Five Gun Arguments That Have Worn Out Their Welcome

In the wake of Friday's gun massacre at a Connecticut elementary school that left 27 people dead, including 20 children, Facebook, Twitter, and every news outlet has been overrun with talk of the tragedy and scope of the loss, while simultaneously featuring guests who will inevitably trot out the same worn out lines and talking points that always arise whenever we have a mass shooting.

Sadly, as of yesterday, we've had 19 mass shootings since 2007, averaging almost 4 per year, so we get to hear these arguments with more and more frequency.

While some arguments provide potential solutions, there are several statements that have simply worn out their welcome, so far as I'm concerned:


5.)  "I mean, I know these discussions are gonna happen, but can we at least give these poor kids 24 hours before you exploit them for political purposes?"


Not for nothin', but when was the right time?  In case you've missed it, we haven't had an assault weapons ban codified into law since 2004, and there has been little effort from national Democrats to push for any sort of gun control legislation.

So when, exactly, is it the right time?  Tomorrow?  Yesterday?  The day after tomorrow?

Frankly, I'm not certain there is ever a "right time" to talk about issues of gun violence and gun control, because every time someone attempts to bring it up, they get shut down by Conservatives and gun enthusiasts with such alacrity that it's nearly impossible to get a word in edgewise.

So, we can't talk about it within 24 hours of a mass shooting, and we can't talk about it when there hasn't been one, and we certainly can't talk about it in Congress, or at town hall meetings, or at political events.

Actually, let me amend that: "Liberals" can't talk about it.  Conservatives and 2nd Amendment trumpeters are always welcome to talk about it, so long as they make sure to talk about how Democrats, Communists, Liberals, and Socialists are going to take your guns away from you, and even if there's no legislation in the works, or even being mentioned, it's just lurking in the Pinko Commie shadows, just waiting for the right moment to POUNCE onto the President's desk.

The truth behind this 24-hour moratorium is that Conservatives don't want to talk about it because emotions are high, people are scared, and they know they will lose.  There is no actual concern for respecting the solemnity of the moment; it's not out of respect for the victims, their parents, their friends, or relatives - it's out of fear that someone will finally be able to shout louder than the gun enthusiasts.

So, when someone tells you that it's not the right time to talk about issues of gun control, you can rest assured that it is EXACTLY the right time to talk about gun control, because they'll be on the defensive and come out the losers.



4.)  "The point I'm trying to make, here, is Liberals always jump to taking freedoms away."

Let's be honest, here - when it comes to overreacting to things, there is little question which side of the political spectrum takes the cake.

Take, for example, the reactions of supporters of the opposing party after an election:

When Republicans win a national election, Democrats will grumble for a few days about how they're going to move to France or Canada, but let's be honest - how many people do you know who have followed through on that threat?

When Republicans win elections, Democrats don't run out to the drug store and buy up all the condoms and birth control out of fear that Republicans will limit access to them; Democratic women don't run out to the nearest abortion clinic to vacate their wombs while they still have the chance.; no one starts stockpiling pentagram necklaces and hiding all their books of witchcraft and wizardry.

And then, there's the other scenario:

When Democrats win an election, gun sales spike to astronomical levels as Republicans race to stockpile as many firearms as possible, because the Democrats are going to take away their guns.  Republican business owners are frequently quoted in newspapers talking about how they're going to have to scale back on hiring, because their taxes are going up.

When Democrats win elections, membership in militias skyrocket, and for some reason, every news outlet is inundated with pundits, commentators, and random people who would have never been allowed anywhere near a microphone prior to the election season, and every conspiracy theory known to man comes out to play in the minds of America's craziest crackpots.

So really, there is no parity in terms of which side overreacts in any given situation - Republicans take that prize, anyone who tells you otherwise is a bullshit artist.


3.)  "Gun control won't solve the problem.  If guns are taken away, people will just use knives!"

You know what, they're right.  People are going to kill other people; this is an unquestionable fact of life.  Not every person is stable, sane, or even nice.  But, let's take a better look at the numbers:

Murder Victims, by Weapon Used

In the most recent year listed (2008), 14,299 people were murdered, and of those, 9,484 of them died by gunfire.

That's 66.3%.

With rare exception, guns are the weapon used in over 65% of murders in America every year.

So, please; tell me what's going to solve the problem.  I invite you to tell me what your grand solution is that will bring that number down below 50%.

The reason why so many murders are committed using a firearm is because it's easy.  It's easy to shoot someone, whereas stabbing someone, choking them, poisoning them, hanging them, beating them...those things are hard to do, both because you're likely to encounter resistance, and because it requires the murderer to be hands on, and most people just don't like to get that involved with the people they kill.

Guns provide a level of separation when the shooter doesn't have to feel the skin break as the knife plunges in, or feel the neck snap; the shooter doesn't have to look into the eyes of someone when they pull the trigger, or feel their victim struggle to escape them.

The real reason why I don't own a gun is because I know that I would use it.  The first moment I felt threatened, I would not hesitate for a moment to shoot, and I would likely shoot to kill.  And I know I wouldn't bat an eye.  I wouldn't lose one wink of sleep over it.

The argument that people would "just kill using something else" fails to take into account human nature, and more importantly, human instincts.  What separates gangbangers from serial murderers is that the latter often kill because they truly enjoy it.

There are very few instances of serial killers who use firearms to kill their victims, because it doesn't provide the same sense of satisfaction for them.  They love the chase; they love to feel their victims fight to survive, and relish in the fact that they lose that fight.  Serial killers are often quoted in interviews talking about the immense pleasure they feel when they kill someone, and oftentimes, there's a sexual component, as well.  What is more terrifying is how often others describe them as being "the normal guy next door;" how rarely anyone could even think that this person could kill another human being.

Those who choose guns as murder weapons, however, are often portrayed as being "loners," "unfeeling," and "emotionally dead."  They feel no connection with their victims, and rarely do they feel a sense of pleasure as a result of their actions.  There is often a fanatic element at play, and mental health issues reign supreme.

When someone makes the "Well, they'll just use something else to kill people" argument, ask them how they would rather defend themselves: with a knife, or with a gun.


2.)  "We don't have a gun control issue; we have a mental health problem!  Let's just reopen all those insane asylums they closed down in the 60s!"

Not for nothin', sweetheart, but a lot of them people who got landed in those facilities are the same people you see attending TeaTard rallies.  Government dissidents, conspiracy theorists, and paranoid people convinced the government was out to get them - those people were frequently locked up in those asylums.

Realistically, though, we do have a mental health access issue in this country, but I seriously doubt that the Conservatives who want to address that issue are willing to foot the bill to pay for the initiative.  Most of those facilities were run by the state and Federal government, and aside from the "humane treatment" arguments, the financial concerns played an important component in shuttering them.

So, we want to address mental health issues?  Imagine the outcry if every time a teacher, principal, or dean of students turned in a kid who expressed a concern that the government was out to get him, or sounded off on some conspiracy theorist rant.  No doubt, we'd then have a "Free Speech" argument, and government would be too big.  And then, we're back to Square One.

Access to mental health for the types of people who would go on a shooting spree is rarely something that would be voluntary, and let's be honest, here, they're very unlikely to pay for it, themselves.

So, yes - addressing mental health issues is important, but even when we address mental health issues, it's not going to be the people who go on killing sprees who voluntarily undergo treatment.


1.)  "If we arm everyone, everyone will be safer!  Look at Switzerland!

This is a great argument, because it's likely the only time that Conservatives will point to Europe as a model for American governance.

It is true that Switzerland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership paired with the lowest percent of murders committed using firearms.  But, that statistic comes with some caveats:

a.)  Switzerland does not have an active military; instead, they have a state militia, in which service is compulsory for all men over the age of 18.  From a very young age, the Swiss are taught that firearms are used for national (as opposed to personal) defense.

Everyone in the Swiss militia is allowed to take home the firearms assigned to them by the militia (and until 2007, this included ammunition).  When their stint in the militia is over, they can opt to return the firearms, or have it modified for civilian use.

b.)  Swiss law requires those guns to be locked in a case at all times.  Good luck trying that in 'Murica.

c.)  Switzerland is a largely wealthy country, that is considerably isolated.  They do not have widespread poverty or an active illegal drug trade that fuels much of the violent crime in other industrialized nations.

d.)  In recent years, Switzerland has actually tightened its gun laws due to an small increase in violent firearms crime.

So, in order for the "let's give everyone a gun!" solution to be replicated in America, we would have to fundamentally recreate this nation.  We would have to actually address poverty, which would require government to take a more proactive (and expensive) role; we would have to largely abandon laws that outlaw certain drugs; we would have to fundamentally change the way we view our government (making it not the enemy, but the protector).  We would have to make military service compulsory, and that's never going to happen.

People who tout this idea look at Switzerland and imagine how great it would be if everyone had guns, here.  In reality, it wouldn't work.  The Swiss fundamentally trust their government, and don't view it as the enemy from which they must protect themselves.  Americans have a cultural distrust of all things government, and to change that we'd have to being teaching children to trust their government at all times, and lock up some of those Faux News crackpots in those newly reopened insane asylums.


The issue of gun control is a loaded one, and there are no easy solutions.  It is clear, however, that what we're doing presently isn't working.  So what, I ask you, is a realistic solution to the problem?  What is going to stem the tide of gun violence in this country that can actually be implemented, and which won't send 2nd Amendment enthusiasts and conspiracy theorists into a mullet fantasia?  Are they willing to allow the government to pay for the resources needed to implement those solutions, or is this something that's just expected to magically happen?

I'm waiting...

What Hides Behind the Guise of Reasonableness...

I have a handful of Republican friends with whom I occasionally engage in political banter.  Every time we get into an argument (despite the lack of heat), the script is nearly identical:

Step One:  We establish a fundamental disagreement about (topic).

Step Two:  We begin to banter back and forth about our personal takes on the issue.

Step Three:  We each provide the other with evidence that we believe bolsters our opposing positions.

Step Four:  I call into question the integrity of the institution from which they gather their evidence based on documented cases of clearly (and often admittedly) partisan fact-skewing/bending/manipulating/dodging.  If they're willing to lie about "x" without admitting that they're lying, how can they serve as a credible source of information?

Step Five:  They dodge the question of integrity, entirely, and move into the "Well, Both Sides Are Equally At Fault" phase of the argument.

Step Six:  In the effort of maintaining a friendly atmosphere in which I appear reasonable, I acquiesce that their is blame to share on both sides, and things end convivially, with each of us feeling as if we've won the argument.

Step Seven:  I feel like an asshole for not sticking to my guns and pointing out that more blame lies with their side than with mine, but realize that no matter how often I point that out, nor how many examples I provide demonstrating that Republicans lie, cheat, steal, and manipulate more than Democrats, they will never admit that they are wrong.


The difference between our styles of argumentation is that, if I am wrong, I will admit to being wrong unless I can find more evidence to back up my position.  As someone who works in research, I try my hardest not to rely on a single source of information; any person worth their salt will provide documentation to lend to their own credibility.  This is simply the way things are "done."

What rankles me, as it does most people who want things peer edited, is when people pull out "research" done by clearly partisan "think tanks," and attempt to supplement their findings with information from other clearly partisan "think tanks."

When someone whips out a study conducted by The Heritage Foundation, and supplements it with additional research from, say, Americans for Prosperity, that is not a credible argument.  This is not a solid form of argumentation because the two entities are intrinsically linked; they are both Conservative "think tanks;" there is no balance.

People who engage in this form of "research" often present their "findings" without having them adequately peer reviewed, primarily because they misunderstand the definition of "peer," as well as the process, itself.

A peer is not someone who agrees with you; it is someone who works in the same field, but is not connected to you or your backers.  They often hold similar levels of education, expertise, and prestige, and have the ability to analyze your processes, methodology, findings, and whether or not the results can be replicated.

A similar example is when the NRA argues that when more people own guns, everyone is safer, and backs up their assertions with opinion poll research gathered by asking gun owners if they feel safer.

There is no balance; of course guns owners are going to say they feel safer - they own the guns.

Another way you can tell if your source of information is not credible is whether or not they consistently admit to and correct their mistakes.

One of the most frequent complaints I hear from Republicans is how much they hate Rachel Maddow.  I understand why they hate her - she embodies everything anathema to the Republican ideal:

She's a woman, she's young (39), she's educated (B.A. from Stanford, D.Phil from Oxford), she's a lesbian, she's outspoken, she's not blonde, and she does her research.

Rachel Maddow is the face of everything Republicans hate because she is able to hold them accountable for things that simply do not add up in reality.  Worse still, when she is wrong, she openly admits it, apologizes for her mistake, and corrects herself where she erred.

This is something that is rarely, if ever, done on the other side, and to be fair, isn't often done by journalists on either MSNBC or Fox News.  It's a sad state of affairs that reporters and pundits seemingly cannot admit when they are wrong, much less correct themselves in the process.

When people tell me how much they can't stand Maddow, I have to wonder if it's because they just don't like that she's doing a superb job at journalism.

The sad reality is that, while both sides have blood on their hands, it is important to note how much blood, and how it got there.  Saying that both sides are equally at fault in American politics is like saying the both the murdered who stabbed and the doctor who tried to save someone are equally at fault for his death - the guilt is not shared.

It's Okay to Not Be Okay...

I am of the mindset that in order to feel better about your circumstances, you have to persistently force yourself to see the bright side; to recognize that this is just a mid-point along the way to something better.  This isn't a point of view I've always held, rather it was instilled in me by my three-year stint marching with The Cadets Drum and Bugle Corps.

The director, George Hopkins (no relation...maybe), is infamous for holding the entire corps hostage for his "Meetings with Hop," wherein he waxes philosophical about life, love, and the pursuit of happiness.  He asks us to examine our lives in ways we may not have considered, and introduces us to ideas involving popular fish markets, overcoming adversity, and showing up to the fight.

When you're in these meetings, the only thing you want to do is go to bed.  Your body is so exhausted from 14 hours of rehearsal every day that all you care about is a hot shower, your air mattress, your pillow, and getting as much sleep as you can before you're unceremoniously startled awake to stumble through an early-morning Stretch and Run.  It is only later, after the season is over and you're back to "real life," that you recognize the value of these meetings.

One of the most valuable lessons I learned from these meetings was to "Choose Your Attitude."  Anyone who's marched with The Cadets has heard this phrase, which during the season is often thrown about sarcastically to help allay the more dire circumstances so you can push through to the end of the rehearsal block.  Afterwards, when you're back in the real world, you realize how vital that choice can be.

This lesson has been particularly important for me over the last five years, since I was diagnosed with AIDS.  I'd known I was HIV+ since I lived in Atlanta in '05, but in October of 2007, my 2.5 years of ignoring it and hoping it would go away landed me in the hospital with 66 T-cells.

At first, I was swept up in what felt like an emotional tornado: my insurance dropped my coverage, it took a month to get a meeting to get on ADAP/Ryan White, and there was an asinine attempt to march winter guard, again, that left me physically broken and personally defeated.  But, I had to keep some sort of positive mindset, and so I had to choose my attitude.

What they don't tell you is that, in order to really choose your attitude, you have to first accept your circumstances and, yes, even your limitations.

I don't mean to say that you have to wallow in self-pity and sorrow, but you do have to be realistic.  Part of being realistic meant that I had to face the fact that I couldn't drink as much as I had been, I had to pay attention to my body's messages, and perhaps the most heart breaking part for me was the realization that I very likely won't be able to perform, again.

I have to be careful how much I push myself, now, and when my body says, "Stop," I have to listen to it, where before I could tell it to shut the hell up.  I have to monitor every cold to make sure it doesn't turn into something worse, and most certainly, I have to ensure that I never, under any circumstances, miss a dose of my meds.

I am getting better.  Things are not at their worst.  Circumstances could always be worse, and I have to admit that I have it pretty good.  Every day, I am glad that I get to fight this fight, and when I hear from friends I haven't seen in years, it reminds me of how wonderful my life and my friends really are, particularly those friends I made in The Cadets.

This morning, I'm okay.