Reader Billy M. read Nick’s takedown of Julian Sarafian’s “Dummy’s Guide to Winning Gun Control Debates yesterday and it apparently left him…unsatisfied. He wanted a crack at Sarafian, too and forwarded this point-by point rebuttal:
1. The overall murder rate in Australia was unaffected by their gun ban, and our murder rate dropped far more drastically than theirs since 1997. Regardless, the oft repeated postulation that there haven’t been any mass shootings since then is a lie. The Monash University shooting took place in 2002. Furthermore . . .
It carefully ignores other forms of mass murder that apparently replaced mass shootings, such as these arson fires: the Childer’s Palace Massacre (15 killed, June, 2000), The Churchill Massacre (10 killed, February 2009) or the Quaker’s Hill Nursing Home Massacre (11 killed, November 2011). Funny how you don’t see the same level of outrage when the weapon isn’t a gun.
2. No one is arguing against laws that only apply to criminals; the argument is that the laws pushed in the wake of Sandy Hook are nothing but a wish list gun control organizations have been pushing for decades. Also, your comparison to rape creates a false dichotomy and false equivalency. We make rape illegal because it’s a crime, but we don’t make sex illegal to prevent rape.
3. There are so many issues with this statement it’s difficult to concisely counter, but I’ll simply start by saying, yes, gun laws unduly take away the rights of law abiding people. I’ll throw in there that, with #2 in mind, the same laws are completely ineffectual against fighting crime. You can argue against the 2nd amendment and its modern-day application all you want, but the fact remains that A) it’s there and isn’t going anywhere for the time being, and b) the supreme court affirmed twice in the past 5 years that it’s an individual right. Regardless, your argument that it’s outdated because the technology that exists today didn’t exist then is just another logical fallacy. Does free speech apply to the internet? Does the press only have the freedom to print newpapers? Can police search your computer and mobile device whenever they want?
4. Again, you’re using logical fallacy after logical fallacy, inserting diversions and straw men while ignoring the base argument – that the people who seek to harm people should be regulated and punished, not guns and the law-abiding people who don’t. We can see that working right now in Chicago – a gun controller’s paradise. After years of relying on gun laws and watching crime rates escalate, the police tried something new – they focused on high crime areas, identified 400 likely repeat offenders and – guess what? – they got a 30% reduction in homicides. Of course, this is just an inconvenient truth for folks like you, just like the the people killed in those three cases of arson in Australia. That case of the would-be killer in China is a favorite of your group, and the fact that it totally relies on coincidence and a vacuum in context means nothing. Do we know for sure that he was even trying to kill the children? I don’t know if we ever will. I do know this – Chen Shuizong was certainly trying to kill people when he set fire to a bus a week or so ago. And he did. He killed 46 people, and himself. In China. A place with virtually no civilian-owned guns.
5. Dianne Feinstein has said repeatedly, as have her cohorts, that if they could, they would absolutely, positively confiscate “assault weapons” . . . if they had the votes. The fact that they continue pushing that agenda despite the complete failure of the original AWB to demonstrably reduce crime is more than enough evidence to reasonably assume they’d like to move to confiscation. Furthermore, nearly every other nation that began with ‘common sense’ gun laws eventually moved to confiscation (Canada, UK, Australia, Japan etc.).
6. You’re talking about California, right? I mean, you openly admit that you don’t know what the gun regulations there are, so perhaps a little research would be in order before offering advice on how to argue with dummies. Otherwise you may end up looking like one. Tell you what actually – why don’t you go out and try to buy a car and a gun on the same day. Let me know which is easier to acquire in California. Also, see how hard it is to acquire alcohol, something that kills 120,000 people a year.
7. The actual number is somewhere between 50,000 and 2 million defensive gun uses per year in America (depending on the source), and about 8,500 deaths due to gun violence. Your number includes suicides, and while one suicide is too many, there is no data aside from a questionable study conducted by the Australian government that indicates the presence of guns increases the chance of suicide. In fact, gun-free South Korea has a suicide rate that is almost twice our murder rate and suicide rate combined. You close this statement with the same old same old – that we’re making a choice between our guns and other people’s right to live. That’s a false dilemma and an intentional one since you’ve already admitted (and failed to counter) that our entire argument assumes that gun laws don’t prevent gun crimes.
I have little faith that you’ll absorb or even read any of this, but I do hope that someone else on the fence reads both your piece and mine and realizes that your flavor of “debate” involves massive doses of untruths, deceptive statements, hyperbole, false logic and emotional calls to action. It’s too bad for anyone who actually wants to have a conversation or debate about violence in America, because those on your side have already copyrighted those phrases, and they’ve been sullied.