Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Jason Alexander on Gun Control

If you haven't already read this post by "George Costanza", you absolutely should. He makes a superb nuanced case for additional gun control (of assault rifle type firearms) by looking at some common and some not-so-common arguments. He does not call for regulating all guns, only assault type firearms.

To summarize/paraphrase the rebuttal:

Argument 1: The right to bear arms is in the constitution
Rebuttal: If you want to be literal, the second amendment to the constitution confers the right to bear arms only to well regulated militia.

Argument 2: Forget literal! What about the spirit of the constitution?
Rebuttal: All rights have boundaries. The right to free speech ends before you can shout "fire" in a stadium or maliciously defame someone. Clearly, the right to bear arms does not extend all the way possessing anti-aircraft missiles, tanks or chemical weapons.

Argument 3: Guns don't kill, people do. Should you ban all baseball bats because X bludgeoned Y to death with one?
Rebuttal: Baseball bats have other legitimate uses. Assault rifles have no legitimate roles outside of battle zones that are not satisfied with less lethal weapons.

Argument 4: If everyone had a concealed weapon, these psychotic killers could be stopped before they did much damage.
Rebuttal: You mean in a crowded, chaotic environment, with the perpetrator wearing a bulletproof vest? Really?

Argument 5: Regulation wouldn't help. The bad guys would get the bad stuff anyway.
Rebuttal: It would at least deter some psychotics from walking to the nearest KMart to get one. Also, see #2: we already regulate/ban some types of particularly harmful weapons.


Anonymous said...

All the arguments have clarified most of the queries in my mind

Guns said...

All the arguments have clarified most of the queries in my mind