Rebuttals to anti-gun rhetoric: Debunking the most common seven lies


LOS ANGELES, June 20, 2014 — A string of recent shootings has allowed the gun control crowd to try and exploit the innocent dead victims for political gain. Insisting as always that their cause is righteous, the anti-gun lobbies have resorted to the same tactics that they do with climate change, the war on women, the Washington Redskins name, and every other issue they care about heading into an election year.

They claim everybody agrees with them and then simultaneously claim that meaningful action is not taken because some straw (white rich privileged) man villain is stopping them. They then declare the matter “settled science.”

A recent anti-gun column entitled “Lies we need to stop telling about guns in America” offered seven “myths” that the columnist claimed he could have “debunked.”

The anti-gun arguments have been condensed due to length but are not altered in any material way. The link contains the entire anti-gun arguments in their entirety lest the anti-gun crowd accuse me of do manipulating data like they do.

Whether or not supporters of the anti-gun columnist think a myth is a female moth, it is his own statements that can and must be easily debunked.

1. More guns mean fewer deaths.

Anti-gun rhetoric: The American Journal of Public Health reports that despite not finding a causation, they did find that “states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.”

Rebuttal: The phrase “not finding a causation” means exactly that. Correlation does not mean causation, and exploring other factors would be the honest thing to do. Also, it does not specify which types of people are being killed. In many cases the deaths occur because the good guy defending the home front kills the bad guy criminal breaking and entering the home. Prosecutors sometimes try these cases as homicides and often back down upon realizing they have no case.

The source of this study are doctors, who are often wealthy enough to have private security. They do not speak for the general population.

2. Nobody supports gun control.

Anti-gun rhetoric: Seventy-eight percent of Americans are in favor of stronger firearms controls. Unfortunately, gun lobbyists have monumental funds at their disposal for preventing gun regulations from being passed, or from even getting on the agenda.

Rebuttal: Liberals make up numbers claiming virtually everybody agrees with them. 97% of scientists support climate change, 87% of Americans want gun control, and 0% of liberals offer evidence that these numbers are truthful. If 87% of people agree on something, all of the lobbying in the world will not stop the 87%.

The NRA failed to stop Barack Obama from winning the presidency twice. The NRA makes a great liberal bogeyman but the truth is the NRA consists of plenty of law-abiding citizens honestly advocating for their beliefs. Gun owners make up much more than 13% of this country. The anti-gun lobby also has plenty of money. Ask billionaire Michael Bloomberg.

3. The Second Amendment prevents us from having strict gun control.

Anti-gun rhetoric: The 2008 Supreme Court ruling District of Columbia v. Heller determined that…state and federal governments have a lot of flexibility in how they regulate firearm ownership…banning guns in public…without conflicting with the Second Amendment.

Rebuttal: This is truthful but completely irrelevant. Plenty of cities and states have stringent gun restrictions already. California’s tough gun laws did nothing to stop a recent gun homicide spree in Santa Barbara. Politicians passing gun control laws fear being fired. That is democracy at work. Many liberals just dislike conservatives participating in the political process at all.

4. There is no link between stricter gun control and less violence.

Anti-gun rhetoric: Economist Richard Florida disproved this theory by finding a strong link between harsh regulations and fewer deaths. Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. “Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42) and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).”

Rebuttal: “The sample sizes are small” is not a footnote. That is the key issue. One study with an inferior sample size is a statistical aberration, not a conclusive fact. Anyone disagreeing with that is either ignorant of how science actually works or data mining with pre-determined conclusions.

Studies with much larger sample sizes, also known as credible studies, have shown Chicago and Detroit to be war zones while much of Texas, North Dakota and Idaho are doing just fine. The war zones have the strictest gun control laws and the highest concentration of liberals and the peace zones have more gun rights and more conservatives. One could claim that this implies liberalism causes death, but that is for another time.

5. If more people have guns, there will be fewer mass shootings.

Anti-gun rhetoric: Gun ownership in the U.S. may be on the rise, but most of the deadliest mass shootings in the U.S. have occurred since 2007. That includes  Virgina Tech…Aurora…and the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy.

Rebuttal: The reason why these mass shootings occurred is because none of these entities allowed students or teachers to defend themselves. Criminals know the schools have plenty of unarmed targets, allowing them to kill more people in a quicker amount of time while waiting for the police to arrive. These tragedies make a great case against gun control, not for it.

6. Carrying a gun makes you safe. 

Anti-gun rhetoric: In a study published by the American Journal of Public Health, the researchers found that individuals in possession of a gun are more likely to get shot than individuals who don’t possess guns. The study concluded, “[A]lthough successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas.”

In a Philadelphia study, the odds of an assault victim being shot if he was carrying a gun were 4.5 times greater, and the chances of him getting killed were 4.2 times greater. And in 2011, almost 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to prevent a crime.

Rebuttal: Doctors are supposed to take our temperatures and give us medicine, not offer us advice on firearms. They are trained in medicine, not gun use. Once again, the left takes the key phrase and treats it like an afterthought. “[A]lthough successful defensive gun uses occur each year…” That is not a footnote. That is the entire discussion. Every single person who successfully defended themselves is a saved life.

The same people who think ordinary Americans are too stupid to operate a firearm also believe they should not choose their own doctor, their own healthcare plan, or their own right to be left alone without interference in every aspect of life. Gun control is not about safety. It is about power and control and government regulation over our very beings. Most people being attacked at night are not holding out much hope that a liberal congressman will arrive on the scene in the nick of time to save them.

As for why “urban” areas see more civilian deaths, that involves a discussion so racially charged that most liberals will do anything to avoid discussing it. The few conservatives even hinting at this issue face the race card from a marked deck.

7. Israel and Switzerland have high gun ownership, yet low gun violence. And the U.S. should model themselves after these countries.

Anti-gun rhetoric: Gun advocates point to Israel and Switzerland as proof that fewer mass shootings are the result of allowing guns and encouraging armed civilians to intercept shooters. Janet Rosenbaum, an assistant professor of epidemiology at the School of Public Health at the State University of New York Downstate Medical Center School, researched firearm ownership and access in Israel and Switzerland. Rosenbaum’s study illustrates that gun ownership in both countries is strictly regulated and is not encouraged.

Rebuttal: Once again a single medical professional is being given automatic expert status despite having a title having nothing to do with guns. Her research is flawed from the start. Israel, Switzerland and the frequently cited Australia are small nations with mostly homogenous populations. The Australia argument has already been debunked.

Australia has strict immigration policies. Israel hunts terrorists rather than freeing them. None of these countries have relatively open borders where criminals from all over the world can upend their societies. Israel is constantly being pressured to allow destructive elements in their country, which would cause damage as it has in the United States.

The other nations see love of country as noble and patriotic. In America, an entire faction on the left sees such pride as jingoistic and nationalistic. When enough people hate their country, crime will be seen as a justified response. Again, this could cause one to conclude that the threat to human safety is not guns, but liberals.

CONCLUSION: Since many violent crimes such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks do not involve guns, honest science requires looking at common threads rather than turning doctors into social workers and ATF agents.

1) Mental illness is not being dealt with.

2) Urban areas have far higher crime rates than rural areas.

3) Politically liberal areas have far higher crime rates than conservative areas.

4) Politically liberal policies lead to higher unemployment and higher crime as evidenced by many blue liberal states and cities facing social disorder while many red conservative areas are thriving.

5) Heterogenous population areas have higher crime rates than homogenous population areas.

Benjamin Franklin once said that those who are willing to give up liberty for temporary safety deserve neither. The Second Amendment has the words “shall not be infringed.” Every other Amendment in the Bill of Rights is an individual right, so it makes zero sense to claim that the Second Amendment alone is a collective rather than an individual right.

The anti-gun crowd simply hates guns. They do not like them, do not understand them, do not know one gun from another, and would rather restrict the freedom of law abiding citizens than discuss their own failed policies. When people have freedom, government has less power.

That is the heart of the gun debate, and why the anti-gun crowd and their specious arguments must be rejected.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

  • Politiwars

    “The historical, geographic, and demographic evidence explored provides a clear admonishment. Whether gun availability is viewed as a cause or as a mere coincidence, the long term macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely throughout societies consistently correlates with stable or declining murder rates.

    Whether causative or not, the consistent international pattern is that more guns equal less murder and other violent crime.

    Even if one is inclined to think that gun availability is an important factor, the available international data cannot be squared with the mantra that more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death.

    Rather, if firearms availability does matter, the data consistently show that the way it matters is that more guns equal less violent crime.”

    Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Kates/Mauser Study

  • Chris

    Well put article. Liberalism and its policies are the root cause of many social issues we face today. We must continue to call this out and by all means we must show up and vote in every local, state, and federal election.

    • jake

      If not for that evil liberalism,you would be still making $.80 an hour.

  • Joe V.

    Well as most of you know, our gun rights issues started when people voted an anti-gun president into office. as for the lies being told by anti-gun liberals, you really can not expect much when their leader (POTUS) lies himself every time he opens his mouth and throws out numbers that he was giving probably by George Soros and his muslim brotherhood. His biggest frustration as POTUS is that he can not go all out dictatorship while Americans Practice their 2nd Amendment right and Have plenty of Guns to protect ourselves from a Tyrannical Government that Our founding fathers warned us about.

    • jake

      So,turning America into a gigantic armed camp is the answer? I think not Archie Bunker!
      Ask any cop on the beat,and most will say that the LAST thing they need is help from a bunch of untrained,overly emotional citizens. Shooting at a paper target,or a defenseless elk from 400 yards with a high powered rifle and a scope(not very sporting) is a whole lot different than drawing down on someone who may shoot back.

    • jake

      Gun ownership has tripled since Obama was elected. Give one example of how he has abbrogated gun rights

  • SleepingBag5444

    Will you write another one debunking one from Mother Jones? It’s titled 10 Pro Gun myths shot down. Look for it and please write a rebuttal one to that one as well.

    • blacktygrrrr

      Mother Jones are lunatics. Nobody takes them seriously. Arguing with them elevates them to a status of respectability. I took on this one because the studies cited were doctors and the people showing me the study were Rabbis. I do not want clergy and medical professionals corrupting public policy. Mother Jones? Nobody cares.

      eric @ the Tygrrrr Express

      • jake

        You are right about one thing. I take Mother Jones about as seriously as I do the Fox News lie machine.

  • Jehanzeb Mahar

    What a article! Applause