,

6 Common Pro-Gun Defenses and Why More Citizens With Guns Doesn’t Make A Safer Society

Not even that good guy neighbor’s intervention of the Texas Church shooting helped.

The United States has seen 307 mass shootings over just the first 11 months of 2017. It is the only developed nation in the world to have this serious of a gun problem. While many debate tougher regulations over guns and even banning certain models, there are those that want guns to be less regulated instead. They believe that the more guns society has access to, the less crime there would be. After all, there would be a higher risk for a criminal if anyone could have a gun, right?

The following are 3 of the most common gun defenses made by pro-gun supporters while the final 3 are more specific to the mass shooting in a Texas church.

1. “Guns don’t kill people! People kill people!”

Which is why we need to stop letting unhinged people get guns, right? I mean, that only says that a gun itself doesn’t kill but people having guns can kill. Thus supporting people pushing for tougher gun regulation?

2. “What’s next? Are we going to ban gardening tools!?”

Cause regulation somehow means “banning” and a tool that allows someone to far more easily kill people and have no other purpose but to kill is relatable to gardening tools? Please, tell me which will be likely not only to kill but also kill far more people regardless of the person’s physique: a gun or hedge clippers? Which criminal is most likely to be stopped quicker?

If you answered gardening tools, that raises a lot of questions on you and the people around you.

3. “We don’t need more gun laws! Criminals don’t follow laws!”

Except statistically: laws help reduce crime (compared to no laws), majority of all mass shootings over the last year were by legally obtained guns and that’s just a stupid argument. Should we make murder legal since criminals do it anyways? I mean, why should it be illegal with that logic? Hell, lets get rid of all our laws since some people break them anyways.

4. “A gun stopped the Church shooter!”

Wow, one out of how many mass shootings? And only after he finished shooting up the church? A neighbor to the church inflected 2 gun wounds on the shooter (Devin Patrick Kelley), NOT KILLING HIM, and the shooter escaped. The shooter later took his own life vis lethal shot to his head.

Further, how did the neighbor know Kelley was the shooter and not just a vigilante chasing the real criminal? His uninformed action was luckily correct, but he also didn’t actually stop the shooter.

5. “But the Air Force failed to report Kelley’s offense!”

Kelley “legally” purchased a Ruger AR-556 rifle. He checked the box on the background check form to indicate he didn’t have disqualifying criminal history and gave a Colorado address… And was cleared to go?

And how does this not prove that are regulation issues? Buying a gun is far too easy. Roughly 300 years ago, in cowboy land, it made sense as a constitutional right. You didn’t have the protection or laws that we do today in modern society. These days it should be privilege that should require extensive training and psychological analyst. There needs to be a clear intent of owning a tool used for murder and far more checks.

6. “Banning guns won’t stop gun violence. It only leaves guns for the criminals to attack good people!” -And the issue with vigilantes.

  1. No one has proposed a ban. No one. Heavier regulation =/= a ban.
  2. No one says it will 100% end gun violence.
  3. Do you want it to be hard for criminals to get guns or easy?
  4. Do you trust a untrained citizen to make life threatening judgement on situations?

On #4, lets use an example situation:

After hearing a bunch of commotion, you see that your front door is wide open and a lot of valuables are missing from your home. You have a neighbor whom you dislike and argue with repeatedly, over years. You see this same neighbor with your valuables in their hands near your house. Make a judgement: Did the neighbor steal these items?

Come to find out, the neighbor was coming over to argue about something when he saw an unknown person run out of your house with your valuables. He chased down the criminal and took back your goods and was returning them to you.

Was the victim likely to believe their neighbor given their history? After all, it’s weird they’re just standing their with your goods and you didn’t see the other person. They could just be lying to avoid being caught, right?

Or what about another situation where you hear gun shots and quickly run out to find someone with a gun frantically looking around. Do you shoot him? What if he was actually one of those “good guys” with a gun looking for the criminal? How could you know that?

How could the neighbor of that Texas church had 100% known that about Kelley the bad guy?

Luck played a roll in all of this. Luck had it that the neighbor made an uninformed but (luckily) correct assumption that probably stopped the gun man from killing even more people. But was he going to kill more people or was the church his only target before then intending to commit suicide? After all, that neighbor didn’t stop him from succeeding in his goal of killing key people in that church, right? He also didn’t stop the shooter, as the shooter got away. Instead, this vigilante only increased a risk of more problems.

In conclusion: instead of trying to get more quick-to-judge trigger happy people on the streets playing super hero, we should further prevent crazy people from getting guns and only allow trained law enforcement to have them. The 2nd Amendment of the basic right to bare arms was for the cowboy days of 300 years ago and not for modern society. It should be no more than a limited privilege now.