8 of the Dumbest Things Republicans Say About Gun Violence

When it comes to debating many Republicans and pro-gun advocates, it’s become increasingly difficult, if not outright impossible, for me to take most of them seriously. The “logic” and “rationale” many of these folks use is so asinine I’ve reached a point where I don’t even get angry as much as I just laugh at the absurdity of their arguments. They seem to live in a world devoid of common sense, logic or even the ability to Google indisputable stats that show gun regulations work.

Such as in Australia, where they haven’t had a mass shooting since they banned certain types of guns following the worst mass shooting in their history in 1996.

Not. A. Single. One. 

Furthermore, after that ban, Australia saw a massive reduction in homicides and suicides. It’s a clear indication that just the access to certain types of guns empowers people to act out more violently, even against themselves.

Why let facts get in the way of some good, NRA-driven pro-gun propaganda, right?

So I thought I’d run through some of the dumbest things Republicans say about guns.

1. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people: This is true. A gun cannot, by itself, magically shoot someone. That being said, applying this logic to other types of weapons, the same could be said for tanks, missiles, RPGs or any number of other extremely deadly weapons ordinary citizens aren’t allowed to use that, by themselves, are essentially harmless until a human being uses them to carry out an act of violence. So, tell me, if we had 300 million RPGs in the country, would we not see a massive increase in violent attacks where an RPG was used to murder innocent people?

The truth is, when you combine guns and the easy access to these weapons Americans have, that kills people. To act as if guns play no part isn’t only ridiculous, it’s just stupid.

2. Guns are no more dangerous than a spoon: This one actually goes along the lines of #1 under the same foolish “logic.” This laughable response is predicated on the notion that a spoon is just as dangerous as a gun. Well, when I start seeing mass murder committed by a spoon, then we’ll talk. Not only that, but if spoons are no more dangerous than guns, why don’t people view spoons as a means of “self-defense”? By the way, can someone please provide me a verifiable stat showing how many spoon-related homicides there have been in the world — ever? I would like to stack those numbers up against gun-related homicides.

3. If you regulate guns, then only “bad guys” will have them: Considering countries like England, France, Germany, Japan and Australia (just to name a few) heavily regulate guns, while also having a fraction of our gun violence, where’s this massive uptick in “black market guns” being used to kill innocent people? People who make this argument do realize that black market guns are outrageously expensive, right? Not only that, but when you regulate the bullets for these guns, it makes it even more difficult for “bad guys” to obtain the needed gun and bullets.

4. Gun regulations don’t work: Notice how the vast majority of the gun-related homicides we see in the United States are carried out with semi-automatic weapons? My question is, why not fully-automatic? Oh, I know! Because we heavily regulate fully-automatic weapons, making them nearly impossible for ordinary citizens to obtain. But, please, tell me more about how gun regulations don’t work.

5. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun: Considering this almost never happens, I’ve still yet to have a single person tell me how I can spot the difference between a “good guy” and a “bad guy” until the “bad guy” starts shooting — particularly in places where open carry is legal.

Think about this, in Texas (where I was born and still live), someone like the Orlando shooter could have been strolling around downtown Austin, San Antonio, Dallas or Houston carrying an AK-47 with a handgun holstered to his hip just prior to opening fire on a crowd of innocent people — and there’s nothing anyone could have done about it. At that point, he would have just been a “good guy exercising his Second Amendment/open carry” rights. Just like in Colorado Springs this past Halloween when residents called 911 to report a man who was marching around their neighborhood with a gun prior to murdering three people, only to be told that there was nothing law enforcement could do because of the city’s open carry laws.

So, again, can someone please tell me how I can tell the difference between a “good guy” and a “bad guy” with a gun, before someone gets hurt or killed?

6. The Second Amendment says “shall not be infringed”: True, it does say that. However, it also says, “A well regulated militia…” right at the very beginning. Literally the words “well regulated” are as clear as day, though gun fanatics have twisted them to try to claim that they meant something other than, you know, a well regulated militia.

Plus, again, there’s that whole heavily regulated fully-automatic weapon law we have which, technically, is an “infringement” on everyone’s Second Amendment rights… if you’re simple-minded enough to use absolutely no context to interpret that part of our Constitution.

7. Guns are meant to protect citizens from a tyrannical government: Yeah, okay Billy Bob, you keep thinking that your Walmart-bought AR-15 is going to help you out against the most powerful military machine the human race has ever seen. These people comically support the party that constantly wants to spend more on defense — while claiming the guns they own are partially meant to combat the government that’s in control of the very military they frequently want to spend billions more upgrading. Nothing quite like viewing the American government as a “potential enemy,” all while supporting the very military you’d “fight” with your Second Amendment right.

And, by the way, Article Three Section 3 of the United States Constitution clearly states that “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Meaning that anyone who did take up arms against the United States is committing treason, not being a “patriot.”

8. Liberals just want to confiscate all the guns: Completely untrue. Sure, there are some liberals who would like to see all guns banned in the United States, but most do not. What most liberals want is expanded, intensive background checks; bans on military-style assault weapons; restrictions on magazine size; mental health screenings put into place; and longer waiting periods to get guns. Under those regulations, the vast majority of guns in this country would still be legal to own and every “law-abiding citizen” would still be legally allowed to purchase those guns.

Alright, I could do a few more, but this is already long enough. Free free to hit me up on Twitter or Facebook and let me know what you think.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments