The dishonest gun control debate

If you support the Second Amendment, you’ve likely heard the nonsensical argument about “need,” as if that is relevant in a discussion about constitutional rights. It doesn’t matter if I “need” a new Glock 17 or an AR-15. The question is whether the Second Amendment protects my right to have one, and it does. Naturally, some people disagree, and it’s worth having those debates, but only if they are willing to discuss the issue in good faith, and they often are not — hence the declaration that someone does not “need” a particular type of firearm. Ironically, it is an issue the Supreme Court will decide this year in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. New York requires anyone wishing to carry a gun outside their homes to explain to local police why they “need” to have a weapon by showing “proper cause” to carry. Considering the court’s shift since the Heller decision in 2008, gun control advocates are rightfully concerned…

That also gets into another pointless debate tactic used by gun control supporters. They will tell you, “Its only purpose is to kill people” or “It’s designed to kill people!” Taken at face value, the only conclusion one could reach for the millions of people who own guns and haven’t killed someone is that they didn’t use their firearms for their intended purpose or the guns were poorly designed. It’s emotional, not rational, rhetoric. Sport shooting these days is much more popular than hunting. People enjoy going to the range, meeting up with friends, and spending the day shooting targets with various firearms. It is no more “creepy” or “weird” than when gearheads gather together to talk shop, groups of people play Dungeons & Dragons, or others engage in modern-day treasure hunts via geocaching.