Thread by @TheHat2

This is the old thread I used to respond to whenever #GunControlNow was trending. It's outdated, and I wanna do a comprehensive thread now. So here's a new one.

https://twitter.com/TheHat2/status/914906943386419200

Everybody tweeting #GunControlNow or #GunReformNow, lemme run through all the arguments and explain to you why they're wrong. I'm only here to educate, nothing more. You're allowed to disagree, but read through everything first. Let's roll.

ARGUMENT 1
"Assault weapons were made for war. They were created for the sole purpose of killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible. They have no place in the hands of private citizens."

This hinges on the definitions of "assault weapon" and "weapon of war."

First, what is a "weapon of war?" Naturally, we'd understand that as a firearm that was created specifically for a military purpose. This would include assault rifles, sniper rifles, anti-materiel rifles, explosives, etc. High-power weapons, right?

However, this definition would also include handguns like the Colt M1911. .45 caliber, 7-round magazine (not a high-capacity magazine!), standard sidearm for the US Army until replaced by the Beretta M9 in 1985. Well-known weapon of WWI, WWII, and the Vietnam War.

The aforementioned Beretta M9 would also be a "weapon of war" by this understanding. As would the SIG P320, the civilian version of the currently-in-service M17 and M18 modular handguns.
Okay, okay, I know what you mean. Weapons of war as in "assault weapons." Let's define those.

Well, uh, there's a problem: It's hard to define what an assault weapon is.
See, the issue is, the term "assault weapon" is a strictly legislative one, meant to describe firearms with specific characteristics.
What are these characteristics? It depends on the legislation.

Most commonly, the "assault weapon" characteristics are (for rifles and shotguns):
- folding or telescoping stock
- pistol grip
- threaded barrel
- detachable magazine >10 rounds (for rifles)
- fixed magazine >5 rounds (for shotguns)
- bayonet mount
- grenade launcher

For pistols:
- detachable magazine outside the grip
- unloaded weight of >50 oz
- barrel shroud
- threaded barrel
- a semi-automatic version of a full-auto firearm

So do any of those characteristics fundamentally change the firepower of the "assault weapons" in question?
Absolutely not.
The argument being made here is that, by inconveniencing the shooter enough, they won't be able to kill as many people if they go on a rampage.

But this doesn't work.
The Virginia Tech massacre was conducted with two handguns, both with magazines of 10 rounds. Neither one passed the check for an assault weapon.

And even if assault weapons were banned, virtually all legislation makes exemptions for firearms that were owned prior to the enactment of the law (a "grandfather clause"). Which means that they're not actually gone, there's just not any new ones available for sale.

ARGUMENT 2:
"No one needs an assault weapon for hunting or self-defense. If you need more than 10 rounds to kill a deer, you're a shitty hunter. You can defend your home with a shotgun. You don't need anything more."

This argument can be defeated very simply.

A firearm's efficacy on hunting or home defense has zero bearing on the right to own them.
People don't need Swiss Army Knives as their everyday pocketknife, but they have the right to own them.

ARGUMENT 3:
"You wouldn't stand a chance fighting against the government because they have tanks and drones. They would wipe out any armed rebellion in an instant, so why the need to have guns to fight them?"

So this one has a lot of problems.

First, if superior firepower alone can win a fight, how come the Taliban weren't immediately crushed?
Second, this argument boils down to, "We should give up the chance to fight back against a tyrannical government because they have superior firepower." Uhh... no #resistance IRL?

I dunno about you, but I'd rather not bow to tyrants just because they make me feel safer.

ARGUMENT 4:
"The Second Amendment is outdated. The Framers couldn't envision what kinds of weapons we'd have today—they'd be shocked at what we allow people to own."

Couple of things wrong with this one.

Most prominent counterargument: The Framers also didn't envision radio or television news, but the Constitution recognizes their broadcasts as protected press. Naturally, the Bill of Rights transcends generational boundaries because it's that good.

Other counterargument: Did you know that the Framers gave the people the right to own the *same weapons* as those being used by the military? Including cannons! And warships! And machine guns (the early ones, at least)!
Pretty sure they knew what they were doing back then.

ARGUMENT 5
"The Second Amendment says 'a well-regulated militia,' before anything else. It's actually about ensuring that states have the right to establish militias, and your right to bear arms ties to your enlistment."

Patently false, and there's precedent for this one!

The right to keep and bear arms dates back to the 1689 English Bill of Rights, where they could "have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law."
States like PA, VT, & NC also protected this right outside of military service, before 2A was written.

There also exists judicial precedent:
- State v. Huntley, 25 N.C. 418 (1843)
- Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846)
- State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489 (La. 1850)
- Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165 (1871)

All of these cases recognized an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

Also note that these cases came over a century before DC v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) was decided, and three of them predate the establishment of the National Rifle Association itself. So it's not like lobbyists were having an impact at the time.

Now, if the Second Amendment *was* meant to protect a state's right to form militias, it would read something like, "No State shall be abridged the establishment of a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the people."
So why the need to mention arms at all?

Simply put, the Second Amendment that we have is separated by two clauses, and the operative clause is the one that says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Which means exactly what it says: the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment being about a state's right to establish militias has never been the leading interpretation, nor the intention of the amendment.

Oh, and for the sake of argument, let's say the Second Amendment *does* only refer to members of the militia. According to 10 USC § 246, the militia consists of able-bodied male citizens between 17 and 45, and women in the National Guard. You cool with that?

ARGUMENT 6
"Gun violence is an epidemic in the United States, and an international embarrassment. Other countries don't have these problems because they have strict gun control."

Oh lord, this one.

The UK is currently dealing with a record high rate of knife crimes—125 every day, or one reported every 11 minutes on average. Okay, not as bad as if guns were being used, but consider that the UK also has restrictions on who can buy and carry a knife in public. So uh...

Or let's consider Mexico. There is only one gun store in the country. It takes months of paperwork to buy a gun. You can't carry in public unless given permission by the government. And everything above .38 Spl handguns, .22 LR rifles, and 12ga shotguns is military-only.

Yet Mexico has a higher rate of gun deaths than the US—18.95 per 100,000 people compared to 12.09. Why is this? In a word: gun trafficking. It's a massive problem. Because guns are super probibitive to own, the black market makes the process of buying one easier.

Keep in mind, too, Mexico is one of three countries with a constitutional guarantee of a citizen's right to keep and bear arms (the others being Guatemala and the USA). So uh, even with a sort-of Second Amendment and restrictions, they're dealing with that kind of shit.

ARGUMENT 7
"Gun owners should have to register all of their firearms and be licensed to own them. They should also have to pay for insurance in case their gun ever harms anyone."

Ah, the "like a car" argument.

So gun ownership should be like driving a car—you need a license, registration, and insurance to drive a car, right? The problem with this is the implication that driver's licenses and auto insurance stop or reduce wrecks, or prevent people from using their cars as weapons.

This argument's true base is in abolishing the Second Amendment. If you have to have a license to exercise a right, it's not a right—it's a privilege.
And the call for insurance is absurd. You're already liable in most cases if your gun is used in a crime, so why insurance??

ARGUMENT 8
"We're asking for sensible, common sense gun control. We're not changing the Constitution, we're asking for a reasonable compromise."

This is called a "foot in the door" tactic.

If you want people to agree to a large request (i.e., a gun confiscation), you need to get them to agree to a modest request first, like "common sense gun control."
Let's just take a look at what "common sense gun control" would look like in practice...

Say we banned sales of assault weapons. But a kid steals his dad's grandfathered-in AR-15, and shoots up a school. "Well, we agreed to ban the sale of assault weapons for public safety, so we need to ban possession. But we're not taking all guns away, this is just a compromise."

Another mass shooting, this time with a pistol. "Handguns are easily concealable, so maybe we should get rid of them. You conceded that we needed to ban possession of assault weapons, so why raise a stink about this? It's just being reasonable."

A mass shooting with a shotgun. "Oh man, those can leave nasty wounds and they shoot all those pellets at once! Way too dangerous to own, we need to get rid of those, too. We're being reasonable and safe."

A mass shooting with a hunting rifle. "He can pick people off from a distance and not get caught! Sniper rifles are dangerous, we need to ban those. But black powder guns should be okay, and you can still use those to hunt. This is just being sensible."

You see what I'm getting at? These aren't compromises, they're salami tactics.
It's not a compromise to say, "We want to ban all ownership of assault weapons, but we can meet in the middle and agree to make you register them and pay a tax on each one instead." That's a fallacy.

Not to mention, when gun owners say, "No, the laws we have are enough, we don't need more," we're told we have innocent blood on our hands. So no, it's not a compromise that's wanted, it's surrender.

The enshrinement of a right is a compromise in itself. By acknowledging the right to free speech, you're conceding that you may be subject to ideas that hurt or offend you.

So long as there are guns in this country (and there always will be), there will be a risk of a shooting. If you really want to feel safe, just ban them all.

Which leads to the big argument...

ARGUMENT 9
"Let's just ban guns. If you want to hunt game, use a bow. There's no sense in owning a gun, so get rid of all of them."

This is the one that's trotted out when all else fails.

The USA has >40% of the world's firearms, over 350 million. 42% of Americans have at least one gun at home. That's a lot of weapons to dispose of from a lot of people, so how would you go about it?

A gun buyback wouldn't work—it'd make the country go broke.
Even if you paid $100 per long gun and $50 per handgun, that'd run you $17.5 billion *minimum*. And that's assuming that everyone would turn in their firearms—which they won't.
Can't just pull an Australia on this one.

So the next option is criminalizing the ownership of firearms. That would take a repeal of the Second Amendment which takes an act of Congress + ¾ of states' ratification, or an Article V Convention of States, which has literally never happened before.
Good luck on that one.

The final option is the tyrannical one—just fuckin' take 'em. And when that happens, if you're cheering on the tyrants... well, how does that thing go about not learning from history and doomed to repetition go?
Yeah, not a good plan.

Alright, so I've spent this many tweets making counterarguments, but how would I actually solve the problem of mass shootings?
Thing is, I don't think there's a flat solution to it. Personally, I think it's more of a problem of culture more than anything else.

Providing more mental health services (and normalizing mental health checkups), providing for impoverished and inner-city communities that tend to be hotspots for gang violence, not reporting on every detail of a mass shooting or mass shooters... there's steps that can be taken.

But again, these aren't cure-alls, either. Because no matter what we do, some people are still going to choose violence, regardless of the help that our society gives them. It's sad, but it's just a fact that we have to live with.

But that doesn't mean we should refuse to help at all. And I mean giving REAL HELP, not moral platitudes like "we're gonna ban more guns and then scratch our heads when someone finds a way around the law and kills scores of people." That ain't help, that's feel-good bullshit.

You wanna do something about gun violence? Focus on the violence part, not the gun part. Figure out why people want to pull the trigger, and find a way to stop that desire.
Focus on the real problem, and maybe we can have real solutions.