I agree with President Obama's call for those who do things such as report on mass shootings to speak the truth on this situation (instead of adopting some sort of ludicrous "fair and balanced" stance). I wish, however, that he would have been specific. Because he was not, I will take up that challenge below.
"Guns don't kill - people do."
This is not necessarily the issue. Instead, the problem is that guns are readily available that have one purpose: to kill as many people as possible in as short a period of time as possible. We have yet to see anything else like this, other than what we saw on 911, and adopting measures against that has apparently prevented more of those attacks. The use of bombs, as we saw at the Boston Marathon, is clearly not as effective as mass shootings or the suicidal use of planes. There is simply no reason not to prevent people with homicidal intentions from killing as few people as possible !
Click to read the rest...
"These kinds of shootings are not that common."
Now I agree that the mass shootings, especially at schools, theaters, malls, etc. are quite uncommon, relative to the other ways people are killed by guns (or accidentally kill themselves), but isn't that quite a statement! Despite all these people killed with guns in this particular way, those deaths are just the tip of a proverbial iceberg! How is that an argument in favor of allowing civilians to buy guns that are only designed to kill other people? The problem here seems to be that the "mainstream media" doesn't cover the many, apparently accidental deaths people inflict on themselves, friends, family, neighbors, etc. the way they do with the mass shootings.
"I need to protect my home."
Anyone who knows something about guns knows that an AR-15 is not the right weapon for this purpose. And of course it's much more likely that someone will kill himself/herself or a family member than he/she will kill an intruder who is seeking to kill the inhabitants.
"A good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun."
Not if they have an ounce of intelligence. They don't know what the situation is, and should realize that police might mistake them for the shooter, or a member of the shooter's crew. But again, why are such weapons as the AR-15 available to any civilian? The "good guy" with a gun likely has a handgun. Does he/she want to go up against one or more people with AR-15s? Again, not if there is any gray matter between his ears, even if he knows the police aren't going to shoot him, which of course he can't.
"I have a second amendment right to bear arms."
Nuclear weapons are "arms." If everyone was allowed to build their own "arms," the human race would not be long for this world. "Machines guns" were outlawed decades ago, with only a few citizens being able to own them (requiring a special permit). Moreover, there is no reason to think that the government cannot oversee the sale of arms, just as burning a flag as a first amendment right to free speech can be stopped as a fire hazard, even in situations where the claim that there is a fire hazard is specious at best. Also, one can't "yell fire in a crowded theater" and claim a free speech right, which to me is the best analogy to the current gun situation. That is, one can't claim the right to bear any specific kind of "arms." Instead, it must be a claim that is reasonable. Owning "arms" that are meant to kill large numbers of people in a very short amount of time, for me, is worse than shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, and clearly is not protected under the second amendment. I have no doubt that a future Supreme Court will agree with this assessment. Moreover, the second amendment is vague, and any Supreme Court could rule that it applies to state militias only. That might be the case if the democratically-elected Al Gore had become President rather than "W" in 2001. Even if one agrees that people should have a right to defend their homes, "arms" in the late 1700s meant a knife/sword/spear, a bow and arrow, a musket, a cannon, or a primitive grenade. Only a knife or musket would make sense in the context of defending one's home. And those who claim to need assault rifles to "fend off a federal siege" are simply delusional (and thus are among the mentally ill).
"I don't trust the government."
Well then it's time to move to another country, because there's nothing else you can do. Your AR-15 is much more likely to get you shot dead by police, if it came to that, than anything else in this context. And if you are a big fan of the NRA, don't you think you should trust a government that largely has been in the pocket of the NRA for years! What more could you possibly want - an invitation to shoot your guns in Congress while it is in session? And if you don't trust the government, why do you keep referencing the second amendment? If they aren't trustworthy then the Constitution is just a piece of paper! And why don't you see that you are part of "we the people," not some sort of alien observer?
"It's really a mental health issue."
So I guess Republicans don't care about human life, despite claiming to be "pro-life," because they have shown no interest in passing any laws to prevent the mentally ill from possessing guns, have they? Moreover, most people don't realize how wide the mental illness net is cast. People with personality disorders are "mentally ill," as well as people who obsessively wash their hands. The person who just shot all those people at Umpqua Community College may have been viewed by some who knew him as a "good guy with a gun," for all we know. And how many police officers thought to be "great guys" became "family annihilators?" There's a reason why professional police officers are vital to society, and we've seen too many instances of what happens when officers act in an unprofessional manner over the last couple of years. And most obviously, if people can only own bolt-action hunting rifles and perhaps a pump-action shotgun for home protection, what are the odds a mentally ill person will be able to kill a large number of people in a short period of time, even if he/she is able to obtain such a weapon (that is, if laws were passed to prohibit it)?
"What about black on black crime?"
What about the plight of the bumble bees? If you can't focus on one issue at a time (not that I agree that "black on black" crime should be accepted at "face value"), then you probably don't have the ability to operate a firearm safely!