I saw this article posted by a friend on Facebook today, and I thought it was so wrong that I could do a whole post disproving it. Here’s the site, if you’d like to read it firsthand, and I will go through each myth one at a time. Each bolded sentence is presented as false in the article.
“Myth” 1: They’re coming for your guns.
This point is just meaningless. The author seems to think that gun owners are only concerned with government theft of all guns, when restrictions such as those from Senator Feinstein are clearly real and threatening to second amendment rights. Regardless, I don’t actually see anything “pro” gun here.
“Myth” 2: Guns don’t kill people—people kill people.
First, the idea that states with more gun owners have more gun related deaths doesn’t say anything negative. A state with higher crime would mean a higher rate of sometimes lethal self-defense. For this myth to be true, the gun related deaths would have to take place in an otherwise crimeless environment, which they just as easily don’t (the study doesn’t say). Furthermore, the fact that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is only pointing out that an object is only dangerous in the wrong hands.
“Myth” 3: An armed society is a polite society.
Of the three bullet points, the first shows a vague connection that’s based on unverifiable reports, and doesn’t even relate to physical safety. The second point covers a survey among Texans convicted of serious crimes. Maybe the legal route of gun purchasing was easier for them, but they’re obviously willing to break the law if they’ve already been convicted. The mentality “I want to harm this person” doesn’t change with legal purchasing restriction. The final point goes back to their second myth – Stand Your Ground laws indicate a need for self-defense, and increased homicides do not result from these laws.
“Myth” 4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.
The last three mass shootings I can think of, and many more if they are researched properly, took place in areas where gun carrying was not permitted. The students of Columbine, for example, obviously couldn’t carry guns, and are a poor example for this idea. In fact, many incidences of mass shootings could have been stopped if a bystander was allowed to be armed. As to ER shootings, if the guns are taken from security guards, then that has no relation to concealed carrying for civilians; several samples of civilians not stopping mass shootings while being armed anyway would be what the author needs to prove his point, and that information isn’t there.
“Myth” 5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact Check: “Owning a gun has been related to higher risk of accidental gun death.” Really? Is that supposed to be surprising? Yes, to die from a gun accident, one must first have a gun.
The suicide information is irrelevant to any gun-control debate I can think of, and the murder statistics continue to overlook the fact that those in question are murderers. Restriction on gun access would hardly make murder more difficult.
I have a meeting right now, but I’ll get to the latter five points when I get back.
Back from everything, here’s the last half.
“Myth” 6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.
The first point, as far as I can tell, gives no evidence for not carrying a gun. The second study cited by the author gives pretty questionable evidence that people have been illegally threatened by gun owners who might not have legally owned the guns in the first place. If anything, this is evidence that restriction laws accomplish little, and that we should carry guns. Apparently, I am at risk to be threatened with violence. If guns really are used more frequently for illegal violence, I should be prepared. The final study cited in section 6 gives what I think is initially the most convincing evidence for gun control, but still holds up poorly to logical analysis. Victims of assault are more likely to be shot if they carry guns. Sure, that makes some sense; if a man is assaulting me, and sees me reach for a gun, he will have to shoot me or be shot himself. This study ignores that we don’t know how many assaulters would have shot the victim anyway, but let’s say it’s completely correct. The intelligent use of firearms should be employed when they are necessary at all, and trying to, say, reach for a gun while an attacker already has his sights on you will lead to nothing good. Still, the victims are being assaulted, and by attackers who are willing to kill if necessary. If the choice is to be armed or not to be armed, I would rather be armed and able to use my weapon if I can. Everyone should still remember their own limitations, and if they can efficiently use that weapon before making their attacker more violent and nervous.
“Myth” 7: Guns make women safer.
Their first proof is only that women are more likely to be killed by their significant other than by strangers, which is certainly chilling but makes no case for gun control nor does it address a supposed myth supporting gun ownership. The second study gives a correlation between gun ownership and already abusive, violent, disgusting criminals. I feel like I’ve said this a bunch of times already, but a lawbreaker will obviously break the law, and restricting legal access to guns will make his law-breaking only slightly more difficult. The third study shows that, while women may be murdered by guns more frequently in high gun owning states, they are still murdered at the same rate.
Myth 8: ”Vicious, violent video games” deserve more blame than guns.
Myth 8 is actually fine with me (as in I believe it is actually a myth), and I should note that no reason given which advocates gun control.
Myth 9: More and more Americans are becoming gun owners.
Like myth 8, myth 9 is fine with me and contains no reason to ban gun ownership.
Myth 10: We don’t need more gun laws—we just need to enforce the ones we have.
In the final myth, I think the author contradicts himself. I agree that America doesn’t need to enforce the silly gun laws that already exist, but because every gun law is unconstitutional and ultimately wrong. But the contradiction is seen when the author shows that the laws are ineffective. He doesn’t seem to realize that every law attempting to limit gun ownership will fail, by their nature. Advocating stricter laws after demonstrating the inability of current laws to function is absurd. Gun ownership has stayed strong despite attempts to weaken it, and more gun laws will continue to be ineffective.