Responding to gun control points

[The Unknown User]

Let me start with a little background: I'm in an American politics class at my college, and on the first day (about 10 days ago) the professor handed out a survey meant to gauge the class' political affiliation and orientation.

One question in particular stood out to me: Would you favor an amendment to the Constitution or other legal action to further restrict the ownership or use of guns in America?

Of course, I checked "No," and wanted to circle it, highlight it, and write an essay to support my choice.

Last class, a summary was given of the survey, where I noticed that 63% of the class, with 22 people, disagreed with me, whereas 37%, with 13 people, agreed.

So today, the next class, we were discussing various questions on the survey, and we finally got to the gun control question. By this point, I'm already steaming, as I know why the majority of those 22 people favor more restrictive gun control legislation: it's drilled into them by politicians, and the popular media preys on violent occurrences. Every time there is a violent shooting, you get to see the distraught family members saying how they wished guns didn't exist, and then politicians and other various pundits jump all over the bandwagon, and nobody is ever honestly exposed to the other side.

With that said, I sort of knew what was coming: ignorant comments supporting gun control. But, I have to admit I was surprised. The moment my professor said "gun control," a hand went up, and that student made a remark about the VT shootings, saying that the shooter would have resorted to other means of violence if guns were not an option for him. I'm not sure if he was saying that the availability and ease of access to guns made them an option for him, or if he was trying to illustrate that gun control won't stop someone who intends to commit an act of violence, but nonetheless I thought it was a good point to start on.

Some other various remarks were said, which resulted in someone saying there should be a line somewhere between having no guns at all, and having guns being freely available to anyone and everyone (which I agree with).

I then raised my hand, which is odd for me, being a quiet, reserved, introvert. I don't remember my exact words, so I will paraphrase what I said, and will only quote what I specifically remember being said. I started out saying, "Gun control doesn't work." All gun control does is ignore the problem, and restrict law abiding citizens. Criminals, by definition, don't follow the laws; that's what makes them criminals to begin with. So, if you make gun control a reality, it won't have any effect on them.

This is where I stopped talking, expecting a response. I heard someone say that I had made a "good point," so I was glad someone was listening to logic.

Then a girl in the back row said that she didn't agree because guns should be harder for criminals to obtain in the first place. She acknowledged that gun control wouldn't stop criminals, but she reiterated that she wanted it to be harder for criminals to obtain their weapons.

This didn't make any sense, so I cut her off, and told her that criminals don't go to gun stores to buy guns so that they can have background checks run on them.

Then the professor cut in, and made the point that one of the bigger problems is the lack of uniformity from state to state with regards to the laws. For example, here in MA, I can't buy a Sig P220 Carry, or the blued Sig P232 as they do not fit the AG's restrictions. But, cross the border, into NH, and now you can legally obtain a suppressor. I agree that there needs to be a uniform law enforced by the federal government, not separate laws for every state.

The class ended shortly thereafter.

Did I make a good anti gun control statement? None of it was prepared, so I was completely winging it.

What are the usual pro gun control arguments? How can you respond to them politely, and using logic?

I expect this topic to come up again, and I'd like to be able to respond effectively while remaining respectful of others' differences.

 

[lamazza]

Sounds like you held your ground.
There are ALOT of threads just like this one.
Do a search and get all the verbal ammunition you will ever need.

 

[ServiceSoon]

I think you did well for your first run around. Winging it can be difficult. You provided a logical argument that is easy to understand and the only objection was an emotional response.

I agree that there needs to be a uniform law enforced by the federal government, not separate laws for every state.

I would like to touch briefly on the above statement. The tenth amendment of the US constitution states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The powers of congress are covered in Article 1 Section 8. Congress is not directly given the authority to regulate or infringe upon the right to bear arms. In fact the government is forbidden from infringing upon the right to bear arms according to my research and interpretation of the second amendment.

If Congress doesn't agree with this then they need to take a vote to alter the constitution, but by no means should they ignore it or say it means something other than what it says.

Some good statistical information can be found at www.guncite.com For example: 70% of people who commit crimes with firearms had previous convictions. That tells me that obstructing the average citizen from obtaining firearms will have little effect on the number of crimes committed with firearms.

 

[The Unknown User]

Wow, thanks for that website link. I should start reading that so I can learn a bit more.

I'm curious, though: given the name, wouldn't it be safe to conclude it's a little biased?

 

[RPCVYemen]

By this point, I'm already steaming,... [./QUOTE]

Why? I find disagreeing with someone with a sense of humor really helps disarm them.

Mike

 

[The Unknown User]

It's my Achilles heel. Nothing frustrates me more than when someone has an opinion, but doesn't or chooses not to back up their opinion with logical arguments that make sense.

I need to let that go, honestly.

 

[SDC]

The fact that the various states have a degree of autonomy regarding "gun control" actually works in our favour, since it shows both that gun control DOESN'T and CAN'T stop violent criminals from getting all they want or need, and it shows that low levels of "gun control" doesn't correlate to a high murder rate. If "more guns equals more murders" (and, by extension, weaker gun controls equals more murders), I would expect to see those states and those segments of the population that own the MOST guns would also have the highest murder rates, but it doesn't work that way; in fact, most of the jurisdictions with the STRICTEST gun control laws on the books also have the highest murder rates. At the other end of the scale, you have states like Vermont, which is one of the least-regulated states, firearm-wise, and has a murder rate lower than the Canadian average. Most of the northern plain states also have murder rates as low or lower than their Canadian neighbours, despite the fact that they allow CCW, ownership of full-autos, suppressors, etc., and Canadian law treats our citizens like brain-damaged two-year olds.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

I agree that there needs to be a uniform law enforced by the federal government, not separate laws for every state.

There are already uniform federal gun enforced that are enforced by the federal government and these laws are already plenty (overly?) restrictive. If you want the more uniform laws, have Massachusetts repeal their even more restrictive laws to better match those states who have fewer gun laws.

 

[David904]

This uniform law is called the Second Amendment. It is just that for some reason, we the people have allowed it to be infringed upon.

 

[Nitrogen]

gunfacts.info. Great site with great information.

 

[WeedWhacker]

I agree that there needs to be a uniform law enforced by the federal government, not separate laws for every state.

Essentially echoing David904's sentiment: there is a uniform law:

Shall not be infringed!

 

[ServiceSoon]

I'm curious, though: given the name, wouldn't it be safe to conclude it's a little biased?

That would be a very safe assumption. Although, an interesting point is that www.guncite.com debunk's the myth that the Nazi's used gun control to force the take-over of Germany. That tells me that they are more interested in the truth than perpetuating lies to support either side of the argument. As always, trust but verify.

 

[Gunblade]

I'm also a college student and will mostly have to fight that battle in the near future.

One arguement I was thinking about is that if you ban firearms, won't some people start making second-rate firearms underground. (Kind of like the prohibition and bath-tub gin...)

Another senario: Your grandparent is/was a gun-maker/gunsmith, your parent is/was a gun-maker/gunsmith, and now you are a gun-maker/gunsmith. It is a skill you have been learning since you were five watching your relatives and their friends and co-workers in their workshop. Then a ban comes along and people start saying, "Sorry, you can't do that anymore. Better start searching the want ads." Personally I'm seeing riots at this point.

 

[M1 Shooter]

Good point Gunblade. If all guns were outlawed, how many people would suddenly become unemployed? Obviously guns don't just appear out of thin air, people have to make them, not to mention ammunition, scopes, reloading gear, and many other shooting accessories. Then you have all the gunshop employees and owners and gunsmiths. I don't know how many people would be unemployed by an all out ban, but it would be quite a few.

 

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I then raised my hand, which is odd for me, being a quiet, reserved, introvert.

An interesting observation about yourself to be sharing within the context of a gun-control discussion. What do we always hear on the news from neighbors and co-workers after an incident?:

"He was real quiet. Kept to himself a lot."



But seriously....

You did alright, shooting from the hip (so to speak) as you were. But, as you've already stated yourself, you need to not get worked up over people who refuse to base their views and arguments on facts and/or rational thought processes. They represent the lion's share of humanity, and you just have to accept their existence and stubborn refusal to open their minds...or else you'll just end up like this guy -> :banghead:

 

[shooter429]

You did well

There will be many such challenges in your college career. I decided to take the opportunity to learn all I could about the issues and hone my arguments. Do research, using as much information as you can from "unbiased" sources. You will also want to research the antis views and their sources so you know exactly what to expect.n Have counterpoints ready. Know your enemy. In sociology, all profs were leftists, but I found some allies in the criminal justice department. I spent many hours debating the liberal professors, and I learned more than I ever would have if I had kept quiet.

Good job. Keep up the fight.

Shooter429