Bad arguments

“Bad arguments prevail when they go unanswered.” E. J. Dionne

In the interest of answering arguments for more “gun control” offered by Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne, there are good reasons why they can’t win. (link)

Mr. Dionne angrily blames the “gun lobby” and the media (a bastion of support for bad ideas) for defeating more “gun regulation” in the wake of another mass murder by a deranged killer. It’s predictable. Dionne’s bad arguments have been published frequently in the Wilmington StarNews.

This time, however, even misnamed “progressives” conclude that more stringent “gun regulations won’t accomplish anything” to prevent murderous intent by the criminally insane. Dionne furiously denies this reality. He cites some misleading and irrelevant statistics by gun-banners in the World Health Organization.

Dionne’s fury with the common sense shown by a majority of American citizens displays his ignorance. Therefore, he selects scapegoats to blame—foremost the National Rifle Association; hated by leftists because it helps protect our constitutional rights, has so many members and is very effective. Mr. Dionne also denounces “the media” for assisting in the defeat of more useless gun laws. Putting these two groups together on this issue is laughable.

Press reporters and editors mostly oppose our constitutional right to “possess and bear arms” with knee-jerk responses. But they have limits on being irrational. And, recently, even President Obama says he supports that right; although he’s said many other things that by his actions show the opposite.

Dionne also says the even most liberal politicians have given up and are silent on “sensible steps to regulate weapons”; objects “whose very purpose is to kill,” he writes. Of course guns can be used by people to illegally kill others. But many gun-related deaths in America result from urban gang conflicts—carried out in cities where guns are banned. And the worst mass shootings have occurred on college campuses, in schools and theaters, where people are not allowed to defend themselves with equal force.

Millions of law-abiding citizens possess guns for sport shooting and self-defense—activities that give them the skill to properly use these tools and provide an immediate effective method to protect themselves against violent armed criminals.

Sensible Americans, after recent “How did this happen?” events, finally seem to comprehend that after decades and thousands of gun-control laws, regulations and bans a responsible, armed citizenry is the best answer to the question: “How can we reduce the mayhem caused by crazed and criminal people using guns?”

Bad arguments with only emotional appeal not only distract us from taking proper action, but also mislead some people to believe that more laws will make us safer. Short of accepting a police-state in America—that we had better make sure never happens—more laws imposed on normal, responsible Americans will do nothing except make the majority less free.

The first defense for personal safety—and to prevent crime—demands that individually we be prepared to recognize danger and defend ourselves. That’s summed up in the proper definition of gun-control: “using both hands.”