Typical discourse with a gun control fan

Arguing logic, law and Constitutionality with a card-carrying member of the gun control camp, is usually about as productive as trying to piss up a rope, but I had some free time the other day.

Gun control fanboy:

So what can be done?

First, universal background checks must be strictly enforced, and connected to a nationwide database. Gun purchasers should be screened for prior convictions of violent crimes, especially domestic violence. Gun purchasers should be screened for mental health issues. Mental health providers should be required to flag patients with mental health issues that make them a danger to themselves or others. The U.S. military and the VA should be required to flag all soldiers who are being treated for PTSD or other mental disorders that make them a danger to themselves or others.

Second, all guns should be licensed. All new purchases should have a seven- to fourteen-day waiting period, allowing sufficient time for background checks to be performed. A database of those who purchased and those who own guns should be available to law enforcement.

Third, all open-carry and concealed-weapon laws should be repealed, putting an end to the Wild West mentality in many states and communities. Only law enforcement should be permitted to carry firearms in public.

Fourth, the manner in which the government and insurance companies handle mental health treatment must be changed in ways that make it possible for people to get prompt, ongoing, and comprehensive care.

Fifth, school leaders must address the ongoing bullying crisis in public schools. Teachers must be taught to be aware of bullying and to take steps to stop it when they see it happening.  While I suspect it is impossible to put an end to cliques, schools must do a better job of fostering inclusiveness. Perhaps it is time to put an end to the jocks-rule mentality that dominates most schools.

Sixth, semi-automatic firearms such as the AR-15 should be immediately banned. Any firearm capable of firing large-volume bursts should be banned. There is no legitimate reason for anyone to own military-style firearms.

Seventh, large (high) capacity magazines and clips should be immediately banned. There is no legitimate need for owning guns with large-capacity magazines, nor is there any reason for owning clips holding dozens of rounds of ammunition. It also goes without saying that bump stocks such as the ones used in the Las Vegas massacre should be outlawed.

Eighth, politicians should be banned from taking financial or in-kind donations from the NRA and the gun lobby. The NRA, along with the Ted Nugents of the world, are part of the problem. These promoters of the means of violence should not be given larger-than-life influence over the political process. (As my editor mentioned to me, this would surely not pass constitutional challenge. Fine. Let’s reverse the effects of Citizens United. Let’s make public the names of ALL campaign donors. Let’s ban corporate donations, soft money, and the other endless ways politicians hide who and where donations are coming from. In fact, let’s federally fund elections and limit campaigning as Great Britain does to a short time before time election day. In other words, GET THE FUCKING MONEY OUT OF POLITICS!)

My response:

I can appreciate the emotion after events where people have lost their lives, but we should always strive to be factually correct, no? Unless of course disinformation is the goal, which many in the gun control camp have proven themselves (in their own words) complicit in.

AR pattern rifles (of which their are many, many varieties of) don’t fire any faster than any other semi-automatic firearm, the rate of fire is how fast you pull the trigger…..as with any semi-automatic firearm. Semi-automatic firearms also don’t fire “large volume bursts”. Nor, if you’ve read some other media falsehoods recently, do they render hunted animals ‘destroyed’. As evidenced by the many thousands who hunt with AR pattern rifles. But I mean, hey…..if you want to ban the AR-15 and call it a day, I could almost get behind that. Since it wouldn’t affect my AK or Galil.

And “legitimate reason”? I can come up with a hundred. It’s beyond absurd to me that you would grant the State the power to dictate what a Citizen has a “legitimate reason” in owning something explicitly tied to a Constitutional Right.

Now, I largely agree with your statement on background checks. However, they are already tied to a national system (NICS). It’s the individual states and localities that have been failing to submit information to the DOJ, that would prevent many of these criminal shooters to legally acquire a firearm. The only means to enforce ‘universal’ background checks however, is a firearm registry….which aside from being a pipe dream, wouldn’t net nearly half of the legally owned firearms in this country. I have unkind words for anyone whop would deny a Veteran the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, due to a PTSD rating.

I think open carry is foolish, but open and concealed should be legal. Yes, bullying on school should be punished. Parents should also teach their kids to defend themselves. Bullying isn’t remotely new. People committing suicide pr conducting a mass shooting, is.

Magazines. Here we go again with “legitimate need”. Whatever number you’d offer as the top end would be arbitrary and undefendable other than the emotion behind the offer. Gun owners already have broad definition of standard capacity and high capacity. We’re good with that.

But….I’m perfectly fine with the gun control camp directing all of their ire against the NRA. That organization is corrupt and ineffective. State-based groups and national ones like SAF and GOA are far, far more effective in the legislative and judicial realm.

This nation is trying to put a band-aid on a problem that isn’t the guns (which are more difficult to acquire than at any time in our nations history). The problem is the self entitled, leisure pursing society that cares more about disposable consumer goods and social media distractions, than they do parenting or protecting their families.

And the expected response:

I don’t argue back and forth with gun nuts. Disparage me by calling me irrational or acting emotionally—who wouldn’t after countless mass shootings?— I don’t care. Guns are the problem. We must do whatever is necessary to regulate and control firearms. Until we do, the slaughter will continue.


Yes, we are coming for your guns.

Facts and logic aren’t necessary when all you need is emotion, right?


8 thoughts on “Typical discourse with a gun control fan

  1. I actually found all that interesting. Good post. The advocate for gun control made some solid points.. but also some very questionable, and unrealistic ones as well. I think your reply to him was very well done… and I would agree with you on nearly all of that. But honestly.. it was a nice attempt at a compromising view… and few want to compromise these days.
    For me it’s more about mental health… and there’s a lot of mental health issues percolating the countryside that has little to do with the availability of guns.
    I echo when I can that we need a formal national mental health policy.. and that can only begin if we can assemble one of these blue ribbon commissions, made up of mental health professionals, medical professionals, legal Constitutional experts (because any mental health programs WILL infringe on some rights), law enforcement, education, politicians… and I likely missed someone in all that. Take a year to assemble how we might begin to address this problem because it will inherently get worse as population increases, and will influence every facet of American life. Gun control, however one might describe it, is a symptom.. not a cause.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I’ll admit I’m saddened a bit, as I have come to respect both you and Bruce, but then, we’re all different strokes, and no one agrees with everyone, 100% of the time. I suspect on a lot of other matters, you and Bruce would find yourselves in a lot of agreement (he would take a similar line with Citizen Tom, just as an example).

    Along those lines, there is a fundamentalist who Bruce and I have regularly sparred with, on a number of topics. He’s written his own reply to Bruce. I’d be interesting in knowing what you make of Biblical gun laws. https:// theologyarchaeology. wordpress.com/2023/02/17/the-bible-talks-about-proper-gun-use/

    I broke the link, because frankly, after years of this fundie lying about me, and Bruce, and about virtually every subject under the sun, I don’t think he deserves track-backs anymore.

    Liked by 1 person

    • It’s two people passionate about an issue. I don’t take any online discourse personally. But to disregard Constitutional and case law, intermediate and strict scrutiny, not to mention demonstrably false talking points about the very subject at hand…..I tend to question whether or not the opponent is arguing in good faith.

      The linked article is utterly absurd. It’s another example of someone trying to twist their chosen scripture into defending an issue that has no connection. His ‘rebuttal’ to Bruce’s post is deflection and pointless.

      Now, I would presume that the bible references self defense somewhere, and would further note that if the tools available for that defense are patently inferior to the threat (as decreed by the State), then that ability doesn’t truly exist at all.


  3. We’ve come a long way in the past 100 years, but I still think that most people in the U.S. either own or foresee owning a firearm (30% do own one, and 36% will likely own one). Why? Because 99.9% of gun owners view the defense of family and home as their greatest responsibility. And they know that if you intend to rely on the local police to save you, terrible things will happen before you die.

    Aside: my sheriff offers gun handling classes to citizens so that, should someone break into their home, the homeowner won’t miss their target. Bullets are cheaper than drawn-out trials. I’m happy where I live and feel safer because the bad guys know they will likely die by assaulting anyone or breaking into their home in the middle of the night. My state is getting ready to go “Constitutional Carry.”

    So for those who would rather risk relying on a 911 call to protect their loved ones from harm, that’s not an American tradition. It’s “Let someone else do it” taken to extremes.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Perfectly framed, and spot on about our greatest responsibility.

      I’m pretty certain that the crime rate where I live (admittedly it’s rural and not heavily populated) is because criminals are likely to understand the vast majority of residents own (and are well trained) firearms.

      Given my posts theme of gun control disinformation…….a new Quinnipiac poll isn’t liable to make them very happy (though I take issue with their use of the charged label):
      “Americans are divided on a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons. Forty-seven percent support a ban, while 48 percent oppose it. This compares to a Quinnipiac University poll in July 2022 when 49 percent supported a ban and 45 percent opposed it.”


  4. Thanks, this was an interesting discussion. Given my past posts, I agree most with the gun control side. Obviously, guns aren’t the only problem. There are many crazy, angry, bigoted people out there–but the availability of firearms makes them so much more of a risk to kill and injure others. The fact that there are 20 per cent more guns than people in the US is alarming. A terrible thought is that it might take a murderous incident involving somebody close to a Mitch McConnell or Kevin McCarthy, or someone like that, to cause a real move for meaningful change in our laws.


    • I can certainly respect your opinion, but I am always compelled to defend a Constitutional Right against the falsehoods and illogical narratives of the gun control side. For example, in the post on your blog “More Mass Killings”, you and a commenter endorse a prohibition of the sale and ownership of “military style ‘assault weapons’….”.

      When we seek to legislate the scope of a Constitutional Right, (aside from the requirement of the Judicial system to apply strict scrutiny, which is why such a ban is Unconstitutional)…….we should ensure that such legislation is just, legally sound and logical, no?

      Can you name for me a class of firearm that has not been used by our military? I’ll help you out…..none. Thus, ALL firearms are ‘military style’. Further, there are no ‘offensive’ (i.e. “assault”) or ‘defensive’ firearms. Those distinctions simply don’t exist.

      The AR pattern rifle (commonly referred to strangely as an “assault weapon/rifle), functions no different than any other semi-automatic firearm. The gun control camp has intentionally crafted a narrative to demonize this type of rifle based on it’s looks, features and add-on components.

      Finally, firearms are more difficult to obtain today than at any other time in our history. Exercise of our 2nd Amendment Right is regulated wildly out of proportion with any of our other enumerated Rights. The narrative of ‘easily available’, ‘unfettered access’ or any other buzz phrase……is false.

      So what the gun control camp is left with, is the appeal to emotion. Can I presume that on its face, this should not qualify as a basis to craft legislation, potentially turning millions of law-abiding Americans into felons?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s