In the wake of the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, we are certain to see another increase in arguments about gun control in the days to come. This is an important issue, so I welcome reasoned public discourse about it. But I do not like to see all the bullshit that is sure to accompany the arguments. I want to see this issue debated with valid grounds, not with fallacy.
Before I get into keeping it real, here is my position for the record:
- I support Americans’ Second Amendment right to bear arms. I oppose the government taking Americans’ guns away.
- That right has limitations, just as the First Amendment right to free speech does not permit “falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.”
- If my hands were not paralyzed, I would probably buy a gun, get trained on its use, and practice those skills so I could use it safely.
That said, I don’t deny facts presented by those who support abolishing the Second Amendment. The one most commonly used is that the most effective way to reduce gun violence is to take Americans’ guns away from them. The evidence shows unequivocally that there is a direct positive correlation between the level of gun ownership in a given country and the incidence of gun violence. The following charts comprise just one piece in a mountain of evidence that supports this argument.
For Americans who value a reduction in gun violence and mass shootings (like the one that occurred yesterday) over their right to bear arms, it’s a valid argument. But gun rights advocates who rebut by saying that, if guns were outlawed, criminals would still get them and use them violently are being fallacious. Their words are factual but irrelevant to the argument. Although it would not eliminate gun violence altogether, it’s unequivocal that abolishing the Second Amendment would significantly reduce the incidence of mass shootings like the one in Orlando and other gun violence, even though some Americans would still have guns and use them violently. To deny that simply makes a person appear to lack the capacity for rational thought on the issue.
Those of us who support their right to bear arms should keep it real when we argue in favor of it. There’s no need to deny facts because the Second Amendment is clear and unqualified:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The Constitution does not qualify that right with a condition that it becomes void in the event that firearm homicides in the USA are much greater than in countries that limit gun ownership. Therefore, the high incidence of mass shootings in the USA is completely irrelevant to the right granted Americans by the Second Amendment.
While the right to bear arms is unqualified, it is also limited. Because my hands are paralyzed, I could not safely handle a gun, so I’m sure that even the staunchest gun rights advocates would say that I should not be allowed to fire a gun around them. As the Supreme Court of the United States decided in District of Columbia v. Heller:
The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
So Americans should be debating common sense limitations on the use of guns that can protect Americans from attacks like the one in Orlando yesterday without infringing our right to keep and bear arms.
Should the backgrounds of all gun buyers be checked for criminal prosecutions? Should Americans be permitted to own military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines? Should people with a history of mental illness be allowed to buy guns? These are good questions to debate and valid points can be made on both sides of the issues. But let’s keep that debate real by doing so rationally and based on facts instead of using fallacy and falsehoods.