So there’s this article that asks five questions, that are supposed to be unanswerable (that’s a productive use of time), well I’ll take a minute and answer all five.
The questions from the article are in bold, my answers follow:
1. Since Republicans are convinced the gun debate boils down to mental illness being responsible for these shootings (an irresponsible position of course; mental illness is not the only factor), how many mass shootings need to happen before the Republican party unites behind a strong push for legislation that makes it more difficult for mentally ill people to obtain guns?
Answer: Simple. The question is a logical fallacy. Notice how they say that someone says the problem is mental health, but the question concerns making guns more difficult for the mentally ill? The question should have been how do we remove those mentally ill folk from society. And the answer is we don’t, but then again that’s why the question was flawed.
2. Being that Umpqua Community College allowed students with concealed handgun licenses to have guns on campus, yet no one with their concealed handgun prevented (or apparently deterred) this shooting from happening – doesn’t this once again debunk the whole notion that guns deter gun violence?
Answer: No, because your question is messed up again. All a person would have to do would be to take the position that the reason that handguns didn’t deter this shooting was that either there weren’t enough guns or the shooter believed that there wouldn’t be many guns at the school.
3. Considering we have over 300 million guns in this country (more than any other modern nation on the planet) how many do we need before gun violence and mass shootings are no longer an issue in the United States?
Answer: Why can’t this person ask a straight question. I wonder if he/she has stopped beating their spouse, if you know what I mean? As I have said before the gun violence issue is an issue of security v. freedom. You are either going to have less of one or the other. Most people want both, and that makes for wrenching decisions about what to do about plentiful guns that allow tragedy to happen.
4. Since most of the states that lead the country in gun violence are very pro-gun, doesn’t that suggest that more guns isn’t the solution to gun violence?
Answer: Why does every time this guy/girl ask a question, they feel like they have to tell us something? Very irritating. While I shudder to bring up the whole Chiraq thing: I guess I have to. Chicago has the tightest gun control and the highest rate of crime. So that’s how far legislating the issue is going to get you.
5. If guns have nothing to do with gun violence, would you then support the legal right for Americans to own much more dangerous weapons like backpacked-sized nuclear weapons or rocket-propelled grenades? Where does the “right to bear arms” end, since you’re so convinced “guns have nothing to do with gun violence”?
Answer: Once again the author feels like they have to tell us something before they pose a false question, but the answer here is very easy. And the answer is yes, without reservation. My reading of the Second Amendment is that people get to bear arms specifically to defend against the government. You need some pretty powerful stuff to defend against our government. The rights of the people only end where the Constitution starts when it gives power to the federal and state government. Otherwise the power should reside in the people. I know, radical concept, that all of us learned in about the 5th grade.
As I said before, the mass killing of people by idiots with guns presents a difficult question. One must weight one’s interest in security versus one’s interest in liberty. It is a difficult balance that some would suggest is easy.
Law Dude, Ray Flavin, is a DUI attorney who represents drivers that have been charged with DUI in McHenry County Illinois. His law offices are located across the street from the McHenry County Courthouse in Woodstock, IL. You can reach him by phone at (815)669-6699