Fallacies of Gun Control

I know, I know, not another gun control thread.

I pushed myself a bit tonight and hammered out an initial draft for a rebuttal on gun control I'm writing for my school newspaper. I'll work on it more tomorrow, adding more points, shortening it and editing things. Let me know what you think and give me any suggestions on it.

_________________________________________________

In a perfect world, crime wouldn’t exist. Crazed killers strung out on psychological medication wouldn’t get access to guns, and they especially wouldn’t be able to burst into a defenseless area and start harming innocent people. But in the closest thing to a perfect world we currently have available, people would be able to defend themselves against the threat of violence.

One major thing that I have noticed in the recent mass shootings, despite having to figure it out myself instead of finding it out from the national news, is that all of them happened in areas where guns aren’t allowed. It’s a rather simple process of elimination: If one would be trying to get the highest body count and outdo the previous shooter, since it is a game to them, would he or she go to the place where no guns were allowed, or the place where people’s best defense is to duck and hide, maybe hope they can make it to an exit when the psycho was distracted?

Another thing that these shootings have in common: All of them have stopped once someone with a gun showed up. One example of this happened just two days after the tragedy at Newtown. On Sunday, December 16, Jesus Garcia in San Antonio, Texas, shot at his recently ex-girlfriend and patrons at her restaurant. He then chased them toward a movie theatre, possibly with motives like James Holmes in mind, when things took an unexpected turn for him: an off duty sheriff’s deputy, Sgt. Lisa Castellano, pulled out a gun, ending his attempted rampage, with two innocents non-critically wounded Garcia sent to the hospital. Other people that have stopped rampages after fearing people with guns coming were Adam Lanza in Newtown, who killed himself when he heard police sirens outside; James Holmes in Aurora, CO, surrendered when he saw police approach outside; Jacob Tyler Roberts, the shooter at the Clackamas Mall in Portland, Oregon, ran off and shot himself when he noticed a concealed carrier had pulled a gun.

And it is with these examples that I am proposing one of the more radical things to have been suggested in this newspaper: To allow teachers to carry concealed guns, should they have a concealed carry license, additional training and use ammo that has the least risks for collateral damage.

I want to first make it clear that I am not advocating every teacher to carry a gun. As a gun owner, I have seen people that have no business owning one, but that shouldn’t stop other people from defending themselves or others. While this idea may seem radical at first, I find it a lot more sane then posting a sign outside saying “no guns allowed”, with only one person inside who would stand a chance at enforcing it. This seems to be another simple option to me: Allow a teacher to defend his or her classroom, should a gunman burst in, or have that teacher throw him or herself in the way and allow the students to live just a few seconds longer?

This has been proven to work in Israel, where teachers, though not required to carry, are allowed and encouraged to should they be a veteran. Since then, not one student has been harmed in Israel by a gunman on school grounds. Arguments against this method include claims that kids may get the teacher’s guns or that the teacher may shoot a student in a fit of rage. Since Utah allowed teachers to carry concealed in 2001, not a single one of those types of incidents has occurred.

But here we get to the elephant in the room in gun control arguments: Why does anyone need an assault weapon? While the answer may seem even more radical that my proposition at first, there needs to be background, basic firearms knowledge as well as historical context put before this answer.
110 years ago, the Office of the Director of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM) was set up by Congress. Its purpose was to train Americans, especially youth, to transition from the previously popular lever action rifle to the new bolt action rifles being used by the military. The training was done through competitions to encourage marksmanship. This was done to ensure that enlistees in the military would have an easier time using the “military style assault weapons” of that era. Not only were these owned by civilians, but the government strongly encouraged it!

Today, it still exists as the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP), with competition shooters, including me, using the AR-15 platform to shoot targets at up to 600 yards across the nation. The biggest event of the year is CMP Week at Camp Perry, Ohio. In the scorching hot days of late July, two thousand people lay out in sweatshirts beneath coats in the hopes of taking home a trophy. And surprisingly, there has never been a mass shooting at anything besides paper targets.

According to the FBI’s crime statistics of 2006, rifles of any type, which includes weapons like hunting rifles, were used in only 438 murders compared to hammers, which were used in 638. If banning hammers saves just one life, it’s worth it.

The Clinton Era Assault Weapon Ban did nothing. All it did was ban cosmetic features that made it slightly less comfortable for people to shoot, but it didn’t make any gun less deadly. The collapsible buttstocks in the bill? All they do is make a gun fit into someone’s shoulder better. Pistol grips? A tighter grip when firing.

And here is the clincher: Those “high capacity magazines” that are over 10 rounds can be swapped out in less than 3 seconds by a novice. Most actual “gun nuts” can swap them out in about 1 second or less. Considering the average police response time is 5-10 minutes, one to three seconds isn’t going to make a difference.

What isn’t mentioned in the gun control debates is just how easy it is to convert a gun that meets all the specifications for what would be an assault weapon into something that would be deemed perfectly legal. Buttstocks can be replaced in 10 minutes or less. Pistol grips can be removed in 10 minutes or less. 10 round magazines can be bought, and it would be deemed acceptable. Nothing alters the rate of fire, all that happens is a bit more of an inconvenience for a recreational shooter.

Why would someone need more than 10 rounds for self defense? One of the best examples of this happened fairly recently. Melinda Herman, a Georgian mother of 9 year old twins, was hiding in a crawlspace shielding her children after an intruder broke into her house. Upon opening the door to the crawlspace, Paul Slater, the perpetrator, was met with all 6 shots of what a lot of gun control advocates would deem an acceptable self defense weapon, a .38 caliber revolver. After hitting him 5 times in the head and neck, he still approached the mother, who had to threaten to shoot him again, despite being out of ammo, to make him leave. Upon leaving the house, he got into his car and was coherent enough to drive a block before crashing into a tree. He still lived.

What if there had been more than one intruder? What if Slater didn’t believe that mother’s bluff? Would more rounds of ammo inside the magazine be acceptable then, or would a dead mom and her dead children be okay as long as they stayed politically correct? If high capacity magazines only save one life, it’s worth it.

During the Los Angeles Riots in 1992, the police barricaded the areas around City Hall and their station, leaving millions unprotected. People were left to fend for themselves in the streets against mobs looking to harass and beat people, loot stores and destroy property through arson. Why were the police able to stay inside while the city they are in charge of protecting burned? Because in the Supreme Court case Warren v District of Columbia, it was ruled that police have no duty to protect you. Since the police have no legal obligation to protect you, shouldn’t you be allowed to defend yourself, instead of waiting a typical response time of 7 minutes?

In Korea Town, one of the harder hit areas, certain shops were steered clear of: shops with people patrolling on top with rifles, including what would be classified as assault weapons, and shotguns. Despite hundreds of other shops being hit in that area, stores with guards on them remained untouched. When there are hundreds of people coming to destroy your livelihood by stealing from you and burning your life’s accomplishment to the ground, is it unacceptable to defend it?

One of the main reasons why people have these so called “assault weapons” with “high capacity” magazines is because, as it has been proven in the last 20 years in Los Angeles, London, and Greece, a seemingly somewhat peaceful society can break down into pure chaos at any moment. One may be stuck facing a mob intent on looting their home and destroying their livelihoods, maybe even killing them. But as long as the life of a looting thug is saved, it’s worth losing the best way to defend yourself.

Finally, the number one reason why people should be allowed access to assault weapons can be found in the writings of our own founding fathers. The Constitution was never intended to limit the people, however only to limit the government on what it can and cannot do. Upon taking apart the Second Amendment piece by piece, one thing that is often pointed out is that some “paranoid fool with a stash of arms” isn’t a militia. Once you go through AP English or English in 11th grade, it isn’t hard to notice that the part about militias and “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” are separate clauses, making separate points. The former sets up the need of a militia for a free state, the latter sets up a limitation on government, that it shall not infringe on arms.

What defines a militia? According to George Mason, the co-author of the much debated Second Amendment, “it is the whole people.” He further states that disarmament is the “most effectual way to enslave them.” While some may say that this being written 250 years ago makes it outdated, why can this not be applied to the first amendment? Free speech caused the Revolutionary War, which resulted in the deaths of thousands. If removing free speech saves one life, it’s worth it.

In more recent times, the right to an assault weapon has been upheld in a way many would be dissatisfied with today. In the Supreme Court case Miller v US, a citizen convicted under the 1934 National Firearms Act argued for the ability to possess a short barreled shotgun. While he lost the conviction, the Supreme Court clearly stated that “the Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.” In today’s standards, that would be an M4A1 (The actual “assault rifle”, since the civilian AR-15 lacks the capability for full automatic fire) and 30 round (“high capacity”) magazines.

But why did the founding fathers give us the right to keep and bear “military style weapons”? They gave us the ability to access these weapons so that, should the government no longer represent the people, the citizens could have a last resort to protect themselves from tyranny. This may seem farfetched, but, anyone elected to a public officer, police officers and even the military are required to take an oath of allegiance and to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

One of the key words often missed in this is the word “domestic”. Two hundred twenty four years ago, this oath was required for troops joining the militia. The idea that a force could take over the country from within is something often discussed in that time period of a country that just won its independence from a tyrannical government, but has been lost to many over time. Another key part of their oath is that instead of swearing any allegiance to an elected official, besides orders from the President, oath-takers swear their allegiance to a founding document of this country.

"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." This common quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson shows the amount of peril we may be in. Personally, it worries me that every single cop in Johnson County carries AR-15s, which according to our President, “belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.” If this was true, then how come, in the below average crime rates of Johnson County, every cop from the Highway Patrol down to **** Campus Police and County Park Police have one of these in their cars?
I was talking to a State Trooper the other day who joked that in his back seat, he had an AR-15, eight 30 round magazines and four 20 round magazines. That’s 320 rounds of ammo for a gun that “belongs on the battlefield” sitting in the back of a patrol car on the suburban streets! If a civilian doesn’t need a gun like this or that many magazines or that many rounds, then there should be absolutely no reason why a beat cop would need one.

Don’t tell me that it’s because police have special training, that’s completely false. Police are only required to qualify once or twice a year depending on the department, and usually shoot less than 1,000 rounds a year. I go through three times that much on my favorite gun, and that’s only because it’s a pain buying ammo for it. I’ve cringed as I’ve seen cops use AR-15s loaded down with optics, lights, lasers, and foregrips put two foot wide groups while laying down at 50 yards. I’ve put groups an eighth of that size using an AR-15 with iron sights on it at 600 yards. Being issued a gun doesn’t give someone special abilities or knowledge.
And this leads to another question: If those weapons belong in warfare, then who are cops preparing to go to war with?

This is my big question to any gun control advocates in the school. Why is a government that forced gun stores in Arizona to sell thousands of “assault weapons” to Mexican drug cartel members, without background checks, who have used those assault weapons in hundreds of murders, including Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, justified in taking those guns away from millions of law-abiding citizens? Explain to me how you plan on confiscating my firearms without further arming police and turning them more so into a para-military unit. How many of your fellow Americans are you willing to see killed to enforce a dystopian ideal, where only the ruling class would have protection?

If God intended for Man to have guns, we'd all be born with fingers that fire bullets.

There is no excuse to ever own a gun. It's simply cowardice and fear controlling you.

Originally posted by DaTroof
If God intended for Man to have guns, we'd all be born with fingers that fire bullets.

There is no excuse to ever own a gun. It's simply cowardice and fear controlling you.

First of all, I'm atheist. That's not going to work on me.

You probably have car insurance. Is it for an irrational fear of someone damaging your car, or is it a just in case policy? You probably have home insurance, is it an irrational fear of your house being damaged, or a just in case policy?

I own guns as a just in case policy, should they ever be needed. After all, my one life is worth saving, right?

reply to post by BobSwagger


Insurance is required by law. You own a gun out of fear and cowardice, as you just explained.

reply to post by DaTroof


Explain to me where I said I was a coward. What is cowardly about being proactive when it comes to defending yourself instead of dialing 911 and hoping someone (with a gun, gasp!) gets to you in time?

If God intended you to have insurance, he would've given you a policy upon being born.

reply to post by BobSwagger


"Just in case" policy means you're scared stiff. So scared, you think you need a lethal weapon for survival. That's cowardice.

reply to post by DaTroof


No, it means that I have something in case I need it. You probably have spare batteries in your house. Is it because you're scared stiff of something running out of batteries, or is it because you want to be able to replace batteries in something when they go out instead of driving to the store?

I also like how you failed to counter any of the original points.

reply to post by BobSwagger


No, I don't have extra batteries. I don't have anything that runs on batteries. I've countered every single one of your points in every other gun thread. Go ahead, read em.

reply to post by DaTroof


Your logic is unclear to me. Let’s say two armed intruders attempt to break into your house (perhaps they have guns, maybe they have knives or baseball bats), what would you do? Cower under your bed while you wait from policemen that may never come? If and when they do arrive they’ll attempt to resolve the situation using what, exactly? I’m unsure how owning a gun is cowardice...

reply to post by DaTroof


Then this should be a fairly simple answer that shouldn't take time for you. How would you go about disarming over 100 million people without further arming the police here and without bloodshed?

reply to post by BlindBastards


I have means of defense that won't put a bullet through my wall and into my neighbor's house. Well golly gee!

reply to post by BobSwagger


Hand over your gun or die. It's that easy. You really gonna choose death?

reply to post by DaTroof


Read some of my posts. I have no issue dying some what free over dying a slave.

And how would you do this without further arming police? Wouldn't killing me require a gun?

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by BlindBastards

 

I have means of defense that won't put a bullet through my wall and into my neighbor's house. Well golly gee!

I asked a black and white question; what would you do? You answered it in a roundabout sort of way.

For the record, I don’t own any guns nor have I ready access to any.

reply to post by BlindBastards


I answered clearly. If you can't figure out what I mean, then don't reply to me.

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by BlindBastards

 

I have means of defense that won't put a bullet through my wall and into my neighbor's house. Well golly gee!

Oh, I see, you're also a coward. Just that you exercise it through other means.

reply to post by DaTroof

I have means of defense that won't put a bullet through my wall and into my neighbor's house.

Same here. I use JHP rounds. I prefer my bullet to stop where it hits, rather than going through the target.

Originally posted by BlindBastards
reply to post by DaTroof

 

Your logic is unclear to me. Let’s say two armed intruders attempt to break into your house (perhaps they have guns, maybe they have knives or baseball bats), what would you do? Cower under your bed while you wait from policemen that may never come? If and when they do arrive they’ll attempt to resolve the situation using what, exactly? I’m unsure how owning a gun is cowardice...

This shows how the US has gone too far for gun control. This wouldn't happen in countries that have guns under control thanks to early laws, it's safer and you don't need a gun for defence. Now the US is in too deep with almost as many guns as people, control won't help but more guns won't either, yet it's still embraced as a "freedom".

This is why arguing for both the pro-gun and pro-gun control sides is stupid (although the latter is a lot less stupid), both will make it worse, something else needs to happen first, and it will take a long time. Currently people are just making the future worse.