Some Common Arguments & Answers

[Christa]

We may want to stick our tongues out at the people who come to us and make statements like "every gun is a bad gun" but we cannot afford to - our job is to remain vigilant and calmly repeat (and very likely repeat and repeat and repeat) the facts of the matter until, hopefully, a more enlightened understanding is reached. To that effect here are just a few of the most common arguments against concealed carry on campus and some good responses to them. For more information go to concealedcampus.org/common_arguments.php

They Say: College campuses are filled with drugs and alcohol, why would any sane person want to add guns to that mix?

ANSWER: This is NOT a debate about keeping guns out of the hands of college students. Allowing concealed carry on college campuses would not change the rules about who can buy a gun or who can obtain a concealed handgun license. Every state that provides for legalized concealed carry has statutes prohibiting license holders from carrying while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Legalizing concealed carry on college campuses would neither make it easier for college students to obtain firearms nor make it legal for a person to carry a firearm while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Allowing concealed carry on college campuses would have no impact on the laws regulating concealed carry at bars and off-campus parties, the places where students (particularly students of legal age to obtain a concealed handgun license) are most likely to consume alcohol.

They Say: Every gun is a bad gun

We Usually Answer that guns already exist and there is no magic wand that is going to remove them all from the face of the planet, the criminals will always be able to get them, and the police won't always be there to protect me - While this might be true it presumes that it MIGHT be a good idea to eradicate all guns if you could. Would a world without guns be the danger-less utopia gun control proponents say it would be? Hardly.

A study by Professor Gary Kleck at the University of Florida indicates that civilians alone use firearms somewhere around 1.5 million to 2 million times each year to thwart a crime or to protect themselves. Further, his study indicated that very few of these incidents resulted in death and only a slightly higher number resulted in injury. It seems that most criminals either flee or submit when confronted by a citizen with a firearm rather than risk being shot. What's this mean? This means that without firearms it is likely that a majority of these crimes could be successful! I worked in a convenience store for 3 years (one of the top 10 most dangerous jobs in America) and I can tell you most robbers are not carrying guns, most ARMED robbers are not carrying GUNS! (My store was even robbed by a man who DID have a gun who upon being faced with another gun, dropped his gun and ran. )

GOOD ANSWER: So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed. Sorry, that's unacceptable. Better that we should require every citizen to carry a gun. You can then mention Switzerland and how there hasn't been a gun related violent crime there in decades, and there hasn't been a military conflict in a hundred years because they issue every citizen a rifle, train them to use them well, and have national shooting holidays that even children participate it. They also produce excellent cheese, funnily enough... filled with holes...

They Say: Handguns have too many controls for civilians to learn how to use them properly
ANSWER: A handgun has about 4 controls on it, the average car has about 20.

They Say: Only the police and/or military should have guns.
ANSWER: Police are just people like you and me, who have been hired to do that job, they are not infallible and even if they were a "good response time" is considered to be 9 minutes. It takes about 30 seconds for a violent crime to be initiated, how quickly can you manage to respond by calling 911 before that 9 minutes begins? How long do you think you can get your knife wielding assailant to wait? As for the military the Founders discussed this very issue - it's in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens to have the same guns as were the issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry.

They Say: With guns around someone could get killed!
Answer: While crossing the street can get someone killed, yet we aren't trying to ban cars from campus. Why is it that there are almost no fatalities at shooting ranges and gun shows?

They Say: Restricting guns reduces crime
Answer: To date no law restricting guns has been proven to reduce crime or homicide. Washington D.C. which has the most restrictive gun bans in the US has a murder rate of 69 per 100,000. and Indianapolis' rate of 9 per 100,000... they have what you might call a complete lack of gun control there.

[Christa]

an article in Armed Females of America on how to combat anti-gun arguments - figured I'd post it after having just borrowed heavily from it...

The biggest mistake we make is failing to take the moral high ground on our issue, and letting our enemies define the terms.

THEY SAY: "We'd be better off if no one had guns."

WE SAY: "You can never succeed at that, criminals will always get guns." (FLAW: The implication here is that if you COULD succeed, it would be a reasonable plan.)

WE SHOULD SAY: "So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed. Sorry, that's unacceptable. Better that we should require every citizen to carry a gun."

THEY SAY: "Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don't need a 30-round magazine for hunting deer -- they're only for killing people."

WE SAY: "I compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15. You need a large-capacity magazine for their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer rifle, and I've never done anything to give my government reason not to trust me, blah, blah, blah." (FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that it is okay to ban any gun with no sporting use. And eventually they can replace your sporting arms with arcade-game substitutes.)

WE SHOULD SAY: "Your claim that 'they're only for killing people' is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high capacity military-type rifle or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is that they're good practice."

THEY SAY: "If we pass this CCW law, it will be like the Wild West, with shoot-outs all the time for fender-benders, in bars, etc. We need to keep guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life, it will be worth it."

WE SAY: "Studies have shown blah blah blah." (flaw: You have implied that if studies showed CCW laws equaled more heat-of-passion shooting, CCW should be illegal.

WE SHOULD SAY: "Although no state has experienced what you are describing, that's not important. What is important is our freedom. If saving lives is more important that anything else, why don't we throw out the Fifth amendment? We have the technology to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire population. We'd catch the criminals and mistaken arrest would be a thing of the past. How does that sound?".

THEY SAY: "I don't see what the big deal is about a five day waiting period."

WE SAY: "It doesn't do any good, criminals don't wait five days, it's a waste of resources blah blah blah." (FLAW: You have implied that if waiting periods DID reduce crime, they would be a good idea.)

WHAT WE SHOULD SAY: "How about a 24-hour cooling-off period with a government review board before the news is reported? Wouldn't that prevent lives from being ruined, e.g. Richard Jewell? And the fact that this law applies to people who ALREADY own a handgun tells me that it's not about crime prevention, it's about harassment. Personally, I want to live in a free society, not a 'safe' one with the government as chief nanny."

THEY SAY: "In 1776, citizens had muskets. No one ever envisioned these deadly AK-47s. I suppose you think we should all have atomic bombs."

WE SAY: "Uh, well, uh . . ."

WE SHOULD SAY: "Actually, the Founders discussed this very issue - it's in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens to have the same guns as were the issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 were each issued muskets, but not the large field pieces with exploding shells. In 1996, soldiers are issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not howitzers and atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your logic, the laws governing freedom of the press are only valid for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or electricity, let alone TV and satellite transmission."

THEY SAY: "We require licenses on cars, but the powerful NRA screams bloody murder if anyone ever suggests licensing these weapons of mass destruction."

WE SAY: Nothing, usually, and just sit there looking dumb.

WE SHOULD SAY: "You know, driving is a luxury, where firearms ownership is a right secured by the Constitution. But let's put that aside for a moment. It's interesting you compared guns and vehicles. Here in the U.S. you can AT ANY AGE go into any state and buy as many motorcycles, cars, or trucks of any size as you want, and you don't need to do anything if you don't use them on public property. If you DO want to use them on public property, you can get a license at age 16. This license is good in all 50 states. NO waiting periods, no background checks, nothing. If we treated guns like cars, a fourteen-year- old could go into any state and legally buy handguns, machine guns, cannons, whatever, cash and carry, and shoot them all with complete legality on private property. And at age 16 he could get a state license good anywhere in the country to shoot these guns on public property."

Final comment, useful with most all arguments:

YOU SAY: "You know, I'm amazed at how little you care about your grandchildren. I would have thought they meant more to you than anything."

THEY SAY: "Huh?"

YOU SAY: "Well, passing this proposal won't have a big immediate effect. I mean, in the next couple of years, neither Bill Clinton nor Newt Gingrich is going to open up internment camps like Roosevelt did fifty-odd years ago. But think of your worst nightmare of a political leader. Isn't it POSSIBLE that a person like that MIGHT be in control here some time in the next 30, 40, or 50 years, with 51% of the Congress and 51% of the Senate behind him? If that does happen, do you REALLY want your grandchildren to have been stripped of their final guarantee of freedom? And do you really want them to have been stripped of it BY YOU?"

[Christa]

Facts -
In 1985, the National Institute for Justice reported that:
60% of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."
57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."
74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime." (obviously not a problem for anyone who knows that any given college campus forbids it)

47 States currently issue Concealed Carry Weapons Permits or Concealed Handgun licenses, Vermont neither offers nor requires licensing to carry a handgun (either openly or concealed)

CCW/CHL holders are statistically LESS violent than the rest of the population, they are arrested for violent crime at a rate 5 times lower than non-licensed holders (even lower than police officers in many states)

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that police officers have NO duty to protect the lives of citizens, yet concealed handgun license holders must leave their greatest means of self defense behind when they step onto college campuses.

Nearly every "shootout" between armed citizens lasts less than 10 seconds. Mass shootings can exceed 30 minutes.

Despite predictions when state Concealed Carry laws were passed two decades ago, the presence of concealed handguns has not created an epidemic of everyday arguments turning into shootings.

Most victims of mass shootings are shot at point blank range, by assailants who move slowly and methodically from victim to victim. It requires neither superhuman reflexes nor deadeye accuracy to defend oneself against such an attack.