Originally posted at Brad Blog
In no particular order of dumbness…
1) “20 schoolchildren stabbed in China on the same day proves nothing can be done to stop crazy people!”
Nope. Though it does prove that even without access to guns, crazy people may still try to kill people. But, unlike all of the 20 schoolchildren in Newton, CT, who were shot several times each in a matter of minutes with a legally purchased and registered semi-automatic rifle equipped with high-capacity magazines, none of the 20 kids stabbed in the China incident actually died. No wonder the NRA stooges stopped referring to that story within about 24 hours of the Newtown shootings, but it was “fun” while it lasted (and before the wingnuts bothered to read beyond the China story’s headline).
2) “More guns would have stopped it!”
Nope. Despite NRA Con-Man-in-Chief Wayne LaPierre’s embarrassing argument that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” armed guards didn’t stop the Columbine mass shooting or the Virginia Tech mass shooting (the worst in the nation’s shameful history of mass shootings) or even the assassination attempt on President Reagan. But, more to the point, this 2009 ABC News video just destroys the absurd notion that “more guns would have stopped it!”
3) “You just want to take away my guns!”
Nope. But we do, at the very least, agree with the vast majority of NRA members (if not their terrorist-enabling, con-men leadership) who strongly support new gun safety regulations, such as mandatory background checks for all gun purchases, bans on concealed-carry permits for violent misdemeanants and domestic abusers, gun safety training requirements for gun owners, and barring those on the “terror watchlist” from purchasing weapons, just to name a few. Why does the NRA oppose all of those things despite the overwhelming support of them by their own members? Because they don’t care about their members, the 2nd Amendment or gun safety, they care only about their real bosses: the U.S. arms industry. Period.
4) “More people die in automobiles, so you must want to ban them too!”
Nope (and we don’t want to “ban” all guns, either.) But we’d have no problem with severe safety regulations and oversight on the manufacture, purchase and use of guns, just as those in effect for the manufacture, purchase and use of automobiles. Seatbelt requirements don’t prevent everyone from dying in cars, but we still require they are built into every car and used by every driver. The result: the prevention of thousands of deaths and injuries each year. We also have serious licensing requirements for the use of cars, including proficiency tests before anybody is allowed to legally operate one on their own. We have universal speed limit laws, stop lights, and laws that bar drunk driving (which can be enforced before someone gets killed.) We also require that everyone purchase insurance before operating a motor vehicle. Yet few, if any (and certainly not the industry’s top promoter, the AAA), cry “Liberty! Freedom!” in response to all of those sensible safety regulations. And, it should be noted, all of those safety regulations are in place for a “tool” that is not designed to kill people, unlike semi-assault rifles and high-capacity magazines which, when used as designed, are meant to kill as many people as possible and as quickly as possible.
5) “Guns are just a ‘tool’! Mental illness is the real problem!”
Nope. There are insane people everywhere, but almost no developed countries with the insanely high rates of gun violence that are found in the U.S. Nonetheless, it’s clear that many people involved in violent gun crimes are mentally ill. So, what would you like to do about mental illness then? Spend more federal government money on health care? Sounds good. Require the “jackbooted thugs” of the federal government to create “lunatic panels” to judge who is and isn’t mentally equipped to operate a firearm before they are allowed to buy one? Would you like publicly available lists of who the Big Government believes to be insane? Or lists of which families have someone judged by the government to be mentally ill living in their households? You “Obamacare” opponents ought to love all of the above! Doesn’t sound intrusive at all!
Of course, this is just a new spin on the old “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” yarn which even folks on the right don’t actually believe. If they did, as Lee Fang recently pointed out, they wouldn’t be so upset about the pretend “Fast and Furious” scandal.
6) “If not mental illness, it’s videogames and Hollywood movies that are the problem!”
Nope. If that was the case, the gun violence rates would be just as high in places like Canada, Great Britain and everywhere else in the world where they enjoy the same videogames and Hollywood movies that we do here in the “land of the free and the home of the brave.” But it’s darling that you want to protect the bastardized version of what you believe the 2nd Amendment says and what the founders created it for, even while not seeming to give a damn about undermining the 1st in the bargain.
7) “‘Gun Control’ is just another excuse to take away my ‘civil liberties’!”
Nope. Oh, and what “civil liberties”? Which ones? Where does the U.S. Constitution guarantee the “civil liberty” of the unlimited purchase and use of semi-automatic assault rifles, ammunition and high-capacity magazines? Even extreme right-wing Justice Antonin Scalia has no problem with the 1934 ban on machine guns. But, regarding that quaint “2nd Amendment Protects Us From Tyranny!” argument, how’d that work out in preventing the very real tyranny of the PATRIOT Act and all of the other civil liberties outrages that followed? Or, were you, like the NRA, one of the folks who didn’t seem to care about that type of very real government tyranny, as it swept across our nation, with little or no complaint from folks like you, over the past decade or so?
Of course, if the founders had hoped that guns would be used by the citizenry to rebel against the federal government, one wonders why they expressly barred treason in the Constitution. It almost seems as if the argument that the 2nd Amendment was meant to allow the people to rebel against the federal government was made up long after the fact in order to dishonestly justify unlimited gun ownership with no regulation whatsoever. And, of course, it was.
Any other really dumb responses to Newtown that we missed? Tell us in the comments section.