My issues with pro-gun rights arguments . . .

After the Newtown tragedy, I angrily and publicly opined that people who champion the Second Amendment over gun regulation care more about their own rights than about human life. And to be honest . . . I still stand by that view. But I also acknowledge that although many right-wingers are much more likely to indulge in name-calling than engage in meaningful dialogue, there are also people on both sides of the issue with a sincere desire to discuss the issues. And so, with that goal in mind, I'd like to use this blog to get some of the basics out of the way. I will now present my own responses to the most commonly heard pro-gun arguments. If you think I'm wrong or have overlooked something, please, please tell me so (in a civil manner).

1. "But the Second Amendment says . . ."

Let me stop you right there, because I agree with you, at least on the most basic level. Yes, the Second Amendment does indeed say " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed," and I will agree that the text seems pretty clear-cut. I'd also argue that no single law in the United States Constitution has been so directly responsible for so much death and destruction. Seriously, how many deaths can you list because somebody's right to free speech, for example, was protected? But okay, the law's the law. And here's where my anger comes through, because my only response is the one mentioned above. Because every single person who bases their pro-gun arguments on the Second Amendment really has emphasized in their arguments their own rights rather than the countless lost lives of innocents. "Oh, a dozen people just got killed? Yeah, I guess that's sad. Wait, you want me to submit to a background check before purchasing a gun? THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS !!!"

2. "I have my gun for protection!" 

Maybe you do. And maybe your neighbor has a rifle only for hunting in legally sanctioned hunting grounds. Cool. You and your neighbor are not my concern, nor are you the concern for the vast majority of liberals advocating gun control. Seriously, despite whatever Fox News or the NRA might have said to the contrary, it's actually perfectly alright with us if you keep your guns for hunting and protection. But if that's really your concern, why are so many right-wingers so dead-set against any and all gun restriction? The guns the Vegas shooter used, for example, were not designed for home protection. You do not hunt for deer with semiautomatic weapons. Everyone knows this. But liberal attempts to restrict access to such mass-killing weapons are routinely rebuffed, both in Congress and in non-governmental forums. Such attempts clearly aren't aimed at restricting your right to reasonably hunt animals or protect your homes with legally obtained firearms. So what's the problem?

Don't give me the "slippery slope" answer. You know the one. "If we let you restrict automatic firearms, when do the restrictions end?" Alright, I admit and agree, I don't know where it ends. But two can play at the slippery slope: "Yeah, but if we let you keep a handgun in your home to protect your family, why not just let you own a private nuclear arsenal too? Where does it end?"

Sounds silly, doesn't it.

The fact is, liberals who advocate gun control are not talking about absolute or unlimited restrictions on gun ownership. We're talking about things that really, really should be -- and yet somehow aren't -- considered "common sense" restrictions. Automatic and semiautomatic weapons, the kinds that are, admit it, never needed for home protection or hunting, that's a biggie with us. Background checks are another. I'll admit I've never understood the problem right-wingers have with background checks. Is your issue with the perceived invasion of privacy? But people submit to credit checks to get credit cards, home loans, etc. all the time, and never gripe about the invasion of privacy. I've never heard of anyone getting shot by a home loan before. Is it the inconvenience of the time delay? Is that your argument, "but a background check takes time, and I want a gun now!"? What's the urgency?

3. "Access to guns doesn't actually increase the likelihood of gun violence." 

I've heard this argument a lot, and the -- sorry to be insulting, but I'm going to be frank here -- sheer stupidity of this argument astounds me. People on both sides of the argument bounce statistics at each other all the time, and if there's one truism I believe in, it's that a complicated statistic has never changed anyone's mind over an emotional argument. So let's, for just a moment at least, simplify the statistics a bit. Quick, take a guess at how many people died of automobile accidents before the automobile was invented! The answer: Zero! Do you know how many people who have never been to to the ocean have been killed by a shark? Zero! Do you know how many citizens of Walla-Walla, Washington have been killed by elephant stampede? Zero! Notice the pattern? Of course access to guns increases the likelihood of gun violence! Without the former, it is literally impossible to have the latter. There's simply no argument that states otherwise.

Now hold on a minute. If you're right-wing, I know you what you might be thinking at this point. "That's ridiculous, Movie Man! Even if you could restrict my access to guns all you wanted, nothing's going to stop a random criminal from shooting me if I walk down the wrong street at the wrong time!"

You are, of course, absolutely right. But if gun regulations made it too difficult for that criminal to get a gun? That's the liberal anti-gun agenda, right there.

4. "It's a mental health issue." 

Mmmmaybe. To an extent. I agree that many mass shootings tend to be done by people with easily diagnosable mental health issues. But how did these crazy people get guns in the first place? See points 2 and 3 above. What's more, congressional Republicans have cast a lot of doubt on the sincerity of the "it's a mental health issue" argument, because when Obama and congressional Democrats tried to meet right-wingers half way and said, "okay, if it's a mental health issue, let's do mental health background checks as a part of firearm applications," the Republicans tore that notion apart faster than a pack of hyenas eating their breakfast.

5. "I've got a whole list of things that kill more people than gun violence does: cancer, car accidents, complications from obesity, etc. Why, Mr. Liberal, do you want to regulate guns, but not these other issues?"

I have two responses for you on this one. First, unlike products that cause cancer, unlike cars, and unlike foods and lifestyles that lead to obesity, guns are made for one purpose, and one purpose only: to kill and/ or cause serious injury. Seriously, even if your guns are strictly for home protection, you still can't argue that basic fact.

If someone invented a car that couldn't hurt anybody, or a cigarette that didn't cause any health problems, or a cupcake that tastes delicious but wouldn't make you fat even if you ate a hundred of them a day, that person would become a billionaire. And you know it.

But if someone tried to sell you a gun and said, "it can't kill or even hurt anybody, not really," you wouldn't buy it. And no one else would either.

And you know it.

So yeah, considering that guns are made for the sole purpose of killing people, yes, we think they should be regulated -- and it confuses the hell out of us when other people say, "no they shouldn't."

More to the point, though, to answer the question posed above: "why do you want to regulate guns but not these other issues" -- that question is based on a clearly false premise. We do regulate automobiles, cigarettes, etc., and the access people have to them. And not only do we regulate them, but yes, liberals want to regulate them even more. Say what you will about liberals, but we're not nearly as hypocritical as the above question suggests.

6. "You're trying to take away my guns!"

No we're not. We're really not. Don't take my word for it. Review any and (if you have the time and desire) all anti-gun arguments and statements mainstream liberals have made. Obama, Bernie, Hillary, etc. None of them, not once, has talked about taking your legally purchased guns out of your home against your will. That has never been and still isn't on the liberal agenda when it comes to gun restriction. The closest anyone has come is the occasional voluntary program that makes the news, programs for people to turn their firearms in to various law enforcement agencies, with no questions asked. And those are voluntary programs. Hey, remember that time that Bill Clinton was President and he had the majority of Congress on his side of the political spectrum? Democrats all over the place, and even then, not one person in Washington said, "hey, let's take away people's legally owned guns!"

I recently made a comment on Facebook that summarized the Republican side of the gun debate as, "Screw you, liberal sheep! You're idiots and un-American! Guns don't have anything to do with people being shot! You're not taking MY guns away, you god-damn fascists!"

This blog post is my attempt to engage in an actual dialogue that goes beyond such knee-jerk reactions on the right, and such oversimplifications on the left. If you have anything to add to the debate, please respond. If your response is along the line of the stereotypical response above, please don't.