I received a strange private message on another social media site demonstrating a perspective worthy of discussion. I share it here, correcting for grammar while deleting profanity and irrelevant tangents, because it represents a common viewpoint worthy of discussion and rebuttal.
How you do you possibly debate false narrative? Wanting to ban AR style weapons is about saving children that are sitting in school. Some people really are sickened by children being shot and killed, some have no heart and don't care until it is their child.
Where is the false narrative? What we really have is a dispute over how to resolve a problem. On one hand, advocates for more gun control claim the gun-free zones and myriad statutes already on the books are insufficient. Their solution is to impose new laws, licenses, and regulations. On the other hand, advocates for firearm freedom see such laws as child endangerment, particularly when the existing police and court system demonstrably fail to protect children. Police are slow to respond to active shooting situations, while the intended victims of a crime and any bystanders present are always the true first responders.
A man with an AR-pattern pistol-caliber carbine
I see several false narratives in play here, but not the kind my accuser thinks.
- Owning firearms is inherently criminal and worthy of punishment.
Rationally, a crime requires a victim whose life, liberty, or property have been violated. Owning a firearm inherently violates no one. Voluntarily buying and selling firearms also violates no one. Carrying a firearm, provided it is on a sling or in a holster and not being brandished or accompanied by verbal threats, still violates no one. There is no crime to be punished until that threshold is crossed.
- Gun owners want to see children suffer harm.
Because I care about children, and distrust the government's regulators and enforcers, I reject these appeals to emotion and their accompanying demands. The first responders in any emergency are the victims and bystanders, and preventing them from being armed protects no one. They should be free to choose the best means possible to stop violent people from doing further harm and prevent further suffering.
- Prohibitions and restrictions are a compassionate, common-sense approach.
Banning someone's firearm is a threat to either deprive them of their property if they comply, or harm them for non-compliance. That is what all prohibitions mean. Legality does not change morality, and legal impositions which violate life, liberty, and property are inherently criminal. These "laws" will turn innocent people into "criminals" simply for failure to comply. Where is the compassion and common sense in doing such a thing? Instead, look at how the firearms community promotes safety and responsibility as a grassroots culture to see common sense in action.
- We only want to ban "assault weapons" like the AR15.
"Assault weapons" are used in very few crimes according to government statistics, and AR- and AK-type rifles are only a small portion of that minority. These are all just semi-automatic rifles with modern ergonomics, not assault rifles as defined by the military, which have been heavily restricted starting almost 90 years ago, but the term assault weapon is used to poison the well. Utterly neglected statistics in this discussion include the lack of correlation between violent crime rates and firearm proliferation — and this NICS data obviously doesn't include any "ghost guns," the latest perfectly-legal-since-forever bogeyman of the hoplophobic. These legislative schemes always propose sweeping restrictions on many common rifles, carbines, shotguns, and handguns plus draconian felony charges for their violation in pages of fine print based on purely arbitrary distinctions. Why?
After a brief exchange, less structured than this post but with a similar effort toward intellectual honesty and civility, the other party remained unconvinced.
Let's be honest, you don't give a **** about murdered kids. If 1,000,000 kids died per year, you would still think every gun law is an "InFrinGeMeNt"
Indeed, let's be as honest as possible here. If I carry a gun into a place where there were no guns before, the potential for someone getting shot does change from zero to non-zero. I concede this fact. Does my possession of a firearm create a demonstrable risk of harm to others, though? I strive to follow all the basic rules of firearm safety. Meanwhile, evil people commit acts of extreme violence and destruction without guns every day. Sticks and stones, knives, poisons, automobiles, explosives, and a bewildering variety of improvised weapons are used to commit murder. The difference with firearms is the capacity of the victim or bystander to match an aggressor's lethal force while compensating for a physical or numerical disadvantage. Disarming me is indeed an infringement, and it will not actually protect anyone no matter now hard proponents lean on the politician's syllogism.
I want a world where people are free to take responsibility for their own security, free from arbitrary political infringement. My accuser wants a world where he can believe he is free from risk of violence by disarming me. These ideas are necessarily in conflict. Do gun rights advocates really display a penchant for false narratives and callous indifference toward the vulnerable, or do gun control advocates demonstrate irrational hate for those who dissent and a desire to exert control over them? Is there some alternative outside these ranges of options? The floor is open. Comment below!
Updated with links to support my claims in response to the fourth narrative
