If you are in favor of gun control, I sincerely want to have a rational discussion with you.  I have some questions that ‘d like you to answer, but I want rational answers.  By that, I mean I want reasonable answers; answers that will convince a rational person that your arguments are correct and your suggestions will work in the real world.  If I cannot find anyone who can give me rational answers to my questions, I am left to chose between the only possible conclusions: that the gun control side is irrational, or there is a hidden agenda here that is hostile to individual rights and freedom.  So, please, if you support gun control, give me some reasonable answers to my questions.  I promise, I will listen, and I will give your answers the careful consideration they deserve — because I honestly and sincerely want to hear what your side has to say.

This first question is very important.  If I cannot get a reasonable answer to this question, we can stop right here because I am correct: I have to chose between deciding that the people supporting gun control are irrational or hiding something.  Here’s my first question:

Whenever there is a shooting — especially a mass shooting — why do you always seem to focus your solutions on the gun and not the shooter(s)?

The answers I hear most often is that it will reduce the number of these events by making it more difficult to get weapons, and that this policy has worked in laces like England and Australia.  The problem I have with these answers is that — not only are they are not factually true — but they actually confess to a desire to ban all guns.  Doesn’t this actually make my point: that gun control advocates want to ban guns?

But speaking of Australia: it is the perfect example of how the gun control lobby is disingenuous.  Gun control advocates often cite Australia as the perfect example of a nation where their proposed policies have worked, but they never tell you that studies have shown the Australian gun ban hasn’t really changed anything except how people commit crimes and kill themselves:

From the Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series:

The Australin Firearms Buyback and Its Effects on Gun Deaths

“The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.…

…the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.“

Australia’s 1996 Gun Confiscation Didn’t Work – And it Wouldn’t Work in America

The Australia Gun Control Fallacy

The Australian Gun Ban Conceit

7 Facts On Gun Crime That Show Gun Control Doesn’t Work

The fact that gun control advocates do not acknowledge the opposing facts not only strengthens my questioning, but it also leaves me suspicious as to why?  It gives the impression that they are hiding something from me.  The same goes for places in the United States where gun control is very strict: places like Chicago and Washington D.C.  They have severe gun control laws, but they also have the highest rates of gun violence in the United States.  At the same time, gun control advocates excuse or dismiss places like Kennesaw, Georgia, where they passed a law mandating people to carry guns, they have the lowest proportional crime rate in the United States.  So where does this leave a rational person?  I mean, I hear the arguments for gun control, but when I look at the real world, I see evidence that it does not work.  So, I ask again, why do gun control advocates go after the guns?

Again, without a rational answer, this next question will also end this discussion with me winding up back at my original dilemma: are gun control advocates irrational, or are they hiding something?

Why don’t you ever apply your arguments to other inanimate objects?

If taking guns away actually saves lives, and saving lives is what you truly want to do, then why aren’t you also demanding that the following be banned, as well?

Texting while driving kills some 11 children a day — why aren’t you demanding cell phones be banned?

The same reasoning applies to cars and trucks: why haven’t you demanded they be banned?

Bats, knives and hammers are used to kill about as many people who are shot every year: why haven’t you called for a ban on bats, knives and hammers?

People die from accidents involving bath tubs, pools and ladders: why haven’t you demanded that these things be banned?

Now, I expect a lot of people will want to dismiss these questions because they think it is ‘nuts’ to ban them.  But the same argument for banning guns can be applied to all of the things I just mentioned.  So, if the goal is to make people safer, why not demand a ban on all of these things?  I’m serious about this.  You have to understand that this is a matter of principle, and a principle does not change with the thing against which it is applied.  So, if the principle is to save lives, then anything that is connected to the death of at least as many people as mass shootings should be banned, all for the same reason.  Otherwise, the argument to ban guns is irrational and it leads to the choice I am trying to avoid: that gun control advocates are irrational or hiding a secret agenda.

Now, assuming you were able to give me rational explanations to my first two questions, my next question is this:

Why do you believe that banning guns will protect us when the government never enforces the current gun control laws?

The recent Parkland school shooting is the perfect example.  The local authorities received at least 39 warnings about the shooter and the FBI received 2, yet they didn’t do anything to stop the shooter — even when his own parents requested them to do so.  Given that this is not an isolated case (the aftermath of the majority of these mass shootings usually reveals multiple failures to enforce existing laws designed to prevent them), no rational person is going to believe that another law will do anything about this sort of violence.  This brings us back — once more — to the conclusion that gun control advocates are either irrational or they are hiding a secret agenda.

I still have more questions:

Why do you dismiss people who raise the issue of mental health in connection to these mass shooters?

Why do you dismiss the influence of violent video games, movies and music?

I know that there are many sources that claim to have ‘proven’ that none of these things have any affect on people, especially not enough to make them turn into a mass shooter.  However, this ignores the many careful and reputable studies that have concluded the exact opposite.  Where the video games, movies and music are concerned, this leaves me where I was with the example of other nations that have banned guns: if you only present questionable evidence that supports your case while ignoring respectable research that refutes it, you leave us with the same choice I keep coming up against: that gun control advocates are either irrational or they are hiding a secret agenda.

As to respect to the issue of mental health: where there is a clear connection here.  The majority of these mass shooters have either been on powerful antidepressants or psychotic drugs, or they have had known mental health issues — or both.  This is known, so you simply cannot dismiss this connection and expect to be treated as a rational and honest actor in this debate.  Now, I am not saying the drugs or mental illness have a causal affect on these people that turns them into mass murderers, but I am saying this should be addressed and seriously researched.  Otherwise, I have to wonder whether or not the gun control advocates are irrational or hiding a secret agenda.

Here are some related questions I need answered, as well:

Why don’t we address the affects of fatherless homes?

Why aren’t we demanding more parental responsibility and involvement in their children’s lives?

Why are we trying to force boys into a box instead of providing them with the outlets that young males require for proper development?

Why are we refusing to empower our schools with the ability to take more preventative actions when they have identified potential threats?

In short, why don’t we address the failings of the PC agenda that has been forced on our schools and society?

I have a sociology degree, and I know as a fact that every one of these questions (except the one about the PC agenda) has been a matter of concern since the mid 1990’s.  So, why aren’t we focusing any of our attention on these issues?  They are definitely connected.  We know this because, before they became such a problem, we used to have guns in students’ lockers and the rear windows of students’ unlocked cars in the school parking lots and we never had these mass shootings.  So why aren’t we addressing what has changed that might be contributing to these shootings?  Why are we just focusing on the guns?  Are gun control advocate just irrational, or are they hiding a secret agenda?

Here is my next question:

Why is banning guns the only possible solution you will accept?

There is no evidence that banning guns will actually do anything to prevent another mass shooting, especially in ‘gun-free’ zones like schools.  But there are examples of things that can be done which have demonstrated — in the real world — that they do help to reduce these incidents.  They include:

Adding more armed guards, arming teachers and allowing open carry in public places.

Installing more hard barriers, such as road blocks; metal detectors; double, bullet proofed doors, etc..

Why aren’t we providing students with training that might actually save their lives if a shooter does break into them instead of teaching them to huddle together into an easier target?

These are all real-world solutions that have shown positive, real-world results.  So why do gun control advocates reject all of them?  In fact, when they have been shown to work, why do gun control advocates claim that they do not work?  Are gun control advocates irrational, or are they hiding a secret agenda?

Here is my final question:

Why do you always argue from an appeal to emotion instead of an appeal to reason?

Gun control advocates always claim they are seeking ‘reasonable‘ solutions to the ‘problem’ of gun violence.  I’m sure they believe this.  You may even believe it, but — so far — I have seen no evidence of true reason anywhere in the gun control agenda.  Gun control advocates like to use that word, ‘reasonable, ‘ but they do not behave like reasonable people.  They reject every suggestion except taking guns.  If you are still with me, I need you to understand something.  If you reject ideas that have been demonstrated to work in real life, then push ideas that have been demonstrated not to work in real life, reasonable people are going to suspect that you are either irrational, or you are hiding a secret agenda.

I have asked a series of reasonable questions.  They are reasonable because they have all been demonstrated in the real world.  Some of my questions are related to issues connected to why these shooters do what they do, while others are connected to policies and programs that have been shown to actually reduce the number and severity of these shootings.  My questions have also been related to the evidence that demonstrates more gun control will not solve any of the problems I’ve asked about in this post.  So, we are left to ask you one more time:

Are you irrational, or are you hiding a secret agenda?

Oh, I’m sorry, I almost forgot this very important questions:

Why do gun control supporters always want to break the law by limiting a Constitutionally protected right without going through the Amendment process?

Again, if a rational person looks at this whole debate, they are left with a choice:

The people who advocate gun control are either irrational (because they are demanding an action that objective, real-world evidence proves will not affect the problem they claim to want to solve), or they are hiding a secret agenda — or both.

 

ADDENDUM 20 March 2018

The following happened today, and not only does it prove that gun control is NOT the answer, but it also demonstrates that the media does not care about protecting people, it just wants to confiscate all guns (it demonstrates this by the lack of wall-to-wall coverage of the incident and the calls for more armed protectors in our schools):

HERO: Armed resource officer stops gunman at Maryland high school

In this and many cases just like it, the media demonstrates that it is not hypocritical, but pushing a political agenda.  It shows its agenda because there is a clear pattern: exploit mass casualties to push for gun control: remain silent when a gun is used to prevent mass casualties.  The pattern rules out hypocrisy, leaving only one rational conclusion: the media is working as the propaganda arm of a political agenda aimed at disarming American citizens!