe he deleted his comment to try making me look bad?

@KCSantiago Ah okay, I see, all good.

We don't have a Bill of Rights... we do not need one.
We don't have a right to bear arms... we do not need one.
We now have gun control... and we don't have massacres.

Lightman, I am not familiar with you, but if you are being serious please just ignore anything I post. If that is a serious comment the ignorance in it is far too great for me to even begin to want to deal with.

2

Very well put together, good job!

Much thanks.

0

[washingtonpost.com]

Love it or hate it, the Second Amendment provides the constitutional framework for American gun laws. As with all things constitutional, Americans are adapting 18th-century laws to fit 21st-century lives. But in reality, the concerns of the Founding Fathers had little to do with either side’s position in the modern gun-control debate. None of the issues animating that debate — from “stand your ground” laws to assault weapons bans — entered into the Founders’ thinking.

Yet because both sides in debates about the Second Amendment invoke what the Founders would have thought, it’s important to look at what they actually intended.

The WaPo of course is absolutely wrong in that statement you posted. The 2nd Amendment patently does NOT provide a framework for American gun laws. The 2nd A., flatly states the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. End of discussion, no law shall be passed that infringes that right. Well, what have all these Unconstitutional gun laws that have followed on since, done but to infringe on the Right of people to keep and bear arms?

The Left and their dishonest ideology & media always has to twist things out of proper context and meaning. The 2nd Amendment is thee only gun law the Founding Fathers wanted. Period. End of discussion.

0

My first thought on guns in the US is the absurdity of believing that the 2nd amendment has anything to do with life in the world today.

Why is such absurd? The concept of self defense has existed in some form or the other since the dawn of humanity, and the core of the Second Amendment is about self defense.

@SpikeTalon Let's not get vague now in trying to defend the indefensible it is about armed civilians... it is over 200 years go when times were a lot different and so were the arms available.

@Lightman Arming civilians yes... and for what purpose exactly? Arms were different back then, and the Founders were well aware of possible technological advances that could come down the road, and I had linked to a few sources above that proved the idea of repeating arms existed at those times.

The 2nd Amendment does not apply to the world. It applies to law-abiding citizens in the United States. As for its relevance, there are dozens if not hundreds of instances every year in which armed citizens protect themselves and others. Self defense is neither theoretical nor absurd.

@SpikeTalon they were aware of the possible technological advances over 200 years ago? Sorry but that is rubbish. no one back then would even dream of what is available today.

@SpikeTalon, @gregraven law biding? it says nothing about law biding and has no means to restrict ownership to just the law biding.... just like today 200 plus years later.

@Lightman Are you unaware that people can lose freedoms if they are convicted of breaking the law?

@gregraven yes and criminals should... don't cha think?

@Lightman That’s my point, but I’m missing yours.

@Lightman I doubt it, there were repeating arms back in their day even if they were crude, and besides the 2A meant that civilians should always be able to have access to the same kind of weapons that the Government possesses.

@SpikeTalon And I repeat...
My first thought on guns in the US is the absurdity of believing that the 2nd amendment has anything to do with life in the world today.

@Lightman Then I suppose the First Amendment wouldn't apply to life in today's world either, as the Founder's couldn't possibly have conceived of concepts like the Internet or social media...

@SpikeTalon Irrelevant... if you like we could debate the whole of the constitution... I'm simply staying on track with the 2nd amendment.

@Lightman That's not irrelevant, by your logic if one part of the Bill of Rights is not applicable by today's standards, then it only stands to reason other parts aren't as well. I'm not debating anyone, not even interested in doing such. I should have attached a disclaimer saying that if you're not from the US then this article may not be of any interest to you.

@SpikeTalon Now now now.... no strawmen ok...
Oh BTW it is of interest to me... I think it would do you and others good to get an impartial, unbiased opinion.

@Lightman As for being biased, I could accuse you of the same, what makes your stance any more valid? Same with the strawman accusation, I could say that you are projecting, but none of that is getting us anywhere. Good to hear you are interested though, as many non-Americans would just skim over a post like this.

@SpikeTalon But you'd be wrong... re the bias and strawmen, my logic is only based on the facts.
Here's one for you to think on... Firearms regulation in Switzerland allows the acquisition of semi-automatic, and -with a may-issue permit- fully automatic firearms, by Swiss citizens and foreigners with or without permanent residence. The laws pertaining to the acquisition of firearms in Switzerland are amongst the most liberal in the world. Yet they do not have the problems of the US.
Years go when I first looked at the US and the 2nd amendment, I immediately thought of the Swiss as actually being a better example of what the amendment was supposed to be.
Swiss gun culture has emerged from a long tradition of shooting, which served as a formative element of national identity in the post-Napoleonic Restoration of the Confederacy, and the long-standing practice of a militia organization of the Swiss Army in which soldiers' service rifles are stored privately at their homes.
A 2017 amendment to the European Firearms Directive, known as the "EU Gun Ban", introduces new restrictions on firearms possession and acquisition, especially on semi-automatic firearms, personal defense weapons, magazine capacity, blank firing guns and historical firearms. The restrictions must be introduced into the Swiss legal system by August 2018 due to its membership of the Schengen area.
The vast majority of firearm-related deaths in Switzerland are suicides. By contrast, gun crime is comparatively limited. In 2016, there were 187 attempted and 45 completed homicides, for a homicide rate of 0.50 per 100,000 population, giving Switzerland one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.
Why do you think there is such huge difference?

@Lightman You say lets not be vague and that it's about the indefensible but never define what is indefensible and proceed to be vague yourself.

Yes, the 2nd Amendment is absolutely about arming the people in self defense. Nothing has changed the same threats that existed in 76 still exist today so that garbage about it was written 200 yrs ago is just that, garbage. Fallacious arguments about the evolution of weapons and pointing to advancements in technology is also false.

The founding Fathers wanted the most modern weapons of war in the private hands of the citizenry. Citizenry which in times of crisis make up the militia. They understood then, that if not for the private ownership of cannon, at the time, General Washington's army wouldn't have had any artillery, at all.

What the Founding Fathers feared most, far more than I with a belt fed machine gun or say a 20 mm anti-tank cannon in my basement, was a permanent standing army wielded by the central gov't. In fact, the concept of the permanent standing army was Unconstitutional, only the Navy was to be a permanent thing.

The Founding Fathers would have wanted me to have the most modern weapons that I could afford, that was a requirement of the militia. And, they would have wanted you to be similarly armed as well.

@Lightman You said-"My first thought on guns in the US is the absurdity of believing that the 2nd amendment has anything to do with life in the world today."

Your statement starts off with a lie. You didn't have a thought. You're really not thinking, it wasn't a thought you ha; but was rather a irrational belief implanted in you, by someone else. Then you try to take credit for it, as if.....

The real absurdity here is, you continuing to believe ( rather than think for yourself) that the 2nd Amendment doesn't have anything to do with life in the world today. To have that myopic view you need to willingly ignore reality of the actual world around you, and perhaps more importantly, to be totally ignorant modern history, or not to have been too lazy to have bothered to have studied it at all.

So, having thus demonstrated that you are in fact arguing from a position of blithe ignorance, you've managed to invalidate your own standing to debate on this topic what so ever.

@Lightman, @SpikeTalon That is absolutely correct, Spike.

@Die_Grinder Don't accuse me of lying when I don't ok. You have your opinion, I have mine and IMO if you were correct every country would have a 2nd amendment... guess what... they don't.
I'm also not ignorant... if you want to name call try it on someone who cares.
BTW I do think for myself... you should try it sometime.

Write Comment