Gun Extremists, Stop the Lame Excuses

Gun extremist arguments are weak deflections from talking about gun reform.

Again, a mass school shooting. Again, will nothing be done to try to stop the next one?

We could take steps. We could prevent the easy availability of assault weapons. We could have strong background checks. We could empower law enforcement so that when they know that a teenager poses a serious danger, they may legally take his gun away.

We could also acknowledge that the Second Amendment does not guarantee absolute access to guns. In fact, it took until 2008 for a conservative Supreme Court to declare that the Second Amendment applies to an individual right to bear arms. (Before that, courts interpreted the right as a collective one, pertaining to militias.) Yet even pro-gun Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the 2008 opinion, stated that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever for whatever purpose.”

Meanwhile, the NRA, its bought politicians, and other gun extremists plow through the limitations. And that same group, after each mass shooting, delivers their same talking points: “No law will stop someone who is determined to kill from getting a gun.” “Teachers need to be armed.” “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” “It’s not a gun issue. It is only a mental health

Their talking points are deflections away from addressing gun reform. And they are not very good ones at that. Take,
“No law can stop someone from getting a gun.” Then why do we have any laws? After all, if individuals want heroin, they will get heroin. If laws do not stop crime, why should murder itself be illegal? People will always find a way to do it.

I hear the gun extremists’ counter-argument, “You can’t have too many gun regulations because that would prevent good guys,
like teachers, from owning them. And gun-toting teachers would stop the bad guys.” Can we stop the nonsense call for armed teachers? Firstly, the teacher could not just aim a handgun, which would have no chance against an AR-15—a mass
shooter weapon of choice. She would need a military-grade weapon locked, loaded and strapped over her shoulder at all times. Because if she left it around, the next mass shooting could be committed by a student who swiped his teacher’s gun.

But who cares about guns in classrooms because they claim, “guns are not the problem. It is all about people with mental illness who use them.” Well, if the most destructive weapons themselves are not a danger, why do we worry so much about nuclear weapons? We should just get Kim Jong-un into therapy. America should invade North Korea, for the purpose of getting its leader to a psychiatrist. After all, nukes don’t kill people. People kill people.

Everyone certainly acknowledges that mental illness exacerbates the problem, and that the means to understand and
combat it must be expanded. But in the meantime, isn’t it a whole lot easier to improve background checks and stop those who should not have arms from getting them? Isn’t that much lower-hanging fruit than immediately curing all the damage
that exist in the human soul?

These NRA-backed politicians need to drop the pretense that they care about mental health. If they did, they would not have rolled back an Obama-era regulation which disallowed people with mental health issues access to guns. They would not support cutting back mental health programs. Their newfound concern is meant to distract. And it is obvious.

I wish these anti-gun reform extremists would finally speak their truth out loud: They should acknowledge that their right
to guns, with no prohibitions, is so precious that they are willing to have a multitude of mass killings per year as a consequence. And that includes the slaughter of children. Because that is what they are saying without saying it. That
is why so many will never take action.

Again, a school shooting. Again, I fear nothing will change, other than the date of the next one. Perhaps with the outcry of the young generation, we will at last see a movement.

I think you need to do some research on the "Obama-era regulation" that was rolled back last year. The media and liberal pundits like to claim that President Trump and the GOP opened up gun access to mentally ill people, but that is a complete fallacy. The regulation would have affected about 75,000 people found mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs. In fact, the ACLU and Disability rights advocates supported this rollback as well. If you want everyone to speak truth, let's start by looking in the mirror.
Secondly, the idea that a teacher, or police officer, would need an AR-15 strapped to their shoulder at all times to stop someone who was causing mass terror with a similar firearm is a farce. Someone properly trained and competent with their personal carry weapon can stand up against a scarier looking black gun any day of the week.
Let's pull back the scare tactics and have a legitimate discussion.


There is one thing that again we are forgetting, and that is the data the shows that a "good guy with a gun" can have much effect on the out come of a mass shooting. Also the mental ill are actually more likely to be victims of violence that perps. There is nothing wrong with fire arms but when something that is in made for war can be so easily purchased is troubling.


If I had the time, I could easily write a rebuttal article to this one that picked and chose the statistics that I wanted to make it say exactly what I wanted it to say. Let's not forget that Vox is a fairly left-biased website, so you can expect to find such article supporting liberal narratives there.

But my biggest critique is that, it's impossible to know how many mass shootings are stopped because of a good guy with a gun because of the good guy with the gun. These events go largely un-reported every day because it's not a sensational story. The news sites can't put it on their social media for click-bait because it's a non-starter. But I digress....


I do agree, but there are studies done by the department of justice that have found that there have been very few successful interventions made by bystanders.


ThreePatriots could you direct me to a some of your sources. I would like to look at it. While my research has resulted in me coming to my conclusion, if I'm wrong I like to see the other side. I would to be more informed.


As per Parkland, the "good guy with a gun" is not a viable response to gun violence. While I've read a lot of different numbers as to how many crimes are avoided each year from armed citizens displaying guns to criminals, scaring criminals off with guns, or actually shooting criminals who fail to report the shooting for fear of charges, it's not verifiable. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but as Parkland shows even the BEST guys with guns (trained, paid, and committed to protect and serve) didn't do what was needed. To ask that a bunch of English majors get some training in order to defeat motivated shooters who (according to the record anyway) care little for their own lives is asking a bit much.


Here's a good start that would definitely debunk most of the talking points by many of the gun control proponents. Most of the scholarly studies do not necessarily side with one side or the other. But a statistic that on the VERY low end of 60k firearm self-defense cases per year to the very high end of 2.5 million firearm self-defense cases per year would both support the notion that guns are used far more often to stop a crime than they are use to commit mass murder.

Here's another source to look at that gives a LOT of information, but I encourage you to read the entire thing because it's loaded with a lot of information.