Perhaps someone can enlighten me: the part of this longrunning debate about guns that most perplexes me is that one of the major contentions of the gun enthusiast crowd is that they need their guns, including perhaps especially the really powerful ones, in order to protect themselves from government tyranny. This suggests that they are contemplating, at least as a possibility, warfare with our government or some sort of armed insurrection in which they would need to use lethal weapons. It is astounding to me that this obvious implication seems to be ignored or treated as unproblematic even by most gun opponents.
Even more perplexing to me is that the very same people who argue passionately that their gun ownership is an essential bulwark against the threat of a tyrannical government are simultaneously huge supporters of the military, of ever increasing military budgets, and ever more super-sophisticated and advanced military hardware.
Now, if you believe you are going to need to fight the federal government with your personal stash of handguns and assault rifles, who exactly do you think you are going to be fighting? If you are engaging in armed rebellion against alleged tyranny who will the government send out to deal with you? It won't be mid-level bureaucrats from HHS or EPA. I think we can be pretty sure, it will be the military.
If you think you are going to fight the government, why do you want it to have more and more arms and soldiers? Help me understand this.
14
Mr. Kristof, you still don't address the idea that the Second Amendment was written to arm a people against a despotic government. With modern small arms. The kind the Afghanistanis used to repulse the Russian invasion of 1979. The kind of modern (at the time) weapons used by George Washington and his allies to overthrow the legal government that ruled them. Perhaps, just as modern transportation is worth 40 thousand deaths a year, freedom is worth 12,000 (non-suicide) gun deaths a year. Yes, let's get that number down, but try to understand what the Second Amendment means to the pro gun crowd. Hint: it ain't about bagging a deer.
3
This applies only to people subject to rational analysis. Most of those people are probably already on board with tighter regulation. Rational analysis will not convince those who are making gobs of money off of guns and those with an emotional attachment.
6
I don't want to win an argument on guns, I just want to circumvent gun control/gun laws by having and carrying a Jo staff.
1
Memo to: Bloomberg and Sandy Hook Promise;
Please initiate a “50 State Licence Plate” campaign to end GUN violence in this country? Evan a “51 State Licence Plate” campaign to include Puerto Rico?
1
To the "car is just as lethal" argument. Eight people were killed on London Bridge in July of 2017, struck by a terrorist in a speeding van. Do you know why a van was used instead of an AR-15? Because the British have very stringent gun laws and an assault weapon was out of reach for the perpetrator. In America, he could have easily obtained one and then the toll would have been dozens, or maybe hundreds.
4
And then the Brits installed barriers excluding vehicles from bridges and other walkways, all over, not just that one. There are some here but not as extensive.
1
Chelsea Handler is, almost as I write this, being interviewed by NYTimes. She posted a scrolling list of politicians who had accepted NRA donations on Facebook. I can't find a printable copy of that list. Could you please make it available?
Replacing the politicians who have accepted NRA money is probably the only way to bring about change. This essentially means firing Republicans.
Organized school kids: put your effort into the election. I hope millions of citizens join me in donating and voting for gun control.
We need to remove assault weapons and high-capacity magazines from the civilian population and remove weapons from people who have committed domestic violence.
We are not trying to remove hunting, target practice, and self-defense weapons.
3
You got me at “active pool situation”
1
It's all just a question of trust. Trust us, we really don't want to take away your guns. Just let us pass one more "common sense" law that will be added to the 22,000+ "common sense" laws already on the books and all this "gun violence" will cease.
Oh wait, that didn't work, well then just one more "common sense" law, just one more. Listening to the real rhetoric of the die hard gun grabbers it's very hard not to see their end game.
4
No to "universal background checks".
Why? Because such laws make it a crime to loan a gun to a friend or sell one to a relative whom you know is perfectly legal to own a firearm. There is no societal benefit in making non criminal actions criminal.
Additionally, it is highly doubtful that ubc's would in any way reduce criminal behavior with guns. And they would have stopped NONE of the recent high profile shootings since those shooters all bought guns legally thru dealers and so went thru the background check.
ubc's are to harass lawful gun owners, make gun ownership more expensive, and more legally risky.
How's that for winning the argument.
5
Excellent, Mr. Kristoff. In a funny way I nearly felt this was something I had heard from Mr. Sorkin's voice on the West Wing.
2
Mr Kristof meet straw man. Straw man meet Mr Kristof.
2
Your first paragraph about says it all. You argue that this country needs sensible gun laws, but the You Tube shooter bought a gun legally in a state with restrictive laws.
4
I also just finished reading on article linked to the suicides by ovens. That was also a great article lesson from both articles include the following:
1) sometimes the how creates the why? especially in suicides and exagerations of violence.
2) access matters - even if I want to mow the lawn, I won't do it without a lawn mower.
3) impassivity matters and guns can be very impulsive
4) people who survive impulse attempts of suicide regret it.
5) It just isn't true that they will find another way, most people who think about suicide most of the time are not impulsive. They use other less effective methods and these are usually a cry for help.
It is also important to reframe the NRA as nothing more than an organization that helps market and sell guns or gun products for manufacturers.
Really the only way to win an argument with someone opposed to gun regulation, with finality and for certain, is to pull out your gun and shoot them with it. If they live, they won't be so enamored with flooding the U.S. with guns. If they don't, then you have also won the argument.
2
This country has a gun worship sickness and that is reflected in our elected officials. The only argument that will matter is when NRA A+ rated elected officials are voted out.
3
Respectfully, Mr. Kristof, I disagree that this is the way to win an argument about guns. It doesn't really matter how good your arguments are - you will never win on the strength of your points because there is something else going on here. Nobody is winning any arguments until everyone feels like the people they are arguing with care about their positions. As Teddy Roosevelt said, nobody cares how much you know until they know how much you care. As I express in an article at http://www.socialworker.com/feature-articles/practice/gun-control-debate..., "If everyone would stop spouting their own opinions and listen to others’, we would likely make a lot more progress."
4
He doesn't address the argument of last resort for 2nd Amendment advocates, which is the Myth of the Tyrannical King (or Govt.) They often point out that we need to be armed to keep the government in check. Or to violently overthrow it, if need be. The problem with that logic is that we already had that war: the American Revolution. And we won. We won the right to vote, peaceably assemble, stand for office, petition, pester your reps, and so forth. What new people-empowering element are any of these 2nd Amendment advocates planning to introduce on top of what we already have? I don't think any of them have seen past the hazy fantasy of them "fighting the good fight." And 9 out of 10 times, the first thing an incoming revolutionary govt does is TAKE AWAY EVERYONE'S GUNS. That's the first thing any of these small-minded tyrants would do. Because they don't want to have happen to them, what they just did to the previous regime. And finally, guns are anachronistic in a modern society. The new "kings" aren't after your land. They want three things: the banks, media, and government access -- and they got all three. Where were these so-called "freedom fighters" when corporate interests took over? We need citizen participation not violence. People need to inform themselves and vote. And I would recommend that everyone get counseling as well. It's good to have someone to talk to.
8
a position arrived at without argument evidence or logic cannot be changed by argument evidence or logic.
if guns made people feel more afraid, more powerless and more insecure they would give them up immediately. but guns make people feel good. its a grasp on power that cannot be challenged or diminished by anything else that weakens your life, credit card debt, unemployment, getting dumped or worries abut international war included. the only things that can compete with guns for providing emotional security are jobs, health care and cash. If you can offer a buy back program that gives you one of these in exchange for a gun you might get some guns off the street.
4
Finger print ID technology on all new guns. THEN, only the registered owner can fire the gun.
Simple solution....JUST DO IT !!!
3
Oh that makes so much sense. So when a husband is away and has left his gun in his house his wife won't be able to use it against a would be rapist because she's not the registered owner.
The question is why do you want to do this? What problem would this solve?
Guns. Can you bake bread with a gun? Can you make a phone call with a gun? Can you transport yourself with a gun? (to the morgue maybe) Pretty much you are only meant to do one thing with a gun; destroy or terrify. Intention to destroy or terrify is a human psychological condition hard to legislate away, but maybe we can try as many countries have to limit gun damage, however reasonably possible. It is an intentional farce to compare anything else (car/pool) to a gun except maybe poison or grenades, land mines... tools for effective killing. We can do better about regulating this incredibly effective war weapon which has become a common frivolous adult toy, proof of lifestyle, or fashion accessory in some pockets of society.
6
Broadly, if the goal is to reduce gun suicides the talk about a ban on semiautomatic rifles and large capacity magazines is irrelevant - we don't have a national epidemic of people shooting themselves fifteen times and bleeding out.
Or if we swing the focus back to gun homicides, when the firearm is known (about 3/4 of the time), handguns are used about 90% of the time. Semiautomatic rifles aren't what the gangbangers on the mean streets of Chicago and St Louis are shooting at each other. We should be arguing about a handgun ban.
What remains true is that many people have examined their lives and concluded that they are:
(a) not involved with criminal activity, especially drug-related;
(b) not in an abusive domestic relationship,
(c) not suicidal, and
(d) not living in a crime-ridden neighborhood
For those fortunate many, the greatest remaining risk of gun violence is a random shooting at a mall, theater, or (for kids and young adults) school.
That sort of mass shooting death kills about 26
people per year (on average since 1966, per the Washington Post). Recent headlines make me suspect the trend is not favorable.
My impression is that most of the current public reaction is about the 1% of gun deaths that are relevant to the lives of successful Times readers and suburban parents of school kids, not the 99% of gun deaths that actually kill people.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/mass-shootings-in-...
1
We spend a huge proportion of energy fighting terrorism (and compromising our liberty in this fight) compared to most other crimes. School shootings, though usually not ideologically motivated, get a ton of attention for the same reason - they cause terror. Jealous husbands did not lead to "shooter drills" or school guards. The economic or social impact is far greater per death than most other shootings (the same applies to the terror caused by police shootings). People tend to overestimate the likelihood of very unlikely events, and this has allowed terrorism, as a tactic, to remain far too popular.
If your spouse is a sociopath or disturbed or full of anger, you have some risk of being killed by a gun. If you are suicidal, you have some risk of being killed by a gun. Take away the guns and you may be safer, but you are still at serious risk.
Spree shooters put everyone at risk, even those who fear no other risk of homicide. It is perfectly reasonable for policies, possibly even policies that compromise some of our liberties, to focus on these events. Unlike a political terrorist or sociopath spouse, many spree shooter with no gun or a far less powerful gun probably would not have killed anyone at all.
1
318 people are shot everyday, on average, in America. 96 people die from gun shots, everyday. 222 people must survive a gun shot, everyday.
I hope this article serves as another ray of light into our benighted understanding of true freedom.
Let freedom from senseless injury and death ring!
1
There is no "compromise." gun laws in California and New York get perpetually stricter without end. This shooting happened in a state with stricter gun laws than nations like Switzerland. All rifles kill less than knives, fists and blunt objects. The AR is the most popular rifle in America. An AWB was tried nationwide and proven to have had no effect.
3
I've tried those arguments for years. They don't work. I'm not even through presenting my case before they're off onto another talking point, usually containing the words "Obama", "Hillary", or "liberals".
7
You can't compare a gun to a car or a pool or anything that is used for something else.
A gun has one express purpose: to kill.
And there was a recent article in this newspaper on what it takes a person in Israel to own a firearm.
Quite a process.
3
To reiterate in a clearer form than a past comment, any newspaper column argument about guns, either against or for gun ownership rights, may be a great argument but it is not a gun. It is also not an automobile.
So don’t pull out a newspaper column argument against or for gun ownership rights compared to auto fatalities to defend yourself when someone bigger and stronger than you has a gun and is trying to break into your home, or the criminal is about to use the gun to assault your loved ones, and to rob you or to kill you. A newspaper column argument may seem rhetorically convincing as a defense appealing to one’s heart, but it’s not a gun when you need one to defend yourself. Bank on it!
Do you need an AR-15 to defend your home or your family?
In my opinion its about time that someone begins to talk about basics. First, it is a key defining characteristic of human civilization that the right and responsibility of using lethal violence is assigned to a specialized organization - the police. Else human history tells you have chaos--the chaos we are not experiencing, when the right to have a gun actually means the right to shoot anyone with whom you disagree. A second basic is that the 2nd amendment never meant anything like what it is now being interpreted to mean. The founders would have laughed at the silly idea that every individual needs to have gun to protect himself/herself individually from an out-of-control government, hence the "well regulated militia," none of which even exist, other than in police or government. Live by the gun and you will die by the gun--that's the fact.
Please, please, please, can someone start a discussion on another way to control guns, through education? The NRA brags that its members are not wreaking havoc, but its members are trained. Instead of wasting the money buying politicians, they should bring teaching their basic program throughout the US, everyone trained the same way in gun safety and eligible for certification when they are ready to own a gun. Start with middle school kids so guns lose their allure and kids can see it's not like the cartoons and roadrunner doesn't get up and shake out the bullets and keep running. Set up shooting ranges all over so kids and adults can practice. If we can't stop angry shooting, can we at least try to keep nine year olds from getting their father's guns to shoot their sisters?
3
Violence begets violence--always, inevitably, remorselessly. Reject the use of violence in you own human affairs, including violence, force and/or cpercopm perpetrated by your agents--soldiers, sailor, marines, cops, tax collectors, etc., and you will free yourself from violence. Otherwise, keep it up, accept it as the American way and move on.
1
I think the poll numbers about % of people who want "sensible" gun regulation is completely useless and fake. People answer yes without thinking or caring about the question. With true 90% support you could get constitutional amendment and get rid of 2nd amendment completely. But, we, as a society, do not care about guns or gun control because it does not affect us in a negative way.
School shootings are sensational but your kid has a better chance getting killed in many other ways than being murdered by gun in school. The people most affected by guns are poor minorities living in inner cities and, as current drug problems are illustrating, we really never cared about drug overdoses until it started affecting white citizens of this country. We have shown time and again that we do not care what happens to our fellow citizens with different skin tone. When whites start dying at the same rate as blacks from gun violence, we will see real change. Right now, NRA, and their mostly white members, see guns as tools of protection. Protection from whom is never stated but it is always implied.
1
Such a well thought out piece. thanks for the arguments. those out there who liked this piece will probably enjoy this song called Remington Steel by Hank Bones inspired by the current gun control discussions
https://soundcloud.com/user-993484939/remington-steel
None of the rights in the Bill of Rights is unlimited, including the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment does not say any citizen has an unalterable right to own or use a weapon of war - a weapon meant solely for mass killing of other humans. The Second does not say that bump stocks or huge magazines for semi-automatic weapons are sacred relics that must not be trammeled with. The Founders expected common sense, not the fetishization of guns to a religious level. Guns make it easy to kill people.
2
Smackdown, and all too easy:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/nick-kristof-argues-with-straw-me...
I love all the assumptions by liberal commenters here. They assume all us gun owners are the following:
1. White men. As a transgender woman who owns 10 guns I can say this is wrong.
2. Idiots. As a MiT-educated woman with 10 guns I can say that's wrong.
3..Belong to the NRA. I've never belonged to the NRA. In fact, only like 5% of gun owners are part of the NRA.
4. Are uninterested in changes
You know what I want? I want people to not think I'm going to go murder someone just because I own an AR. I want guns to be regulated so that we dont have to talk about repealing the second amendment. I want smart regulation. If presented with the right arguments I may even be willing to support a soft ban on assault rifles as long as law abiding people like me can keep the ones we already have and buy ammo.
But if you guys just want to make assumptions then when are these conversations going to start? I'm waiting and willing.
2
More Americans have died in car crashes than both of these causes!
Thanks for helping "win the argument" but it is not between logic and illogic. It is between the cautious and the terrified. It is amazing how fearful gun owners are -- of crime, of terrorists, of having their guns taken away. Gun owners should practice what they preach -- "Man up" and live with the rest of us in a world that is safer than ever.
Perhaps we could have a ban on publicizing and promoting shooting coverage for 2 years and see what impact that makes on the number of shootings. If we all go radio silent on these people how many will quit dreaming of going out in a blaze of glory?
Ironically that regulation would step on the 1st Amendment but that's what regulations do. They step on liberties. Loss of freedom comes from giving someone else the power and all the downside risks associated with that loss of power.
I am not a gun owner nor do I have anything against background checks but I don't believe we will make a material impact on gun deaths outside of removing all guns. Incrementally it will help to do background checks, make people take training courses, be tougher on enabling parties who know of someone who will use a weapon wrongly, get our FBI to follow up on solid leads and quit making shooters famous by using them as case studies for political reasons.
Which of the above do you think will happen?
1
As A Trump supporter, I agree with your perspective. It is my belief that this has become a situation where a certain segment of the population has completely lost faith that the majority of the country has any respect for them and this is where they are drawing the line. They are ruled by emotion. The only way to get to them is to convince them that they are heard.
1
Thank you for this thoughtful, well reasoned article. In the past you have made the same appeal to regulate gun ownership the way car ownership is regulated. It is such a sensible solution to a very serious problem. I am left speechless when confronted by someone who becomes hysterical and sometimes verbally abusive when regulation is suggested. I suspect underneath the hyperbole surrounding the second amendment is a fear of loss of status, the status of power.
2
The stats behind the arguments are all too well known and have little effect on die hards.
The difference between a car and a handgun is that a car was not designed to kill another human. A handgun is designed precisely for that purpose. No reasonable person goes deer hunting with a 9mm pistol.
2
Excellent article with statistics and examples I can use. Thank you for providing simple, easy to remember facts.
2
Mr. Kristof's suggestions all require gun registration in order to work. Gun registration is beyond the pale, unacceptable. The guns and books that I own, the religion I practice, are none of the government's business.
6
Does the government have any business licensing you to drive?
1
RE: " beyond the pale, unacceptable."
Why?
How does that square with "well regulated militia"? What makes gun ownership exceptional compared to other rights?
The only reason to fear registration is if one fears more that it might be used against them should they do something wrong than it being used to catch someone else who actually did wrong. It is better that others die than the chance my registration be used find me should I do something wrong.
Funny though - in regards to religion. Some want to make being Muslim very much part of the Government's business.
2
Common sense. Now, what idiotic arguments will the NRA try to make?
Just read them from your fellow commenters.
You dear, dear man...such cogent, beautifully crafted arguments, but you might as well be having this dialogue with a 3 year old. I suspect when asked which they prefer, sensible guns laws or the right to shoot whoever with whatever....this is what they'll probably say......Pizza!!!!
The problem is people not following laws. All people don't use seat belts, stay under the speed limit, have required car insurance, do not drive drunk or drugged and text while driving. Not to mention those who look to the side of the road more than to the front. Laws will not help control anything. People feel laws were made for other people - not them. And no there is no way anybody can keep ignorant people from getting and using guns if they want. Another relative point, think about prohibition. How did that work out?
1
“Laws will not help control anything.” You are partially correct, gun safety laws will not ELIMINATE gun deaths. But they will REDUCE gun deaths.
For example, seat belt laws prevented 13,000 car accident deaths in 2009, according to the CDC. 4,000 more lives would have been saved if everyone followed the seatbelt laws, but like you say “people feel laws were made for other people”
Yes the gun nuts forget the part of the second amendment which says, "a well regulated militia..." An individual is not a militia. I'll say it, no guns nowhere!
3
Supreme Court disagreed with you so that's the end of that.
1
NRA stands for: Never Reasonable Anytime !
1
No use wasting your breath on gun lovers. Some little boys think they just gotta have their murderous toys. The rest of us must simply vote them out.
5
If I ever stand trial for a crime, please don't let Nicholas Kristof defend me.
2
Good!
1
All very comprehensive and rational. But that's the problem. Gun nuts do know how to think rationally. They don't accept the existence of facts and logic. When pushed far enough by reason they always revert to: You hate American and want to take my guns. And then you will open us all up to being taken over by the government.
Echo chamber. Lotta lies up in here. AR-15s are not commonly used in crime.
Just bought a new gun... 2A supporter for life. And... cuz of all the lies here... now an NRA supporter too.
Keep the echos going, snowflakes.
3
I liken this argument with 2nd Amendment purists to my parental attempts to negotiate with my kids when they were teenagers: they want what they want and will try any tactic to manipulate the situation to their favor, even if they know--deep down--their arguments are specious. And just like any responsible parent, we--the 90% of Americans who want sensible gun laws--need to stand firm and not allow the manipulation. Because that's what it is. Manipulation. No amount of whining, stamping of feet, or changing the subject will result in the 90% caving on the idea that anyone has a "right" to an AR-15. No dice.
1
Israel and Switzwerland have universal military service and, thus, "well regulated militia."
2
The reasons behind the NRA's grip on our Congress comes from what we have seen in how they can get them to NOT legislate or regulate despite the OVERWHELMING public support for them to A-C-T to protect lives.
The primary motivation of gun rights groups and the NRA is to foster the 'equalizer' P-O-W-E-R anyone can hold in their hand to settle almost ANY dispute; real or perceived...! Someone cut me off; that person owed me money; that person slighted me and made me feel embarrassed; who let 'them' into 'our hood'; i should have gotten that job or raise, but they gave it to: etc., etc...! Not to mention any mercenary or bounty-types ready to do anything to earn living or all too eager to make their FORTUNE...!
The Parkland Victims Bravery, Courage, Steely RESOLVE is so beautiful in their cry-out for change...! One speaker draws the comparison of hiding and ducking for cover with the herding of cattle.
So, I want to make a stretch how humans have used dogs, as their tools for herding, protection, property as well as companions. It seems as though the US's gun culture and the NRA want to supplant that same type of power, but at 100x to 1000x in your hand. The vicious/mad dog is nothing like the power of a semi-automatic fire arm. It is HELL on Earth power in anyones hands and should be either B-A-N-N-E-D or highly REGULATED, Licensed and bonded to own one...!
What happens to the owners of vicious dogs that attack people over and over...?
What militia are you a member of and who regulates it?
1
Gun owners are just afraid of foreigners taking jobs, being attacked by blacks, gays seducing their children, feminists destroying the family, etc.
Owning a gun to protect yourself from these imagined dangers is the act of a coward. How about we let the gun owners know that we can get them the help they need to not be so afraid anymore.
Continuing with the flawed comparison of guns vs cars. If we reapply this same logic why does any one need a car that will do 200mph? Are we going to ban Lamborghinis, and what about Ferrari?
2
A few days ago, a town near me (Deerfield, IL) banned the purchase and continued possession (for existing owners) of a large class of "assault-style" firearms. Owners have to sell or surrender these firearms to a collection point.
If we want to ban certain firearms or magazines, then as a gun owner (who doesn't even own "assault" rifles), may I suggest that buyback programs or grandfathering possession for existing owners, is much more acceptable than a law which forces owners to give away items they purchased at considerable price in good faith.
How would seizure of your property sit with you? That's civil forfeiture, which I thought everyone agreed is a Bad Idea.
Would you rather people just sold their ARs to people in the next town or state over? If you think these firearms are an issue, then how does that solution serve anyone's end?
Every mention of banning should include buybacks and/or grandfathered possession.
3
I agree. What you suggest is a reasonable approach. Some municipalities have used buyback programs successfully. Grandfathering is also reasonable. My only caveat would be individuals who have prior run-ins with law enforcement.
You may believe that it is possible to win an argument about guns, but an argument in a Times column is no defense against an actual gunman. Don't ever hold up Kristol's column if you're ever facing a gunman on the street. It's no defense. Trust me!
And that is the best argument against your argument, the purpose of a gun is unlike either the purpose of an automobile or a newspaper column.
3
Here's an argument Kristoff left out. (can't read ALL the comments, so somebody else has probably pointed this out already) Gun nut:"You can't write a fair law that bans AR-15's because all semi-automatic firing mechanisms are basically the same. So you have to ban most hunting rifles and almost all handguns in the bargain. If you ban AR-15's you are just banning cosmetics." Rational person: "Sigh, cosmetics do matter, but, OK, let's ban magazines that hold more than, say, 10 rounds." Gun nut: "I need more rounds than that to spray around if I am attacked by a heavily armed gang of drug-crazed home invaders."
Fact is, guns are a totem in the culture wars. The gun nuts are utterly impervious to rational discourse. And even sensible, responsible gun owners believe the slippery-slope argument.
2
'We all agree that there should be limits. No one argues that there is an individual right to own an antiaircraft gun.'
No, the crazies don't agree and they will not be convinced by these arguments-BUT when you're faced with a crazy pro-Trumper, you'll feel a lot more sane debating using actual facts when their eyes start rolling and their spittle starts flying, and they shout 'you libs are just mad Trump is making America great again.' It's really important to keep your sanity these days.
1
What weapon would Jesus choose? I'd like an answer from those who hold the Bible so dear.
3
Guns are a psychological issue. Men need guns to support their poor opinion of themselves and to give their fragile egos a boost. There is no logic to owning a gun in a democracy just as there is no logic for misogyny in a democratic society.
3
Far more people are killed by means of knives than are killed by so-called assault rifles, and you cannot argue that this is due to greater frequency of knife usage as in the swimming pool example. One doesn't suddenly go on a murderous rampage because one is chopping celery. The More People Have Died From X Since Y argument is laughable, as it can be applied to cars, knives, blunt instruments, etc. It tells us nothing. America as a whole doesn't have an underlying social problem, there are very distinct subsets of America that do, but it is progress that he can begin to think about culture as the real problem. If Nicholas Kristof thinks he can win a debate using such ridiculous arguments, why doesn't he debate an expert in the field? He would lose to a paperbag, let alone an expert, having already lost to himself in this silly column.
3
Again and again the distractions work...there is no interest from gun advocates in having a serious conversation, they've forgotten how.
In America appeasing the insecurity of men (yes some women, but seriously...) is more important than the harm it creates.
Feeling less powerful, less loved, like you're missing out, no problem take two of these and hold your new gun, now you're a God.
Yeah I get it I live in sunny safe Australia, what would I know about 'real' danger.
America is its own greatest danger, and there is only so tight you can wind that before things really break.
The way to win an argument about guns is to repeat, over and over, that we're anti-massacre, not anti-gun. We want to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, terrorists, gang-bangers, and the dangerously mentally ill, not law-abiding citizens.
Those opposed to such measures are nothing less than Gun Massacre Apologists. We need to tell them this, over and over.
Except that NONE of your measures would ever do what you claim they would. Why is that? And if you're looking to bring us to your side, do you think accusing us of being murderers is a good way to do that?
4
States with low rates of gun death have proven that their measures work. Sorry, but blocking such measures, thus standing up for the bloody status quo, is in fact gun massacre apology.
The author is incorrect that there is agreement that there is not an individual right to antiaircraft guns. The 2nd amendment addresses a "right to bear arms". It does not even mention the word "guns". There certainly is no shortage of anti-arms regulation folks who would argue that there is no reason they should not be able to own antiaircraft guns, hand grenades, and nuclear missiles. Nothing in the pro-gun argument precludes ownership of any or all of these. Which, in itself, highlights the absurdity of the situation in which our society finds itself.
How to win an argument about guns? Have it with a rational person.
2
Kristoff may want to include reference to today's the NYT story regarding Chinese killer drugs. Opioid overdoses alone took 64,000 American lives last year, and doubtless inured thousands more.
Threats to our children abound, and we need to focus on the quiet killers as well as the spectacular.
2
Kristof appears to think that gun lovers are rational about the subject. They are not.
Excellent. Thanks. But why isn't this plastered across all major news outlets on a daily basis? Facts over opinions. Wait...I already know the answer. Money.
Using logic and facts will never convince the pro gun fanatics. If one cannot accept something as simple as universal background checks, there is no hope to change minds.
You missed an imoprtant point about firearms in Israel and Switzerland. Everyone in Switzerland is required to participate in the military where they receive extensive training. In Israel, most receive military training and owning a firearm comes with many restrictions including a psychological exam. If owning a gun in America required military experience and a psychological exam we’d be a much safer country.
1
I have a question. I am not a gun owner. Other than just having one in your home to "feel safer" in some way and assuming you are a responsible gun owner, what do you do with a semi-automatic weapon besides look at it, admire it as a piece of machinery and engineering and perhaps go target shooting? You don't hunt with them, do you? Why have one? I really don't get it. I can understand having one to hunt, I can even sort of understand the logic having one in your house in case of intruders (even though many studies over many years show that if you do, someone living in the house is more likely to get shot than if you don't). But I really can't understand what you do with a semi-automatic weapon. This isn't a rhetorical question. I really want to know what is it that is so important for you to do, that you would defend having one, despite them killing so many people so quickly and effectively.
People hunt all the time with semi-automatic rifles. Further, many, if not most, hunting rifles are higher calibre than an AR-15. For hunting rifles the alternative to a semi-automatic is a bolt action which are kinda fun to use BTW.
1
Unfortunately, logic doesn’t work against wildly irrational paranoia and greed. The students have the right idea, steamroller over the gun lobby with the same level of ruthlessness they have used against the broader public decade after decade. Relentless momentum is a far more potent tool than logic, when it comes to sensible gun regulation.
1
There is another important distinction between guns and cars, pools, etc. Cars have a benign primary purpose - transport; conversely pools have recreation as primary purpose. If somebody dies or gets injured involving a pool or car we call it an accident, but it does not render the primary purpose invalid or subject to a ban.
Guns however have no other primary benign purpose. To injure or kill another human being or animal is their primary and only purpose (apart from the "sport" of shooting practice). And if people get killed or injured by a gun it is seldom an accident (never in the case of mass shootings), rather it is exactly what the shooter intents to do.
Therefore, conflating military-grade weapons with no rational purpose in civil society (outside of a war context) with other utilitarian products that have the potential to play a role in (sometimes deadly) accidents is, in my mind, intellectually dishonest.
2
Thanks for the "ammo". As others have said, gun supporters try to frame this as people wanting to ban guns entirely and that those doing so are crazy freaks when the case to be made is far more logical and restrained than that.
It does not say the right of the militia.
It says the right of the people because the militia is drawn from the people. If you need a militia for the freedom of a state, the people must have an uninfringed right to bear arms, as composing and equipping the militia is part of it. People being armed with effective weapons of their choosing is the only way to preserve freedom and defend against criminals/tyrants.
Limiting functionality of a weapon with bad laws only serves the criminals/tyrants by disadvantaging people. Tyrants limit rights to cement power/increase dependence- it hurts freedom & security; police can’t be everywhere, and if they could, they may not risk themselves. You are responsible for your own defense. The murder rate is higher in gun-free London than NY. 1,500 acid attacks in London since 2011. Without effective arms you are at the mercy of criminals/tyrants. 2nd Amendment says the right (inalienable) of the people (you) to keep and bear arms (a common weapon) shall not be infringed (no limitation on barrel length, rate of fire, hearing protection, other ergonomic feature should be tolerated)!
Following orders for an unconstitutional law is an excuse for oppressing/punishing people. Those passing or enforcing unconstitutional laws should be removed from office, with force if necessary, as they are in effect committing treason against the Constitution, the law of the land- and they are the very reason the 2nd Amendment exists in the first place.
5
There is no constitutional right to bullets! Badda no bullets, badda no boom!
2
The continuing argument of the NRA is that the problem lies with the mentally ill who have access to guns. Perhaps we should ask whether the NRA members' obsession with having guns as toys is a form of mental illness.
3
What about the 9th amendment? It states that "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." As those rights are not listed, how is driving not a right? Or voting for that matter?
Comparing restrictions placed on drivers and voters such as age are common sense and completely relevant to the 2nd.
The Founders knew there were too many rights that people had and that writing them down would turn in to the iTunes agreement. Just because it's not there doesn't mean it's not a right, and just because it's a right doesn't mean it can't be regulated.
2
NOt sure how Nick rates his one sided conversation against a straw man as a win. There are strong arguments to attempt to do a better job controlling guns. Just don't think Nick hit a homer here. Maybe more like a sacrifice bunt. And the catcher tagged him out and threw out the runner.
4
You are correct, these are the same tired arguments that Repealers have been using since the '90's. Josh Sugarmann's Legacy.
3
The part of this that boggles the mind is that 90% of Americans support basic gun control, yet we can't get it done. Imagine if 90% of Americans favored abolishing slavery, but it still existed. Where does this gap between the will of the people, and their representatives implementing that will, come from?
Something is keeping Congress from acting. I keep reading that it's not the gun lobby and it's not the NRA. Apparently it's also not gun rights supporters, because I also read that they're part of the 90% who favor reasonable gun controls, as long as it doesn't involve an outright ban.
Well, then, how about the NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation), whose 8000+ members are ALL gun and ammunition manufacturers and dealers? The NSSF sponsors the annual SHOT show, one of the 25 largest expos in the country. It also produces extensive marketing materials and reports that focus on the economic impact of the gun/ammo industry (over 200,000 jobs, $33 billion into the economy) and a strong lobbying arm that went after CT legislators after they passed gun controls in the wake of Sandy Hook. NSSF headquarters is less than 5 minutes from Sandy Hook.
In 2017, NSSF spent over $3 million on lobbying activities. More than 95% of it's political contributions went to Republican candidates in 2016. 6 out 8 NSSF lobbyists are former gov't employees.
The gap mystery is no mystery at all. Below the radar industry lobbying explains it all.
3
There are already such basic gun control laws as background checks for sales by federally licensed firearms dealers.
Specifically what more stringent gun controls do you think that 90% of Americans support?
Imagine if 90% of Americans favored banning Muslims, or Methodists, or Mormons or abortion or left handed people. Imagine if 90% of Americans thought there should be a state issued license to practice journalism. Sub out “arms” for any other inalienable right as stipulated in the bill of rights.
We don’t guarantee rights based on majority rule. They exist to protect the one from the many.
2
Here are a few more "pro gun" arguments and responses:
"A good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun" If that's true, then why do police officers get shot?
"We'd be safer if MORE people - and teachers - had guns." When an unarmed person is shot 20 times by police, panic is clearly a factor, despite the officer's extensive training and practice with his or her weapon. Which demonstrates why the average teacher/civilian, for whom no training or practice is required, could do even more harm.
Finally, about suicide: Attempting suicide with a knife or carbon dioxide, for example, leaves opportunities allows the person to change her mind before completing the act, and sometimes the opportunity to be resuscitated. A self-inflicted gunshot to the head is final.
5
And guns don't expire. I remember my cousin asking me to clear the lugar his father brought home from europe after the second world war after his father's death. That weapon still exists and it is subject to transfer without any scrutinity on where and to whom it is sold.
2
Nick, all of these things are true. But the voices against it are foaming at the mouth nuts who have bought conservative Congressmen via outright campaign bribery.
The only answer is to extinguish the GOP flame at the ballot box and take out the NRA where it hurts them: reduce potential gun sales by any means possible. Change laws to make certain gun shop owners are culpable.
As an example, I see no reason to have 16 gun stores in Burbank, Cal. --- a huge city in the middle of an even bigger city. Local officials can campaign to change zoning rules precisely to reduce the number of places money can be exchanged for handguns --- it's done to pot shops too.
4
"... nine out of 10 Americans favor basic steps like universal background checks before gun purchases..."
Here's the thing about public opinion polls on what "the majority" of Americans think: We don't have the bill of rights to protect the rights of 9 out of 10. We have the bill of rights to protect a single, individual American from 319,999,999 other Americans.
Substitute "gun" for "religion" or "speech". The concept becomes much clearer.
5
The Supreme Court allows limitations on every other amendment in the Bill of Rights. There are limits on Free Speech-including defamation laws and incitement to violence. There are limits on religious practices and on governmental support of a single religion. The question is not whether it is constitutional to limit gun rights. Lawmaker can. The question is how best to do it. Another question is will lawmakers ever do anything.
5
Mr. Kristof, reasoning with the no compromise NRA member and gun owner is like reasoning with anyone else in the Trump base or the religious right. Pointless. But I get where you are coming from.
The Constitution may give us the right to own a gun. But where does it say we have the right to shoot? Shouldn't that be more explicit?
We need to ration bullets - with serial/tracking numbers - only to extremely well vetted buyers. We also need to tax bullets to cover the damage they cause society plus insurance for owning and using a functioning gun.
Guns don't kill. People with guns kill people. Therefore lets ban people, or at least people with guns. If the NRA continues with its no compromise absolutist dogma on gun ownership without regard to sensible safety measures for the common good, then the 2nd amendment should go. Gun ownership would then become a privilege that has to be earned.
Defensive hand guns and hunting rifles make sense off the shooting range. Just keep the weapons of war exclusively on the gun range. It is the only reasonable place to have and use an AR-15.
Until November 2016, we did not give the nuclear launch button to just anyone. Why should just anyone get a gun?
6
It amuses me to see people talk so blithely about eliminating the 2nd Amendment. It's like watching the mice argue that someone should bell the cat.
But please, don't try to repeal the 2nd Amendment. You need 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states. IOW, you don't have the muscle to do it. And trying to do so will see Democrats get wiped out even more than they have been.
Anyone (provided that they are not a felon or an involuntary mental patient) can get a gun because it's their constitutional right to do so. They don't have to justify that to you. You need to justify why you are trying to remove a right.
You can't reason with the unreasonable.
3
I am fedup with the mewling of gun owners and the NRA. Guns are lethal weapons. Owning them should be a privilege earned with careful background checks, rigorous training and careful monitoring. Ownership to protect your house is not a right. It is a choice. Just get on with it and change the Constitution.
2
Just 13 states can prevent a change of the Constitution. At the present time I can think of at least 20~23 states that would oppose altering or opposing the 2nd Amendment.
The coastal states don't have the votes to win this fight. And calling people names probably won't bring them around to your point of view.
1
So. Well. Framed!
THIS is how you win arguments.
Thank you, Mr. Kristof.
1
Dear American friends, it seems to me that your greatest enemy is yourselves. You are divided, anthropologically divided, I would even go so far as to say, which is worse. You are shouting, arguing over everything, ideology has replaced pragmatism and common sense to the point of making you blind to the enormous problems that are brooding under the ashes (40 million poor, 100 million at risk of poverty, health care that is a tragedy for many, availability of fresh and healthy food, education). I know there are a lot of people of good will, everywhere, who are working, but will that be enough? We Europeans, who have a lot of problems and have nothing to teach anyone, are paradoxically more united than you as a community even though we are politically divided. I wonder what causes the cancer that is afflicting you. Some might say that I think of my own facts as a European. The point is that your problems will sooner or later become ours. Best regards from Padua EU
16
Just to be clear, I would like to vote out the 2nd amendment and require all guns except for the police and hunting rifles to be banned. To own a hunting rifle should require safety training and background checks, as well as registration. A politician who takes NRA money is an automatic no vote. How much safer would our children and our police officers be? Imagine the effect if police officers didn't have to worry about armed individuals with every traffic stop. Yup, that means turn them in. Melt them down.
1
Police officers regularly harass, brutalize and murder clearly unarmed black men. Their actions have nothing to do with worrying that someone is armed. Look at their response to Cliven Bundy vs their response to Eric Garner.
1
Thank you for a well thought through, articulate, and well reached case for intelligent and rational gun safety measures. Should be required reading for everyone applying for the right to purchase a firearm or NRA membership.
1
Cars, swimming pools, paper clips, carving knives, vans, baseball bats, a frozen turkey, and many other everyday objects can be used to kill someone. These objects weren't designed with the intent that they'd be used to kill a person, though. The purpose of vehicles is to transport people, pets, goods, etc. from point A to point B. The purpose of a frozen turkey is to thaw it out, cook it and eat it, not bash someone over the head with it.
The purpose of guns is to kill animals and/or people. Guns that can shoot a lot of bullets in a short amount of time are for the sole purpose of killing people. They should be regulated.
But if guns don't kill people and people kill people, then we should regulate the people who have the guns. Either way, we need to regulate guns.
3
Guns are a fetish which starts in childhood when well meaning (?) parents give guns to young boys. For many the fetish grows over the years and the fascination of killing another living creature can become all consuming. Maybe we should start with the elimination of toy guns since it seems to lead to all kinds of "problems."
It is time for intelligent Americans to be realistic about gun violence. Their struggle against it is a lost cause, just like their indignation about American vulgarity, immorality and mindlessness. The only way for them to have a good life is to leave America and start life over in a country without these unsolvable problems.
1
I have no problem with confiscating all the millions of guns currently out there in the US, overturning the 2nd Amendment and instituting a ban on civilian ownership of guns. Let the police go house to house, conducting searches for guns and taking away any they find. At least I'll have some assurance that I won't be killed at the mall, or in church, or in a movie theater, and my grandkids might never have to hide in a closet while someone roams the halls of their school looking for targets, and I won't have to look at the guy in the car next to mine and wonder how many guns he's got in there. I don't care about the "culture" of guns. Destroy them all.
3
Your willingness to sacrifice the constitutional rights of your fellow citizens and kick off a civil war is duly noted.
The Franklin quote about security and freedom comes to mind.
This article is great and I appreciate the facts and logic, that some seem to evade or disguise. It would be really great to see some expanded facts and numbers laid out in a chart to better understand the degree to which guns kill in our population, state and nationally, and what legislations have been effective and ineffective in fighting gun violence.
You didn't bring up my favorite argument about guns that is trotted out when all the rational responses you've listed have been discussed. It is the Deep State theory:
1) the government is going to have a list of all the guns and gun owners.
2) the government will then use this information take all the guns.
3) after the confiscation occurs then the 2nd Amendment will essentially no longer exist.
This theory is very appealing to the same people that currently believe that a George Soros funded caravan is headed to the US and that the black helicopters from the UN are on their way.
You can't argue with crazy and crazy is where we are.
1
Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and I can do some googling and add more. The last century is littered with tens of millions of graves of people murdered by their own government. We enslaved millions, displaced the Indians and interred our own citizens. In this century you have Assad using chemical weapons on his own citizens and Isis conquering and killing indiscriminately. But sure, being afraid of government is silly.
That last sentence said it all: What’s wrong with trying to save lives? It's also at the core of the global warming debate. What's wrong with saving our planet?
The answer, of course, has to do with money.
2
Although it is necessary to continue making the case against such challenges, it is foolish to believe that the argument 'about' guns can be 'won.'
We've been dancing this dance for quite some time now, and the 'moves' are all the same.
Those who oppose gun control falsely attribute 'real' motives behind reasonable arguments ('you want to take away ALL our guns!) and 'engage' in the argument only to restate their views, not to seek a reasonable response to an all too obvious problem.
The argument will be left to the ballot box and to the next generation, the School Shooting generation (Generation SS?). Because this generation has failed them. Entirely.
1
Too bad the information presented isn't accurate--otherwise, "nice argument!"
1
There should be little argument about attacking the availability of high velocity ammunition and high capacity clips and magazines as these have not place for use by hunters (in which the high velocity bullets render carcasses unusable for food, and organ damages of victims so severe that death and severe disability is inevitable) and for home defense.
Further logical arguments will not solve the gun debate. It like trying to talk logic to an out of control child or your cat.
1
One simple measure to reduce gun violence that rarely gets mentioned: make gun owners (as well as gun users) criminally liable for damage caused by the firearm. Yes, you may have the Constitutional right to purchase a gun. But with that right comes responsibility: you must keep that firearm secure at all times. If someone steals your gun, which you have failed to secure in a safe, YOU are criminally liable. If a child removes a pistol from your purse and shoots himself YOU are criminally liable. If your troubled teen takes a your rifle from the closet and uses it to kill someone, YOU are criminally liable. The pro-gun advocates are vehement about the right to own firearms, but have precious little to say about personal accountability. If gun ownership came with a heavy weight of potential criminal liability many people would think twice about owning one.
You can't make people criminally liable for actions taken by other people.
Until anti-gun activists stop trying to take away people's guns, there will remain strong resistance to regulations and gun control.
Gun owners remain the most rational and responsible group when it comes to guns. Stop demonizing them and focus on the problem, which is not their ownership and use of guns, but the misuse and abuse of guns -- that is, guns in the hands of the emotionally disturbed and criminal elements.
5
I appreciate Kristof's effort but people have been making these very same arguments about gun control for over a decade and we still get called "gun grabbers" and see panic weapon buys after every mass shooting. It's almost as if this argument isn't really about guns at all but about identity. The NRA and Republican Party have spent the past 25 years telling everyone that owning a gun is your "God-given right" (yes, they actually say that) and "gun rights" are now so ingrained in the conservative DNA that they might as well give you a free Glock with your Republican voter registration card.
This isn't really about guns per se or the 2nd Amendment, Trump supporters or even the NRA. This is about a domestic armaments INDUSTRY which is greedy, dangerous, dishonest and evil. Until Americans come to see this industry, whose CEOs are laughing all the way to the bank, with the same eyes that we saw Big Tobacco, we won't turn the corner.
In my experience making a factual, well reasoned argument doesn’t even make a dent. This is one of those subjects where the defenders regard any objection to their orthodoxy as suspect. The only way to get sensible regulations in place is to force them in and be doubly ready to reinforce those regulations over the long haul. Some people will never agree, get over it.
2
The broad brush interpretation of the second amendment that we, the people, have an unfettered right to bear 'arms' is absurd. (e.g.. Is a nuclear weapon an 'arm'? Of course it is-'nuclear arms'. ) The words 'well regulated' do have some meaning and importance. It's obviously a qualification clause -not merely a 'for example' as the NRA claims (Sadly and absurdly, the high courts apparently agree with the NRA). Yet, in order to insure that the people have an unfettered right to organize a well regulated militia, each and every day, many of us 'people' wake up hoping our families don't fall victim to another reckless person's aggression enabled by a gun. If your a gun victim it really doesn't matter whether the harm was due to insanity, accidental or malicious intent. This real fear is creating a chronic fear among many of us similar to the feeling of being 'terrorized'. This chronic worry remains since we can't politically address the absurdity of an absolutist's interpretation of the second amendment, i.e. as an unfettered right. In pursuit of happiness, I say its time to fetter and relieve most of us of this chronic terror fear.
These are all good points. another common argument I hear is "the violence in video games, TV and movies". I would say to those people. They are playing or watching the same video games, TV and movies on their countries too.
Well, reasonably and constructively done. Meanwhile, let hope we'll also be hearing arguments from those who think that the "well regulated militia" of the second amendment is only relevant to any "right to bear arms" so far as such a militia is "necessary to the security of a free state," and that this necessity no longer existing (in this well policed, slave-free possessor of a formidable standing army) the amendment, properly understood, has no current relevance to arms bearing in these United States.
1
These arguments only win when discussing with gun control advocates. And you need meaningful, properly presented stats. Plus, the issues involving gun deaths are not one-size-fits-all. For example gun suicides, which comprise 22,000 of the 36,000 annual gun deaths won’t be affected by magazine limits or bannng semi-automatics, or by an AWB. Suicide usually only takes one bullet. Inner city gang shootings are better reduced by intervention as documented in the NYT the other day. An AWB won’t reduce the number of mass shootings but limiting magazine capacity to 10 or 15 where it is unlimited, and banning drum magazines will reduce deaths in those shootings. And safe gun storage should be mandatory to reduce children having access and theft.
All different issues require different approaches.
These are all statistically sound approaches as well.
The 8 states with the lowest gun death rates are all blue states. 9 of the 10 with the highest gun death rates are red (New Mexico, at 7th worst, is the exception.)
Truly sensible gun control, rather than popular "wave the bloody flag" measures, can and do work.
2
I find it greatly disturbing that there are massive donations to the NRA and a rush to buy more guns after a school shooting.
I do not understand this mindset.
How about donating that money to help the victims and their families deal with the long term ramifications of such a horrendous experience.
If you want me to believe gun owners are truly concerned about responsible gun ownership then act like it.
Throughout my life I’ve know responsible gun owners. What they all have in common is a respect for the damage weapons can inflict if misused. What they didn’t have was a personal armory.
1
The problem with Kristof's argument is that most people who favor the 2nd amendment's most gun-loving interpretation absolutely do not care about any facts. I have tried his truth-presenting tactics repeatedly, failed miserably and have given up. Perhaps Kristof's gun loving acquaintances are more open-minded than mine, but my experience tells me that gun lovers are addicted to guns irrespective of the truth.
3
My favorite argument compares us to Canada, a country not far away and very similar to ours. which does allow the same guns, more carefully and comprehensively regulated, but which has a fraction of gun related deaths.
4
Most semi-auto carbines (aka "assault rifles") are banned in Canada.
To have a handgun you need a restricted possession and acquisition license (RPAL), and if you go look you'll find the process to get one is not trivial, and is "may issue."
So no, laws in canada sure do NOT allow the same guns, nor allow them with as few restrictions.
1
The glaring omission from this column is the arguments in favor of self-defense. Gun advocates insist that gun possession is important for self-defense, but I have never, ever seen a single statistic about the actual utility of guns for self-defense. Is there some significant incidence of people protecting themselves with guns? I seriously doubt it, and I strongly suspect that the presence of a gun in a home is more likely to lead to accidental death and injury then to any successful at of self-defense. I wish, please, that some journalist would address this question.
"but I have never, ever seen a single statistic about the actual utility of guns for self-defense."
They are called "DGU's" and there are stats available, look them up.
1
The words "self defense" don't appear in the constitution. Neither do "target shooting" or "hunting".
The founders were pretty clear when they made the right to keep and bear arms the second amendment - right after freedom of religion, speech and press.
1
Fortunately for these women, they had a gun in their place of business and used it successfully in self-defense. Good thing they did, huh?
http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/graphic-video-liquor-store-owne...
1
Mr. Kristof, like cars, guns are tools. Improvements to car safety are to remove unintended consequences to the use of the tool. Gun manufacturers have been making those improvements to guns ever since they were invented, and no one objects to having safer guns, or to laws requiring, say, that a gun not explode in your face.
What no Federal law does is tell you whether you can have a car or not. That takes care of your first two off-target arguments.
On suicides and violent culture, sure, people with fewer tools are less effective in all ways, good and bad. But if someone chooses to misuse a tool, like drive a car off a cliff or hit someone with it, we don't turn around and take away the tool from people who have *not* done so. Yes, removing or restricting the possession of cars would dramatically reduce deaths. But as a nation of car users, we have decided the benefits of cars outweigh their risks. That same decision was made--much more forcefully--about guns in the US Constitution.
Finally, no law proposed would have stopped the YouTube shooting, short of rounding up 300 million guns and stopping all gun sales to US citizens. To pretend that isn't the only logical conclusion when blaming guns for the YouTube and other attacks is to be completely dishonest.
So, if you are going to engage people 'on their own terms', then don't do what liberals so often do, which is set up false opposing arguments to shoot down with ease. There's more; I'm out of space.
7
There is no 'winning' an argument about guns with ardent gun rights advocates, because logic doesn't figure in their thinking. Their sense of cause and effect is skewed to the extent that their answer for reducing gun violence in schools or in society is to arm everyone and let the notion of deterrence rule. To me that sounds like, if you're living among open vats of gasoline and someone threatens to light them on fire, fight back by handing out more matches. The common threat to all only increases...but the match makers get rich.
5
The reason it may appear that gun rights supporters are not "compromising" is that it's very apparent that the anti-gun left is acting in bad faith. When your real goal is a full ban, don't expect anyone to give you an inch. And no, supporting a ban on semi-automatics is not a "reasonable" step that one can take while still being a supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Semi-automatics consistent nearly every gun made for two generations, and even a greater percentage of those intended for defense. It's tantamount to saying, "I support the right to drive motor vehicles, but not sedans, SUVs, minivans, pickup trucks, or motorcycles." What's left after that?
9
John -- don't try to put pre-chewed baloney in other people's mouths -- it's disgusting and it just makes everyone else more determined to get even.
And when you are trying to present yourself as responsible this kind of "argument" coupled to constant flat-out lies means you are accomplishing absolutely nothing except playing to the most extreme on your side while strengthening those against you.
Semi-automatics absolutely do not "consistent {consist of?} nearly every gun made for two generations" ... and you know it. Furthermore that would not matter even if so.
What is left -- gee ... bolt action, lever action, break action, pump, revolvers ... good old muzzle loaders, sliding block, etc. It's ridiculous for you to advance gunsplaining "arguments" that demonstrate either you are lying or know nothing about guns.
Semi-auto carbines with detachable magazines are on the road to being banned, to reduce the senseless mass murders.
I am sure you are aware that Virginia Tech was done with a pair of 9 mm semi-auto handguns.
I think it is an open question as to whether the copy-cat mass murderers will be as numerous if they cannot easily get "assault rifles;" will they shift to copying Cho and the massacres continue apace? ( Las Vegas could not have been done with handguns; banning "assault rifles" will at least make that a lot harder.)
You need to stop the mass murders to keep your toys.
Lee, let me quote Mother Jones from a 12/02/12 article. "The vast majority of modern guns sold and collected in the US are semi-automatic, which means they fire a single shot with every pull of the trigger, but automatically reload between shots."
What any discussion on violence needs is a discussion of how we went from little violence in schools when guns were widely available with no gun control laws to where we are today. The discussion needs to include the tools used by those doing violence but it needs to center on why society has changed - why people are turning to use any tools to commit mass violence. It's a hard question and is being ignored by the media - a disservice to the community of U.S. citizens.
2
For one thing,everyone who feels aggrieved has been designated a victim, giving cause to their "suffering." Bullying isn't a good idea but being on the receiving end doesn't entitle you to anything. It's part of life that you will face in school, at work, in public places, etc.
The media is a big part of the problem, in my view. The next mass shooter is likely watching the coverage of the latest shooter and planning his next move. Do they seek glory and infamy? If so, the media delivers it in spades.
There were a lot of murders per capita back then too, you choose to ignore those. Go visit the boot hills in Tombstone or Dodge city -- count the graves, read the stories.
Ask yourself why Tombstone had a no-carry ordinance! The battle at the OK corral happened because Earp took Clancy's gun away, and he came back with his family to get even.
People are not "turning to any tool" to commit mass violence -- get real. They are turning to semi-automatic guns with detachable magazines; these can maintain a sustained high rate of fire.
And while it is technically true that semi-auto guns have been around for a long time, they have only been widespread recently.
The incitements come from mass media, the internet, fads, copycatting.
You aren't going to rewind history. You aren't going to eliminate social media. And I doubt that society can do much to reduce or identify those so disturbed that they will commit mass murder. How do you propose to identify the next Steven Paddock?
1
California has the strictest gun laws in the nation. It is much stricter than nations like Switzerland. It did nothing. The laws in California and NY get stricter each year without end. It's a slippery slope.
4
One reason is that criminals don't obey gun laws. Gun violence in inner cities is a major problem; yet we rarely hear recriminations toward violent criminals who use guns. Instead it's directed at law abiding gun owners.
4
Douglas -- go read here (article in the Detroit Free Press) "states with the most and least gun violence":
https://tinyurl.com/yac3fbnp
starting from the least, in increasing order. 2016 data:
MA, RI, NY, HI, CT, NJ, MN, CA ...
CA is number 43 ranked by gun deaths. That's pretty good. And all of these states have very strict gun laws except MN: it's laws aren't "anything goes."
Pretty interesting that New York is #48, slightly better than Hawaii now! Think about that.
Now go to the worst, 9 down to 1:
AK, NM, MO, MT, OK, LA, AL, AK
What do you see in this?
If polls show about that 90% of Americans favor "universal" background checks, then polls have serious problems. Washington State, a decidedly blue state that hasn't had a Republican governor in 33 years or voted for a Republican for President since 1988, had an election on a "universal background check" law only four years ago. It passed, but less than 60% of the voters approved it.
So, no, if more than 40% of the voters in dark blue Washington State won't go for universal background checks, any poll that says 90% of Americans approve the idea is flat-out wrong.
4
@anjo2...this is a common misunderstanding of statistics. You’re comparing voting results in one state vs. polling results across the entire country. That’s like comparing apples to oranges.
Just talking about polls alone for a moment, while 90% of the country may support gun control, the level of that support will vary from state to state, county to county, city to city, and local community to local community. It will not be 90% all the way down.
6
anjo2 -- one presumes the poll question "do you favor universal background checks" implies a federal law ... universal application across the country sure seems part and parcel of "universal"to me!
One of the major arguments advanced against the Washington State initiative is that it would be of little effect, given that so many guns (particularly those used by criminals) are bought out of state.
There is no contradiction here.
2
One can't win an argument about guns because the people who are opposed to any further regulation are not rational. For them, it's not about statistics and facts, it's about tampering with their culture. For all their cries about the 2nd Amendment, most of them have never read the Constitution. When Newsweek gave the citizenship test to 1000 Americans in 2011, 44% couldn't identify the Bill of Rights.
6
A conspicuous minority of comments posted in response to Mr. Kristoff's column address the tone & content of many of the responses. It is beyond dismaying to observe the frequency with which advocates of the gun control/2nd Amendment repeal position rely on insulting terminology and flagrant, unsupportable generalizations in reference to almost everyone voicing disagreement with their position.
Obviously, any legitimate attempt to engage in reasoned debate will avoid disparaging the character or intellect of the individuals the debate intends to influence. While many of these comments include some attempt to present relevant facts or concepts, the almost inevitable inclusion of characterizations like "gun nuts", "gun lovers", "crazies", etc. destroy any pretense of rational discussion. It becomes clear the writer's priority is at best, 1) to establish his or herself as a member of the civilian pacifist/disarmament tribe, 2) to claim the intellectual or moral superiority that tribe assumes for itself, or 3) a simple sad act of self-validation.
As others have noted, the amazingly common and comically weak rhetorical device of inserting the word "commonsense" as the first adjective characterizing an opinion, is used so often by advocates for gun control that it might be taken as an essential, substantive aspect of their argument. It has no legitimacy in this discussion or any other! It is intended to preempt the claim of validity or substance for any disagreement of any kind!
13
The greatest obstacle to gun control are those pushing the hardest for it. First, they have little real knowledge of guns (and keep demonstrating their ignorance with wildly false statements about them). Second, they demonize everyone who doesn't agree. No surprise, no one takes them seriously. Third, they don't have the law on their side. Finally, they consistently get it wrong about the NRA. Imagine blaming the NRA after the FBI, sheriffs and social workers failed to stop that Florida school shooter? Misplaced blame on the NRA is a sure way to absolve those who are actually responsible.
3
I for one think there is "moral superiority"in being a "pacifist" and that not realizing this is the essence of our problem.
It is good to see these very cogent arguments for gin regulation. But I would argue that the Second Amendment has, effectively been repealed or is not relevant.
First of all, the Second Amendment only applies to weapons of war. That was its intended purpose. So there no Constitutional limits on regulation of handguns. Indeed, if the NRA contends that handguns are protected, what about knives? Or rocks. To paraphrase Mr. Chief Justice Marshal;, it is a proposition too plain to be contested that these are not the weapons of war that the Second Amendment protects.
So just what is protected? Only such weapons of war as AR-15s, howitzers and atomic bombs! Are there any readers who think that possession of howitzers and atomic bombs should be permitted?
So the question is, just what are the reasonable boundaries of the Second Amendment? Or has it been repealed? I would argue that if it was not repealed by the Whisky Rebellion, then the Civil War certainly effectively repealed an amendment that was intended to authorize rebellion against the United States federal government. No rational person today would make such an argument.
For further discussion of the Second Amendment, see http://www.solutionsny.nyc/guns.html.
2
And what will happen when universal background checks, assault weapons bans, or other laws that will prove ineffectual don’t stop these mass shootings? Unfortunately for the anti-gun crowd, logic, common sense, and the law are not on their side.
3
Well it’s worked for the rest of the industrialized world.
1
You don't get it, do you?
The majority of Americans have had it with the massacres, particularly the school shootings.
The laws will get stricter until these shootings stop. That may happen slowly, but will happen.
Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since the new laws (very restrictive) went into effect.
If you hope to keep gun laws less stringent that Australia's, you better hope that they do stop before it gets to that.
2
something new? Not even close. Unfortunately gun advocates do not care about facts. They are routinely dismissed as "fake news." Nice try though.
We could dramatically reduce gun deaths by making suicide by lethal pill legal. That would also take away silly headlines about 'gun deaths' that mingle terror attacks, mass murder, gang violence, domestic violence, violent crime and suicide into one grab bag number.
3
After reading Mr. Kristoff and the comments that followed, I am not surprised by the certainty conveyed by many readers, despite revealing a lack of real knowledge of the laws and history that pertain to the issue. I wish I had the opportunity to really share my perspective. I am a former US Army officer, a college grad with an M.S. in Ed. I am a supporter of liberal causes, a life-long reader of the NY Times (45 years).
"Gun violence" is not an abstract concept to me. I have fought hand to hand resisting a bungled armed robbery (a home invasion targeting my christmas party!) 3 rounds fired, 1 bullet hit one of his guys. I'll spare you the blow by blow, trust me there were no good options.
Years later, I turned to the hobby I acquired after that experience to earn a living. For 8 years I sold firearms and managed a busy urban gun store in So. Florida. I have witnessed more range suicides than I care to recall. I have directly aided law enforcement in apprehending criminals in illegal possession of firearms.
On one occasion, I sold a pistol to a young man who, after waiting the required 5 days, used it to end his life 8 hours later. On another occasion, I discussed fear with a single mom struggling with an abusive relationship. She had used the legal remedies available & decided to arm herself. Months later she returned with serious injuries from a machete, to thank me for selling her the pistol that saved her life and her 12 year old daughter's as well
Words fail me!
7
No one I know is trying to take guns away. We do want all gun sales registered and gun owners trained and licensed.
We also don't see any reason for civilians having AR-15s.
Speaking of Florida, the great win by the Parkland students was Rick Scott signing a law that you now had to be old enough to buy a beer before you can buy an AR-15. Wow, how radical.
In addition in Florida there was a recent incident where a "good guy with a gun" motorist shot another motorist unarmed and claimed Stand Your Ground.
And remember Florida's Glocks vs Docs? Finally repealed after some years. Those poor sensitive NRA members didn't want to have to tell a doctor they didn't want to answer any questions about guns when a doctor was trying to protect children or prevent some of those suicides you've seen, including some by our Iraqi vets.
So the way I read the article, there is nothing against what you are saying? Just add some common sense laws and accountability for people who want to own guns.
To all of that, I would add lets profile all new guns manufactured so a bullet in a crime scene could be matched to a database.
Assault Rifles, in all their forms, are Machine Guns and therefore illegal. The National Firearms Act of 1934. Use existing lawthe law on the books.
If redefining accepted terminology became a general practice, rational discussion would cease. Take the time and trouble to learn the accepted meaning of the words central to any particular issue and build your reasoning on those terms. If you can't do that, note what that suggests about your opinion.
5
Gun control advocates were very proud of getting a gun law through the Florida legislature.
Now one has to be old enough to buy a beer before they can buy an AR-15.
Wow, revolutionary.
1
I know from my own experience that the presence of a gun makes an angry situation so much more likely to turn into a deadly one. Upset, frustrated, pained people without guns are forced to deal with their problems in a less destructive way-----Anyone who looks at the planned mass slaughter cases and decides that gun control is pointless, is ignoring the thousands of times one to five people are killed by an upset person with a gun. I include policemen in this category---- "I felt threatened" possibly for 2 seconds!---then bang, and an unarmed citizen is blown away.
1
This past week it was announced that London had more murders than New York city. They don't even let the police carry guns. Murderer's are adaptable. They used knives. Fertilizer, pressure cookers, pipe bombs, airplanes to kill. An elderly Korean lady was sitting next to me on a trip to Asia, commented that all it would take would be a toothpick in the eye of a stewardess and you would own the plane. In addition to toothpicks there are a lot of guns in the U.S. If you take Wisconsin, michigan Pennsylvania and West Virginia, hunting license were given to over 2,250,000 people. That leaves another 46 states to count. So we have to look at those who kill. You can't walk away to those with mental illness. But so far nothing has been done. In Virginia a person who was under court order to have psychiatric evaluation but didn't was allowed to buy a gun. After Virginia Tech, the state has taken steps to correct that. One of the great tragedies of these mass murders is that the authorities do not take action when warned. The FBI was warned by the Russians that one of the soon to be boston bombers was dangerous. Nothing was done. They were also warned about the Parkland killer. No action was taken. In Colorado a psychiatrist warned about Homes. Nothing was done. We can't let authorities off the hook by just saying they messed up or didn't follow through. We should demand a response to warnings as well a way to deal with mental illness.
1
Ron -- NYC has very strict gun laws. It actually also has a very strict law about knives, brass knuckles and so on.
The fact that strict laws make both New York City and London much safer than places without such law is what is being demonstrated here.
2
Use of very selective data:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43628494
2017 New York about 300 homicides.
2017 London about 100 homicides.
You should look at who is telling you these things and begin to see they are manipulating you.
1) All of these measures and regulations are already in place in California, where the latest shooting was.
2) You have forgotten the meaning of the word "inalienable"
4
Gun Ownership in both Switzerland and Israel is high but gun regulations in both countries are also much more strict than the US. 40% of gun permit applications in Israel are actually denied. Unlike the US, both Switzerland and Israel have compulsory military service, so gun owners have been trained in the safe and responsible use of firearms.
5
Ahhh, nearly all deaths by car or swimming pools are accidents, not intentional murder.
1
How do you teach people humility, decency, compassion and finally common sense? How do you awaken good judgment in the NRA leadership and membership?
If the killing of school students doesn't bring the masses to their senses, what approach do you use?
Columns are being written and the carnage continues.
How do Americans get the attention of Republicans who simply don't appear to care?
The pundits can write until they are blue in their collective faces and the carnage will go on.
America has it in their grasp to vote common sense back into power. That is the only answer.
1
Noted in the citation from Annals of Medicine: Gun shows use two forms of picture ID – military ID , driver’s license concealed carry license etc. by state of residence with a picture. The seller then uses National Instant Criminal Background Check System online service ALWAYS present at shows. If ANY discrepancy, the sale ends immediately. Vetted customer must then fill out with passing review status ATF Form 4473, kept on file for not less than 20 years by the seller. Personnel at any gun show must have a Federal Firearms License (FFL) to sell, granted only after in-depth ATF investigation. Online stores send ALL guns purchased online to a “Brick and Mortar” store which must have that FFL. This store will have already been vetted by ATF for gun sales. Online stores NEVER send any weapon to a buyer, always to an FFL. Failure to follow these steps would result in them being out of business and being prosecuted INSTANTLY. All “Brick and Mortar” stores run the same NICS check with the same two required forms of picture ID and have any potential buyer again fill out ATF form 4473 with passing answers before receiving any gun. There is the buying process in a nutshell. I do not have any idea how someone would get around these requirements based on your criteria within the “22% of gun owners who reported obtaining their most recent firearm within the previous 2 years reported doing so without a background check”.
2
That annals of medicine article is here:
http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2595892/firearm-acquisition-without-ba...
"22% (95% CI, 16% to 27%) of gun owners who reported obtaining their most recent firearm within the previous 2 years reported doing so without a background check. For firearms purchased privately within the previous 2 years (that is, other than from a store or pawnshop, including sales between individuals in person, online, or at gun shows), 50% (CI, 35% to 65%) were obtained without a background check. This percentage was 26% (CI, 5% to 47%) for owners residing in states regulating private firearm sales and 57% (CI, 40% to 75%) for those living in states without regulations on private firearm sales."
You claim "Personnel at any gun show must have a Federal Firearms License (FFL) to sell" ... NOT TRUE.
No federal law prohibits unlicensed sellers at gun shows.
Only six states (California, Colorado, Illinois, New York, Oregon and Rhode Island) require universal background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows, including sales by unlicensed dealers. Three more states (Connecticut, Maryland and Pennsylvania) require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows.
You don't mention the gun sales that take place in the parking lots of gun shows nor any other private sales. More than likely these guns are being sold to someone who couldn't otherwise obtain a weapon legally. That's a giant loophole that needs closing. I will also argue that any gun owners that sell their legally bought weapons this way are irresponsible. Guns get into the hands of criminals in many ways, this is one way that is preventable.
"No one argues that there is an individual right to own an antiaircraft gun." Wrong, I have a Constitutional right to protect my airspace.
1
Stop calling it gun control and call it common-sense gun safety. Language matters. The Repubs have known this for ages, but the Dems still think they're talking to people's brains, not to their emotions.
To argue about whether guns should be regulated or not shows me how unimaginative people actually are.
To argue about guns is about as reasonable as arguing about whether you might get wet if you're standing in the rain- or not.
About the cars vs. guns chestnut: They're two different categories. One is designed for safe transportation. The other is designed to kill. They can't logically be compared.
1
Trotting out "logic" when Repealers don't even know the difference between auto and semi-auto is something special.
Yes, there's a pun in there too, for the astute.
1
No, an "assault weapons ban" is NOT reasonable, because there's no such thing. All you're doing is banning an ever shifting category of semi-automatics, which are clearly protected by the 2nd Amendment. If a rifle can be banned because it has a bayonet lug, then it can be banned even if it doesn't have a bayonet lug.
1
Is "semi-automatic rifle" not a specific enough definition? Why do you say that they are clearly protected by the second amendment?
Plenty of bolt-action and lever-action rifles are in circulation and manufactured, is there a distinct civilian need for semi-automatic rifles?
Also, more discussion on the Swiss and Israeli point - they have gun control laws. We could learn from them.
The Swiss Weapons Act requires an acquisition license for handguns and a carrying license for the carrying of any permitted firearm for defensive purposes. Exceptions exist for hunters. Automatic weapons are banned.
Israel maintains restrictive policies with regard to issuing and renewing firearms licenses, and restricts their use. Issuing a firearms license for private use to other persons requires proof of the existence of a cause that justifies the license. In addition to specific training and mental health requirements, applicants must prove that possession of a firearm is needed based on the location of their residence or employment, the type of occupation they are engaged in, or service in elite Israel Defense Force (IDF) reserve units.
1
The title of the article should be
"How to Win Your Own Argument About Guns."
The strategy is to present arguments that you can then refute, and then feel morally superior to people who don't come to your same conclusion.
As a life-long liberal and Democratic voter (45 years) I can clearly see the arrogance that liberals feel toward people who see guns as part of their culture.
Liberals refuse to acknowledge that abortion does something different morally than removing a hangnail, but get all upset about deaths created by guns. Well, to many people abortion results in the death of a child, and they get as upset about this as liberals do about gun deaths. I see no real difference.
I support women's right to choose, and I support peoples' rights to have guns. Both should be rights with VERY few restrictions.
I also acknowledge that there are many people who say they want to only make abortions "safer," but whose actual motivation is to ban them completely. The same is true for guns. Gallup has shown that some 25-30% of Americans want to ban handguns completely (not assault rifles, but handguns) and many people advocate repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
So, for people whose culture involves use of guns, they know that "reasonable gun controls" is only a start for many millions of Americans toward banning guns altogether.
Many people who think they are liberals actually are conservatives who are only arguing for their own tribal beliefs.
Kristof is the worst offender.
3
None of these arguments posed by anybody on either side really matter when you are locked on a stalled subway car with a violent person and no cell phone service (although pepper spray might be the right tool for that situation) or unexpectedly cornered at night in a parking lot by a psychopath in a desolate rural area (a gun would be appropriate for the rural situation).
Mr. Kristof deserves our respect for his contribution and for offering us a forum with his article, though.
I think he should also get credit for putting his name with his views- not easy to do with regard to these issues. People on both sides have strong feelings about this, and it takes guts to put your name on anything these days.
That being said, I am also a lifelong liberal Democrat, but I cannot support the liberal view on guns. I am more horrified by it every time I have a scary encounter with a creep in the street or on the train.
As a woman I have been targeted relentlessly so many times- stalked, catcalled, attacked on the street, etc.
I'm lucky to live in NYC, where help is always pretty nearby, phones usually work, and something like pepper spray can be enough to buy you time to outrun an attacker, but a lot of women do not live here.
They have to drive home at night on desolate roads- man, if somebody gets you out there and runs you off the road... there is no one to help. It's a lot scarier than NYC.
Also, thank you for supporting abortion rights. They are really important to me, too.
2
"Abortion is legal. Period. End of story." Yes, they take the same approach to abortions that they abhor by gun owners.
Every measure to prohibit abortion is unacceptable. "Slippery slope". Yes, they do.
1
I have had three encounters that were frightening, all when with my family, and all when we were just minding our own business and should have been in safe places (like our home).
I fear for Democrats who believe they are riding a swell of anti-gun feeling, when there are many people like you and us---liberal Democrats who recognize that 25-30% of people who want to take away our guns completely. And that we are not on board with the Democrats' restrictions on guns.
And there is a hypocrisy about it. Many children are killed each year because of illegal use of.....cellphones while driving. Yet nobody seems to be writing columns about the need to ban cellphones completely (which is the only solution that would work). Yes, we have laws, but they are flaunted tens of thousands of times each day.
It is a cultural thing. People are after a cultural "win." Democrats want to stick it to those Trump voters and wrap it in language about protecting children.......and read articles about it on their cell phones while driving.
In the post-reason age, you can make the strongest argument possible and still not "win" the argument on guns.
1
Good points, especially about the ridiculous swimming pool analogy. (I wonder if all the conservatives who cribbed that from Freakonomics also promote the authors' conclusions about abortion and crime.) Another thing about swimming pools: they're hard to get, unlike guns. Pools are expensive, are regulated architecturally, are regulated by the health department, take weeks or months to install, and are expensive.
Kristof starts this column but reacting to the absurd analogy the gun-happy fools draw between guns and cars. It is an utterly absurd analogy. The only thing that guns can actually do is injure or kill animals and humans. That's it. Cars on the other hand are overwhelmingly useful. Overwhelmingly. We do not tolerate cars, we embrace them as literally the engine of our civilization. When I can drive an AR-15 to work or ship goods across country in a semi-automatic pistol, I will entertain the mention of automobiles in the same breath as guns. We don't practice automobile safety because cars are dangerous. We do so because if we don't, our society would grind to a halt in days. Outside of the police and the military, without guns, a bunch of yahoos wouldn't get to have fun at the shooting gallery, and pretend that they are heroic defenders of the Constitution. Big deal.
2
The argument comparing guns to cars isn't apples to apples. Car usage is many many times more frequent than gun usage - basically everyone uses cars every day which is not the case for guns. Correct for that and guns are orders of magnitude more dangerous than cars.
Also, let's grant that everyone has the right to own an AR-15. If that's the case, then to be consistent, you'd have to grant everyone the right to own anything equally dangerous, especially if their misuse primarily affects only the user. Things like prostitution, any kind of drug including heroin, LSD, anything. Why is it ok to make those things illegal, but not an AR-15? If you're going to make an argument that only gun owners are entitled to their toys, at least don't be a hypocrite about it.
2
Cars' safety features get modified annually. Comparing cars with guns is comparing apples and oranges as cars are not manufactured as weapons, but guns are.
We need gun control reform and we need to ban military assault weapons as they are used to murder Americans in large numbers.
The majority of Americans want this and the GOP are trying to keep their heads down in the NRA trenches again, where their money flows from, and ignore us and the lives of Americans.
Everyone deserves the right to live and our youth, or our future, more so as they should have a lifetime in front of them and not be looking down the barrel of an AR-14 or comparable killing machine.
1
I am completely onboard with your arguments and will use them when speaking with those folks who don't believe in any kind of control - But, I must add a bit more info to the kids and swimming pools fact. From stats taken from the book Freakonomics, more children under the age of 12 drown in backyard, family swimming pools that are killed by guns. This is due to the fact that many people don't view their backyard pool as a death trap. Whereas, that same family, who might have a gun or guns, probably has them locked up, safe and away from a child's curious hands. I used to use this fact on one of my child's friend's mother who wouldn't even let her children have water guns but had an in-ground pool that was open for anyone to wander into to at any time, day or night. Her inability to refocus on the real danger at her house was maddening.
1
I have a friend who is a "second amendment" person.
He keeps wanting to make the debate about taking away his guns.
Because that means he doesn't have to answer the more serious type of questions and arguments posed here.
He doesn't have an answer for why we shouldn't have some common sense gun laws.
In addition, for eight years the NRA said Obama was coming to take his guns away. He never looks back and admits the NRA was lying to him.
To these proposals here, I would add make all new guns manufactured to be profiled so a bullet from a crime could be matched to a database.
The "guns don't kill people; people kill people" argument can be countered by saying, "That's right, and they use guns to do it which is why we need to keep guns away from violent people. And doing that requires getting rid of the loopholes that allow a madman to purchase a gun without a background check, e.g., when it's from a non-licensed seller."
I, for one, want to ban guns owned by individuals and kept in people's homes. Store them in a central, secure location for use in target practice (or, better, just get rid of them completely). We are balancing people's entertainment/fun against the violent killing of innocent people. I choose saving the innocent people. I can guarantee you the number of people who would "need" a gun and not have one in an emergency would be vastly smaller than the number of innocent people shot in our current circumstances.
1
There's no "argument" around gun control that needs to be won. Sane, rational gun control policies will come about when enough voters finally decide it's their priority issue. Or, when we have uncorrupted politicians willing to risk their political careers to do the right thing. We already know that the vast majority of voters want gun control. Yet their preferences are ignored by politicians, who are primarily concerned about re-election.
Gun control advocates continue to vote for gun lobby sycophants - because their vote is driven by personal pocketbook priorities. For average voters, gun control policies are comparatively much less personally salient. On the other side, opposition to gun control absolutely galvanizes rabid gun nuts, who will indeed turn out as single issue voters to swing an election, even when they disagree with other policy positions held by the candidate.
And that's how we've ended up with a tiny minority of highly-motivated crazies determining the country's gun control policies - or lack thereof.
Most people in this country die from smoking, obesity, and alcohol. In 2015, every nine hours more people died from smoking than were killed in mass shootings in the entire year.
The odds of being killed by an AR-15 are statistically near zero.
2
Tell that to the 58 murdered and 500 shot in Las Vegas. Tell that to the parents of the children at Newtown. Tell it to those killed in all the other mass murders with them, including Parkland.
And then if you think this is so negligible, why don't the NRA and all the gun enthusiasts offer to PAY for all the damages and loss?
Bro, it's way easier to kill someone (or yourself) with a gun than it is with alcohol or fatness or smoking. Come one.
And yet all rifles kill less than knives, fists and blunt objects every year. Design does not trump usage. Something being designed to kill does not mean more deaths will result from its usage than something designed not to kill. It's easier to kill someone with a knife than a cigarette. Yet tobacco kills hundreds of thousands.
These arguments have been around for decades. I thought of them myself last century. The basic flaw in the reasoning is that it assumes gun control opponents think rationally, whereas the objections to gun control are rationalizations. Opponents use the propaganda the gun-industry-backing NRA has provided, much like climate-destruction-denier think tanks back the petroleum industry and tobacco-backing think tanks historically justified cigarettes. Show facts against the arguments and you're spewing false facts. Argument over.
1
As the columnist Donald Kaul used to say, you don't hear about many drive-by knifings.
Making assault rifles so accessible definitely endangers us. The NRA can spout all the pro-gun propaganda it wants, but we all know it's an association to benefit gun manufacturers, not the public.
It's appalling that politicians in Washington are not embarrassed to receive money and support from such a group.
1
The article is flawed from the outset, by presenting this as a matter of reasoned debate between gun control advocates and opponents. This debate the gun control advocates have long won, with a triple slam dunk.
This is about the influence of ruthless and well-funded special interests on politics, specifically: about the NRA having bought the Republicans in Congress.
You don’t ban a person for life from driving a car if he has an OUI while walking across the street and getting hit by a car, yet the comparison between auto drivers and gun owners breaks down here precisely because you take away someone’s gun rights (not privileges like driving an auto) for life even if he or she has one minor felony conviction for domestic violence of any kind even when no gun was involved.
So your argument using automobile driving laws compared to gun restriction laws is baselessly biased and untenable. A right by law is quite different form a privileged power granted and limited by government.
Gun ownership cannot be qualified or restricted when it applies to the use of a gun for legitimate self-defense of one’s life. And by inference, as Associate Justice Clarence Thomas reasoned, the law on domestic violence is excessive. It’s a strategy to nullify our 2nd Amendment right by degrees even when there is no violation of the right’s abuse in a domestic relational spat.
Close but no cigar, Nick!
1
A drunken pedestrian hit by vehicles over the years as victim while illegally intoxicated and illegally walking in a street does not automatically lose his driving license for life if he was never in a vehicle at the time.
But Kristof and other anti-gun rights zealots would deny the lifetime right of gun ownership in domestic violence penalties when no gun was involved in the case. And they would ban a person’s gun rights no matter how many years in the past was the domestic incident even if it never involved any weapon nor was the fight ever repeated. Kristof and others like him, that is, would strip a person of his or her gun rights for life simply on the basis of a partner of the defendant claiming that in the heat of a quarrel the accused made a threat to harm his or her partner by means physical, legal, or financial, during a nasty pre-divorce argument, when neither a gun nor any other weapon was even present or mentioned.
As Justice Thomas noted, no other Constitutional right is treated that extreme way in the government’s limits on it. So the Court ought to restrict the Domestic Violence gun penalty application to domestic restraining incidents when the felony does not involve gun weapons, Presently, the law is an example of the incident in the film “The Get Out” when a white cop first demands to see the driver’s license and registration of an auto passenger in a vehicle accident, the black boyfriend of the driver, his white girlfriend, without asking for hers.
1
I have a lot of respect for Nichols Kristoff, but I think he's missed it on this one. We need less talk and more imagery. How about a classroom with empty chairs (the number of students who have been killed this year). How about parents standing at a grave? How about videos of people running out of buildings with their hands over their heads? The difference between cars and guns and one statistic or the other won't accomplish a thing. This is a value issue, not a statistical one. And if you want to talk dollars, how about focusing on how much it costs to "harden" schools and other public places so a few people can carry weapons of war. How about a picture of ratty textbooks next to the barriers schools are having to build? Whose freedom is being infringed here?
1
No, you don't win arguments about guns with these facts. If you could win with facts it would have happened by now. You win arguments about guns by treating your opponents as educated and caring people with valid opinions. You win by actually listening to them, asking questions and acknowledging their valid points. You win by recognizing that loss aversion is a human instinct we all struggle with that needs recognition instead of contempt. You win by approaching the discussion with politeness, interest and compassion which is surprisingly effective in changing minds on emotional topics.
3
I think everybody should read the second amendment. They should also read the history of the American Revolution to understand the reason for the amendment. Back then most people had private guns so there was no need to deal with that. The amendment guarantees the right to participate in a well regulated militia in order to protect their freedom.
3
Back then frontiers were fluid and citizens depended on state regulated militia formations for safety. The Second Amendment insured ONLY... that the national government would not disarm state militia in pursuance of national policy goals. That and not one thing more.
1
What I don't see here is a discussion about the aftermath for those who survive a gunshot. Besides the disability and pain the lifetime cost of care (for taxpayers and insurers) can be extraordinary.
5
Is there a societal or individual need for the unlimited access to high capacity assault rifles?
Until 1944 there was basically no difference between infantry rifles and civilian rifles. Between the Mayflower (1620) and the Spanish American war (1898) armed conflict included civilians fighting alongside regular troops: French and Indian War, Settler expansion, the elimination of the Plains Indians, Texas Independence, Mexican – American war, etc. The “Rough Riders” were civilian volunteers. After 1900 the acceptable civilian use of firearms became hunting, sports shooting and self-defense.
I would argue that the only reasonable civilian use for assault rifles are crime, police work to confront similarly armed criminals and self-defense. If I need an assault rifle for self-defense I live on a neighborhood that has limited police coverage. I could argue the need for this much fire power in case of a temporary breakdown of society during a natural disaster. A traditional firearm (revolver, pistol, shotgun, regular rifle) should meet the self-defense need of most situations.
What can we do? A similar weapon has already been successfully regulated: Civilian access in the US to sub-machine guns was restricted in 1934.
Unless convinced by scientific studies (The tobacco institute need not apply) we should demand and expect our representatives to legislate the restriction of these weapons as was done in 1934 and with the assault weapon ban.
4
Really appreciate the article since I do sometimes engage in gun related discussions. And, framing guns as a public health safety issue similar to cars (or smoking or drinking) is helpful. Some products we can buy, and want to buy, need to be regulated for safety reasons.
2
I don't know why people just don't simply point out that the second amendment to the Constitution uses the specific phrase, "well-regulated."
6
One additional argument often made by gun advocates is that if guns were outlawed or restricted, criminals would get hold of them regardless. As Dwight Shrute would say, False! First, there is a strong inverse correlation between how strict a states' gun laws are and per capita gun deaths - homicide, suicide, and accidents included. So history shows that restricting gun access limits homicides and other violence. Second, most people who commit murder with guns are law abiding citizens up to the moment they kill someone with a gun. So access to guns facilitates their becoming criminals.
But if guns are to be readily available, the best way to get them out of the hands of people with criminal histories would be to have a rigorous registration system that included not only guns but also ammunition. That way, when guns are used in criminal acts, there would be a much better chance of tracing the crime back to the perpetrator and getting them off the streets where they can commit no further crimes.
1
Oh Really? Tell me about Chicago. You are making up things up to fit your agenda.
"No one argues that there is an individual right to own an antiaircraft gun" And that's precisely the reason we do not have airplanes shot. There would be plenty of those if antiaircraft guns were as available as AR 15. The availability of guns is the problem.
6
I wish everyone would stop saying the 2nd amendment gives every one a right to own a gun. It does not. That reading is contrary to the text and 200+ years of jurisprudence and numerous court interpretations of the amendment. That reading is a tortured reading that fails to account for the context or circumstances of the amendment's drafting and adoption. This is clearly and convincingly spelled out in Justice Stevens' dissent in the Heller decision. The 2nd amendment has nothing at all to do with individual gun ownership or self-defense. Try to remember that when you hear politicians talk about their support for "2nd amendment rights." The Supreme Court got this wrong by one vote and contradicted its own opinions to reach this supremely misguided result.
13
Check out Justice Thomas's separate Heller opinion and his Mc Donald majority opinion. After the 14th Amendment freed blacks acquired a personal right to resist the states.
Good article. Thank you.
I think we need to use micro stamping so all bullets and guns are traceable. Your gun, your bullets, you are responsible for it. Universal background checks including private sales. Criminal charges for buying and selling guns illegally. Criminal charges if your gun discharges “accidentally.” This include parents and family members. Gun manufacturers need to be held accountable for injuries/deaths, similar to car manufacturers. Extreme Risk Petitioning Orders to get guns out of those who have demonstrated imminent risk. Assault weapons ban. Civilians do not need weapons of war. Our citizens right to live is paramount.
3
As a gun owner, I find little to disagree with in this article, but I still want to know what specifically is being proposed as "sensible" gun control. In this NYT's articles and in the comments, "sensible" ranges from universal background checks all the way to proposals for 2nd Amendment repeals and nationwide bans (and confiscation) of all semi-automatic firearms.
The affluent town near me, Deerfield, IL, just banned this week the continued ownership of a large category of "assault" style firearms.
Legal owners have 90 days to remove them from the city limits or turn them in. No compensation or buyback. No grandfathering for existing owners. Essentially, confiscation or criminalization. A lucky few might sell in time to meet the 90-day window, but to whom?
If gun control proceeds in this manner, I will oppose it tooth-and-nail. Find a workable compromise, and I will join the movement.
7
You ask what is "sensible" gun control. I and others have been proposing compromises for years. What compromises does the NRA propose?
Gee Gideon -- owners have 90 days to remove them from the city. That is sure not "confiscation or criminalization."
They can be sold to any legal owner outside the city ... and you think one needs to be "lucky few" to sell in 90 days? Really? And such folks couldn't find anyone outside the city to hold it until it sells?
Gosh, you make it really hard for any rational person to empathize with you and your "plight" when you make up whiney stuff like this.
Maybe it would help if you tell us your "workable compromise?"
3
I think I implied a workable compromise. Buybacks of future banned firearms, or grandfathering possession for existing owners, is much more acceptable than a program that could potentially force owners to surrender items they purchased at considerable price in good faith. How is that going to sit with people that oppose gun control? How would seizure of your property sit with you? That's civil forfeiture, and I thought everyone agreed that this concept is a Bad Idea.
Would you rather people just sold their ARs to people in the next town or state over? If you think these firearms are an issue, then how does that solution serve anyone's end?
Thank you Mr. Kristof. I think I may need to carry this in my pocket because it is so accurate and non offensive. I tend to get hyper about guns and this column provided calm and realistic conversation points.
2
Seems to me the solution is likely to be more moderates running the show. Yes the Presidency and Congress both. We need more common sense/ pragmatism and less rigid ideology and left/ right tribal screaming. Just my two cents but I’m looking for political moderates to support.
5
I'm all in favor of full background checks, even in private transfers of gun ownership, and banning firearms whose intended function is clearly as assaults on people, not hunting or sports. The issue for me? Those worthwhile, IMO, goals are to many others the nose of the camel, that to many what the majority of non-gun-owing supporters of those goals are are actually seeking is the nullification, by regulation if not outright repeal, of the 2nd amendment.
3
Speaking for myself and for my other 60 year old friends, no, we do not want to repeal the 2nd amendment. We only want assault weapons unavailable to anyone except the armed services, we want a restriction on high capacity ammo clips, universal background checks, and the banning of bump stocks. That seems so reasonable.
9
In other words, they know what we *really* want, somehow, so there's no use talking about it. At this point, I agree. We have to outvote them.
3
Well, your proposal sounds like the NEXT STEP to confiscation. And because the GOAL of your "leaders" is total civilian disarmament, I will fight you till I die. NO MORE GUN CONTROL! Murder is not in the top 25 causes of death and ALL rifles and shotguns together murder fewer people than hands, feet and fists. So why the desire to "ban" them. NOT ANOTHER INCH!
There is also the nonsensical argument that, because 18 year olds can join the military and fire combat weapons they should be allowed to walk into a gun shop and buy an AR 15. The military screens it folks. Not everybody gets in. The military maintains discipline. You can be dishonorably discharged for bad behavior or attitude. The military trains its folks. Recruits (of any age) are not simply given weapons and sent off to fight. Sooo...if the AR 15 supporters would agree that selection, maintenance and training (just like the military) are good ideas, let's talk.
6
Absolutely. Although they probably still do it in more rural areas, teach gun safety in schools if there is enough interest, I know growing up in the 60s and early 70s, that was always an option, Hunter safety courses, plenty of gun ranges with stations for children, etc. It seems like these days, kids are taught to fear guns, and I disagree with that. Teach them to safely handle one, if they choose to.
Nice try, but as I've commented, this situation is like arguing about religion--no rational content on the religious side there, too, just belief because of belief. People can parse the words of the 2nd Amendment like they do about words in the Bible, including all kinds of sophistry in doing so. The conclusion remains that it is way past time for the 2nd Amendment to be repealed and a revision applied to the list of Amendments, to limit the amount of firearms and have strict licensing laws in this country. In the meantime, it is futile to have a rational discussion with people who hold to beliefs only because the beliefs are traditionally-held, in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Along with the repeated tragedies in this country, there is the evidence about minuscule gun injuries and deaths in countries without an ocean of firearms. But of course, acknowledging this evidence would be too rational.
4
One minor objection: don't yield so much on the second amendment. We can read it too, and we can read in light of history. That five judges of the Supreme Court read it one way after more than 200 years, does not mean that we should ignore the four other judges on that court, all the other judges and all the other people who understood the role of a well-regulated militia.
3
Which is more of a deterrent:
"This is a gun-free zone."
"Armed and trained personnel on premises. Any attempt to harm our children will result in the use of deadly force."
6
When dealing with people like Nicholas Cruz I expect neither are a deterrent.
For other types of crime, such as bank robberies, clearly the 2nd option is more of a deterrent and is the option most commonly practiced.
I know I sound like Polly-Anna but wouldn't it be nice if we could find a way to live together so that our children could go to school and not feel like they're living in a war zone.
That might be a little more possible if we had a much more robust mental health system, so that people like Nicholas Cruz could be identified as ill and a danger to others. And a more vigorous system for keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill would help as well.
2
That is just so crazy. Are we going to have armed guards in all of our schools, are we going to train Sister Mary Theresa how to use a gun, are we going to put armed militia in all public venues? Ban assault rifles and makes other reasonable restrictions on the purchase of guns. At least if someone attacks a school, they won't be able to kill 17 people and injure 50 more in under 7 minutes (Parkland) or 25 people in under 6 minutes (Sandy Hook).
Do we really want our children to live in a world like that? Do we put armed guards in churches, movie theaters, concert halls?
I know the author means well, but the grim truth is that you can't use logic to move someone from a position that logic didn't lead him to. We can't win the argument with the dedicated gunnies; they have their stories, and they're sticking to them. We have to outvote them.
10
The 2nd amendment's not going away. But with rights come responsibilities.
The Bureau of Justice and FBI estimate that 80% of guns used in crimes are illegally obtained, mostly through straw sales or residential burglaries.
These could be characterized as "illegal" guns. But basically ALL guns start out as "legal" guns. They are sold by manufacturers to licensed retailers and then to "law abiding" citizens who have passed the necessary background checks.
Then things break down. Guns are stolen from people's homes. They are sold in straw sales to criminals who would not pass a background check.
Then people die.
If "law abiding" gun owners had adequately secured their guns in safes, it would be much harder for criminals to obtain them. These gun owners have failed miserably in their responsibilities associated with their 2nd amendment rights.
This is why we need regulation and control, to have the legal means to crack down on IRRESPONSIBLE gun owners, not on the responsible ones.
The BoJ estimates that around 240,000 guns are stolen every year. That suggests the scale of the problem.
I am a Liberal who does NOT advocate removing the 2nd Amendment. I advocate that ownership of guns be "well regulated", to prevent negligent owners from having their guns fall into the hands of criminals. That means unloaded guns and ammunition must be kept in gun safes in the home. ALL gun transactions, gifts and sales must be recorded with local law enforcement or in a national database.
5
I would like a poll of gun owners as to why they need one. This sounds simplistic, but we often hear of the need for protection- I would like the poll to include where they live and the attendant crime rate and distance from a police station that community. Also what type of gun they feel they need or want.
The 2nd part would be about gun for sport, hunting, or other recreational purpose. Again, include where and what type of gun.
My hunch is the majority of people with guns for protection don't live in high crime areas, but whose real need is recreational.
IF true, I have no sympathy and support banning those people from owning any type of weapon. this is similar to owning a gun in NYC, virtually impossible.
1
Thanks to the Constitution, YOU don't get to decide what I WANT or "need". I drive a 750 HP Cadillac CTS-V. It will go 200 MPH. Do I "need" it? Or would you prevent me from owning it because you own a Yugo? It is the Bill of RIGHTS not the bill of "needs".
3
I agree guns should be treat just like vehicles:
To get an operator license:
Be of legal age
Take drivers training
Pass drivers test
Carry liability insurance
To drive a vehicle:
Buy vehicle with title
Have vehicle inspected
Register vehicle
Carry liability insurance
Repeat the above steps every two years.
Anyone not willing to do this with a weapon has something to hide, and shouldn’t have a gun in the first place.
10
The better argument is that most NRA people support voter ID laws that make it more difficult for people to vote. Those laws address a problem -- voter fraud -- that does not exist, and serve only to disenfranchise qualified voters. There is no constitutional right more important than the right to vote, yet that right is regulated. If the right to vote can be regulated, so can the right to own certain guns.
5
The success that Thurgood Marshall enjoyed with the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling in Brown v. Board of Education was not a one off.
The civil rights movement carefully selected the right cases and the right challenges to the law over many years. There was a long line of cases leading up to Brown.
As a people, we can approach gun violence the same way. Reasonable, responsible steps to control the promiscuous use of guns and violence are attainable, step by step, case by case.
A new civil rights movement, one promoting the right to life, is necessary to make the long, legal battles necessary to overturn Heller -- a decision that was made arbitrarily and without a line of cases leading to that abrupt decision.
Our legal system is up to the task. Let's repeal Heller.
5
The trouble with the left on gun control is that their proposals don't actually do much of anything and they cost the Democrats a lot of blue-collar votes needed to get elected and pass progressive economic policies. We have 300 million guns in private hands, nearly one for every citizen. We're not going to stop the shootings with these penny-ante proposals and there's never going to be support for Australian, British or Japanese gun laws in this country. Kristof's passion is admirable but he's tilting at windmills. And California already has the strict gun laws he desires.
2
We need driverless cars AND ownerless guns.
4
This is one of those issues where those who insist upon perfect solutions are preventing solutions which are good and practical. The elimination of guns is too big a task to be accomplished without the voluntary cooperation of all gun owners. Failure to act to remove guns from clearly dangerous people assured that great harm to people will result.
There need to be implemented the means to identify people who should not have access to guns and the means to prevent them from doing so. Background checks on all sales and exchanges. Create a national gun registry so that it can be determined whether anyone who ought not have guns has any.
2
How can there be a second amendment right to bear arms when mere possession of a firearm is sufficient justification for the government to kill you? If there was such a right, it would be the obligation of the government to protect it.
1
The mere possession of a firearm isn't justification for the government to kill you. Pointing a gun at police when they are trying to arrest you or reaching for a gun while police are trying to arrest you is sufficient reason.
2
So, I have seen the movies where the quickest draw wins the death match. Recent events have shown that in practice, our law enforcement people do not feel the need to initiate a showdown before determining you are capable of deadly action, they are not required to verify beyond a reasonable doubt that you even have a gun, before applying deadly force, and in Sacramento, if you are black, it’s nighttime and there has been at least one report of vandalism in the area, possession of a cell phone is more than enough justification for emptying a ten round clip into your prone body. If every gun holder was treated as a criminal worthy of summary roadside justice, not just by the police but any law abiding citizen, as in Dodge City, then only criminals would risk it, and they could be terminated immediately by the concerned citizen. Carrying a gun demonstrates that you are willing to kill at the drop of an insult, real or imagined, but unlike a knife, also demonstrates a fearful and cowardly, selfish approach to life in a civilized society in that your mistake can infringe on my superior right to live even if I pose no threat to yours
1
Easy access to guns give a vulnerable person who is suicidal a way too convenient and efficient method. When my son became suicidal I immediately removed any access by getting rid of my firearms and my dad’s firearms as well. Thankfully they’re gone and I don’t miss them.
3
Nick, the comment and byline, "How to Win An Argument About Guns", implies that someone is either wrong, or they're going to lose. It shouldn't be that way. I've got no issues with a waiting period, background checks, keeping mentally ill people from buying them, making people with domestic violence convictions unable to own them (even cops, especially cops), etc., common sense. But making anyone that doesn't agree with you, the enemy, isn't going to help. Blaming the NRA isn't going to help. Blaming White, Male, Americans, isn't going to help.
By the way, how many Americans have cigaerettes and tobacco products killed? CDC says 480,000/year. 1 in 5 from second hand smoke.
3
Nicholas Kristoff gets it. Well written.
2
"You liberals are in a panic over guns..." "No one argues that there is an individual right to own an antiaircraft gun." Really? People apply for and get special permits to own fully automatic Machine guns. Yes, machine guns. Look on YouTube.
The NRA and their lackeys in Congress voted down a bill that would have prevented people on the no fly list from buying guns.
It is not possible to change the mind of a "gun nut". That change will only come from the inside.
1
Who gets to put people on the "No Fly List"? How do you get your name off of it? Are you sure your name is not on it?
Answer those questions and then we can talk.
1
My argument to counter the disingenuous arguments of 2nd Amendment gun nuts goes like this: The 2nd Amendment confers the right to bear "arms." It does not specify "handgun" or "AR 15". Does that mean I'm allowed to own a fully operational tank with a gun turret? Live hand grenades? A suitcase nuke? Are they not "arms"? Of course they are! And of course I'm not!
2
Good Lord, we need more articles like this. Engage in calm discussion about points of view that differ from our own. Discard the "other side" polarization that drives fear and hatred and that is so easily summoned from our ancient tribal nature. I dream that one day, discussions like this will become the norm rather than the exception. How can we teach people to recognize when they are being manipulated by appeals to their fears? It would be great to see some equally well written articles on how to address this issue, which fuels so much of the conflict we see today.
2
Great post, thank you. I've had many of these same conversations.
One thing to note about the cars/guns argument they bring up is that 90% of people drive and 40% of people have guns, and the death rate is the same. It's clear which one is more dangerous.
Also, if gun owners needed licenses, education and insurance to own guns, I don't think most liberals would have a problem with that.
The most important way to attempt to have a constructive argument is to list out your desires right away (background checks, ammo background checks, magazine caps, etc). Too often, the gun advocates immediately start defending guns and think all liberals want them banned. Once you list out your more reasonable requests, I find many of them agree.
The suicide argument is carries very little weight if you look at global suicide rates. The US rate is below France and below or comparable to other Western nations with similar cultures. These countries have dramatically less access to guns. So while in the US currently suicide by gun has a higher success rate than other methods there is no reason to assume that without guns the rate would fall below similar countries numbers.
4
The NRA's and gun manufacturer's statements and actions are motivated by one, overriding motive. They want to sell more guns. Anything that might delay a sale, for only a short while, they oppose. Any "right", like a right to purchase and a right to sell, has always been subject to reasonable limits. Most people accept reasonable limits as part of a civilized and relatively safe society. Those who cannot accept reasonable limits cannot offer constructive debate, cannot help the vast majority of citizens reach solutions.
Nick, Thanks for posting some excellent arguments about guns, realizing many more are available. The discussion about cars is in fact a propos. The CDC has just recorded that deaths by gun violence has now surpassed that by cars. We have for decades licensed and regulated cars (and roads) to be safer. We have for decades completely ignored to safety, or even systematic checking/archiving/monitoring who owns what gun. And with the car-gun discussion, it is time to finally require insurance if you own a gun... if your gun harms someone, you may be responsible! Own an AR-15, your insurance just went though the roof! Note that car insurance premiums also consider safety ratings, but with guns, the differences are enormous. It's time to let economics work this problem out.
1
Very thoughtful article. It seems that casting the issue in terms of the concept of freedoms may be useful.
Firearm advocates are energized and react by a perceived challenge to their freedom.
I would argue the need to emphasize that freedom is a true American core value with broad appeal. The key us that there are competing freedoms at play. Freedom for some can mean terror to others.
I am confident that most Americans value
Freedom from terror
more than the
freedom to terrorize.
Sensible measures can be implemented to demonstrate these values and minimize unintended damage while allowing responsible people to exercise the privilege of safe firearm use.
1
The DC vs Heller decision from 2008 provides the settled law regarding personal ownership and storage of a firearm. From Wikipedia:
>>
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It was also clearly stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated<<
NB it specifically does not address the particulars of the firearms. I invite the readership to read the full decision. But it does address the "well-regulated militia" aspect.
In one of the largest studies between gun ownership and gun homicides suicide with a firearm was used as a proxy for gun ownership. The link was not statistically significant when surveys were used, and the estimated rate of gun ownership using the proxy was significantly higher than that reported in surveys. An item overlooked by the NYT when the article was mentioned is that the portion of blacks in population had an impact on firearm homicides that was almost six times higher than gun ownership.
This makes sense considering that per PEW almost 75% of firearm homicides occur in low income minority neighborhoods, but it is never acknowledged by gun control advocates.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/
2
Easier to demonize the NRA than to honestly look at those who abuse guns. No wonder they never get anywhere. Misdirected blame.
Clever article, but a bit pointless. It's not about logic, it's not about facts, it's about power. Somehow the NRA has enough power to overcome the obvious facts and the obvious will of the people.
The date November 16, 2018, comes to mind.
Put enough progressives in congress and we can pass the laws we need to regulate guns as well as we regulate cars--or swimming pools.
The full text of the second amendment is this:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The pro-gunners rarely account for the important, preliminary ablative absolute: this is about State security, about necessity, about a Militia, about well-regulated. Every one of these items involves legislation. If anything, the grammar of the ablative absolute needs to be clarified and made precise. This is the condition on which any right to bear arms depends, grammatically, conceptually, and logically.
1
Well said, but since when our federal gov. does things
the easy and sensible way? Only votes count.
I hope that in all elections Americans will show law makers who is the BOSS.
Nicholas Kristof,
Before “rethinking”, maybe it’s worth remembering that the Second Amendment was written by our founding fathers, men who a few years earlier committed treason against their own country and used their guns to kill their fellow countrymen.
Every time I read "Sensible" or "Common Sense" gun control solutions/measures, etc...I immediately stop paying attention. To state your view in this way immediately creates a presumption that if your audience does not agree with your views, then they 'are lacking in whatever "Common Sense" you are professing.
4
I am so sick of people using the constitution as an excuse to not heavily regulate gun ownerships and manufacturing. As a nation, we should be seriously ashamed to allow our school children to be massacred. Anyone who still at this point talking about their gun rights instead of how to prevent the next mass shooting from happening again should be seriously ashamed of themselves.
Just apply "auto" standards to guns. Simple experiment. And enforce them. See what happens. Small communities could try this themselves. We need more small reasonable steps that communities could try. Another area to consider is making buildings, including schools, safer for outside "invasion". Bullet proof, one way glass windows on first floor. Creatively designed entrances using architecture with technology to make them more difficult to penetrate by someone who should not be there, or has something on their person that they should not. We would all feel safer from the next nutcase with a gun who goes "postal".
Mr Kristof hasn't changed his Anti-Gun playbook since 1993.
But that is to be expected, "if it ain't workin' do more of it" seems to be the only tactic available to Repealers.
2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate, 3/4 of the States.
3
Actually, there are 2A advocates who DO think they should have anti-aircraft guns (and grenade launchers and even missiles!) This is especially true among libertarians and anarchists (both groups want government out of their personal decisions.) There is an active community of 2A advocates who actually believe they will need to defend themselves from a tyrannical government (as specified in the Second Amendment.) They point to Cliven Bundy and Waco. There is no way of winning an argument about legitimate restrictions on gun ownership with these folks since they see no restrictions as legitimate. It doesn't help that a number of people on the gun control side of the argument, including members of state governments, speak and write publicly of outright bans. They do not see their weapons as tools for hunting four legged creatures, they see them as defense against two legged ones and so any comments as to the killing or stopping power exceeding demand is met with incredulity. There is absolutely no winning argument for them. And for those who pursue the 'well regulated militia' phrase, that, too, is moot because it is the government they fear almost as much as illegal immigrants and drugged up home invaders. That 'well regulate militia' refers, for them, to another potential source of tyranny.
Mr. Kristof, I applaud your efforts to engage in a logical and fact-based dialog with RKBA activists. Missing so far from your metaphor comparing firearms to automobiles is the purpose of each. Automobiles involved in an accident or deliberate misuse, may be associated with death and injury but their primary function is that of transportation. They’re aren’t used primarily for defense, intimidation or to inflict serious bodily harm/death. The same cannot be said for firearms.
Also, when RKBA activists invoke the Second Amendment, many ignore the introductory clause. “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State…” There’s a context in which the rights of the people “shall not be infringed”.
There are reasonable people who use and protect their firearms in a responsible way. They aren’t the ones who will rally behind Wayne LaPierre or Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA. LaPierre and Cox deliberately appeal to the paranoid and extreme.
Anybody who reads Cox’s or LaPierre’s pieces in American Hunter would be able to see how relentlessly they use fear. The most recent LaPierre offering (April 2018) in the column “standingguard" is titled “Our Colleges are Breeding Grounds for Socialists Who Will Take Away Our Guns”. Cox’s piece is titled “Firearm Preemption Laws: Protect Our Rights”. It's about making sure that local governments cannot restrict firearms more than the state does.
This one's my personal favorite:
"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
"Really? Oh my God, that's awesome! That's like three percent of adults; we'll go down from three million to something like a hundred thousand guns. We'll save tens of thousands of lives every year, and the only people killing themselves or their families or neighbors will be criminals. How soon can we do that?"
1
Each Kristof's responses can be refuted. But we are allowed only so many characters.
WK: "Actually, that’s not true. Scholars have found that suicide barriers on bridges, for example, prevent jumpers and don’t lead to a significant increase in suicides elsewhere. Likewise, almost half of suicides in Britain used to be by asphyxiating oneself with gas from the oven, but when Britain switched to a less lethal oven gas the suicides by oven plummeted and there was little substitution by other methods. So it is about guns."
I can't believe he wrote that. What idiotic comparisons.
The change in Britain was a switch from coal gas to natural gas. The reason for the shift had nothing to do with preventing suicides.
And the result was, people just chose other methods:
"Suicide due to non-gas methods has in general increased, markedly so in some groups." (Brit. J. prev. soc. Med. (1976), 30, 86-93)
Now, they hang themselves, or poison them selves.
Suicides were not prevented, the methods just changed.
And - bridge barriers ? Seriously ? It has been shown, that people just drive to different bridges, of jump off buildings that don't have barriers.
Neither topic is even remotely related to gun control.
We already have plenty of regulations regarding guns. We have insufficient regulations for handling insane people, like the rabid leftist who shot up YouTube yesterday.
And how does Kristof propose to determine who is a suicide risk ?
2
Increasingly, it appears that winning arguments is more important than actually stopping gun violence. If it were really about gun violence, inner city criminals would be the object of their wrath -- not the NRA, nor would they blame the NRA after the FBI failed to do its job in Florida. It's as though they have a vendetta against guns and just direct their anger at anyone -- regardless of how ineffective and misguided -- they perceive is stopping them from prevailing.
The biggest argument gun advocats use to support gun rights is that privatly owned guns is protected by the Constitution. Our Constitution is a blueprint for what we are obligated to do to maintain a free and open democracy. Without freedom of speech, a free press,free and open elections our democracy could not exist. So how does owning a deadly weapon assure our that our democracy be vital and vibrant? it does not. Gun advocates have twisted the reading of the second amendment from "being necessary to the security of a free State" to the RIGHT for protection against home invasions. As awful as it may be to have one's home invaded, it is not tied to the working of a democracy. I can only argue private owner ship as a right in it's historical context. The founders wanted to assure that a central government would never be able to ignore the rights of the states in the manner that the British government ignored rights of the colonies. Since the colonies were able to challenge the might of the British army, the founders would believe that the states and it's armed citizens would have effective tool to protect their democracy. Today, it would not be possible for a citizens army to attack our military. We have found the other tools to keep our government in check: voting, speaking our truths. Over time we have used these tools effectivly. This is the argument we need to win with gun advocats. Owning a gun should be a privilege that is earned, not a right.
U.S. citizens are heavily armed, and our political, social, and economic systems are increasingly unstable. If I was a hostile foreign power, I would seek to turn Americans against themselves, and transform the U.S. into a splintered, war torn Middle East, incapable of organizing alliances or exerting interests abroad. This is our greatest foreign policy challenge.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
-Abraham Lincoln
1
You forgot the most important, inevitable fallback response- "Guns are for protecting our country against Tyranny."
1
If the right to keep and bear arms is predicated on a well-regulated militia being a necessity, then I say we get rid of everything BUT the high-capacity, quick-firing, bullet-tumbling people killers. No other use would appear to be protected by the Constitution as a right.
To pass constitutional muster:
Car regulations (a privilege) must bear a "rational relationship to a legitimate state interest."
Gun regulations (a right) must be "necessary for compelling state interest."
Regarding injuries and deaths caused by "AR-15" type guns (whatever they are), the numbers are just too small (compared to other causes of death) for prevention to be a compelling state interest.
I am sure persons die after being romantically dumped, but we don't mandate that love be everlasting -- or even sincere.
1
This is ridiculous. 58 lives and 500 injured in Las Vegas: cumulative liability if anyone could pay it would be over 1 B$.
You bet the state has a compelling state interest.
Let me know when the gunnies are going to pass the hat and pay for the carnage their hobby toys create.
1
I think a variation of Canada's system could be a reasonable model for gun regulation in the US.
We have three classes of firearm: non-restricted (long guns), restricted (handguns, carbines, assault-style guns), and prohibited (automatic, short-barrel handguns, sawed-off shotguns, etc.).
In Canada, all classes require a license, but I could see a system in the US where non-restricted firearms would be available without a license, but restricted firearms would require a license to possess and acquire. I would think such a system would pass constitutional muster. (In Canada, acquiring a license requires taking an approved firearms safety course, background check, reference check, and, importantly, notification of current and/or recent spouse/partner that you are seeking a license.)
We have magazine capacity limits (10 for handguns, five for centerfire long guns) that I think would be perfectly reasonable in the US, too.
Implementing this type of system might have a long-term effect of altering the culture around firearms ownership. It would do little in the short-term, however. And, ultimately, I think little will change so long as the idea that carrying a gun as a personal defense tool is given legitimacy. That is the single biggest difference between American gun culture and that of every other developed country with regulated ownership, and barring change I don't see the problem of gun violence in the US being solved.
3
The "gun culture" in the US extends to Hollywood. Let's see actors refuse to act in a movie with gun violence. A one year moratorium on gun violence in movies. Nah, just blame the NRA.
Thank you for writing this article. Our neighborhood association's social media connection (NextDoorSims) is discussing this very issue, and all of your arguments and counters listed here have been brought up time and again. It's sad that we can't come together with a solution to the gun problem through legislative action mainly because of fake information being shoved down our throats by the NRA. But, the more articles published like this one, the more people are informed (if they open their minds and hearts).
2
Some of the problem is with semantics. Gun CONTROL advocates are in favor of controlling guns. This implies the Government will control our individual choices. Outside of the Acela corridor that does not sit well. Compare that to "gun rights advocates". The pro gun people have a more American freedom sounding name. If the term were changed to "gun safety advocates" it might more palatable in places where people feel shooting and hunting are a cultural touchstone. It is like the term prolife. Who is not prolife? So the antiabortion side has a better sounding name too.
2
The greatest impediment to getting people to want to give up their guns is slow 911 response rates. Unless people believe that the police will be there within 5 minutes, they will want their own weapons. I sure would. However, actual 911 response time can be 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 30 minutes to an hour. Do not take my word for it, just Google various big cities and nine-one-one response times.Non-emergency calls to the police often do not even get a response even if it has to do just with suspicious characters where they should not be. That does not inspire confidence in the forces of order to confront the bad guys.
What it will take to get these kinds of response times is massive tax increases in major urban areas to double the size of police forces.
3
The only way to win a gun argument that matters is for the 90% who favor common sense legislation to vote out of office any elected official who is a member of the 10% who do not favor such legislation. Talk (argument) is cheap and there is nothing new to say that hasn't already been said.
If the 90% were as passionate about gun legislation as evangelicals are about abortion--and vote accordingly-- watch what happens.
5
A large share of gun deaths are suicides, and these are tragedies and an important reason to consider not having a gun. Just because no one in the house is suicidal today, that gun will still work many years later when someone in that family goes through job loss or divorce or a serious medical problem.
If suicides are a cornerstone of a gun policy argument, however, that argument is for eliminating all guns. There are approximately zero guns that one cannot use for a suicide.
Be direct about what you are proposing and more people will, in the long run, respond favorably. Plans to "get a foot in the door" through regulation make compromise impossible.
It is much easier to maintain the status quo or pass mostly symbolic (or temporary) laws than it is to truly change the system. Those gun control advocates who engage in such deceptions are throwing stones from a glass house.
2
This is a well-reasoned article that should be quite useful in the gun debate, but only with those who are amenable to reason. Thanks Nicholas.
1
epidemiological studies show that 95% of attempted suicides that fail do not repeat their attempts. it's well-known that suicide by gun is far more successful Then other means of suicide. It's also known that owning a gun creates a greater possibility of suicide by gun. Knowing all this, the very presence of guns in our culture is responsible 4 the sad success of so many suicide attempts, which constitute the larger part of the 34,000 gun deaths experienced in America, annually.
One of the best ways to win the gun argument is to abandon the scare tactics of the NRA and gun lovers. Don't engage, in other words.
Pick a reasonable proposition that almost everyone can agree on and stick with it. Here's mine: no gun ownership before the age of 28 without completing a course in gun safety, seeing examples of the damage to humans guns can do and learning how to handle weapons responsibly. This would likely pass the Constitutional test and it would not inhibit gun ownership nor stop people from having guns.
It would not merely be a half way measure, as the raising of age for ownership to 21 would be. Most of the mass killings in America have been conducted by younger people and statistics show that people "age out of crime" around the time they reach 30. By requiring that people complete a simple course on guns before being able to buy them, at least some of the people who were intent on gun violence would be discovered before they could act.
There will always be illegal guns and illegal gun sales and trading no matter what is done. Criminals will find a way to get guns no matter what. There is no one magic solution. Any effort at modest changed can be attacked on the basis of "that wouldn't have stopped the last shooting". That is not the point.
The efforts we make should be carefully directed toward a gradual and unstoppable reduction in mass shootings and gun violence. Meanwhile, non-lethal methods can reduce mass shootings in schools and other places
3
Yes, you have a point, there is a culture of violence in the US. But even in countries like Israel where there are “so many guns” there are strict laws for civilians to carry a gun. There is strict licensing and renewal of such license once a year. The weapon must be either stored in a safe, uncharged and locked or on the licensed adult’s body. Such licensed civilian is not allowed an assault weapon. Only a gun.
Lochamim, or fighter soldiers are required to carry their gun during their obligatory service, usually an assault weapon, at all times after they have undergone strict training and follow strict rules of handling. If not with him or her, the weapon must be in a safe, dismantled and not charged.
Simple common sense regulations. That’s why there are less gun related deaths.
3
Cars were not designed to have the ability to be lethal. The death and damage caused by autos is primarily due to accidents. The number of accidental deaths resulting from firearms is less than 500 annually, which is dwarfed by the over 30,000 from automobiles. Unless he was just referring to those less than 500 deaths. Otherwise to compare accidental deaths to intentional deaths is simply irrational.
Defamation is a civil matter, and in a very limited circumstance, can be criminal in certain states (although the constitutionality of these statutes are questionable), regardless, this is related to how one exercises the right. We aren't precluded from speaking because we might defame someone.
Universal background Checks cannot be enforced without a full registry of firearms. The Federal Government is barred from compiling a registry through legislation. Without a full registry, how can you prove that a firearm was transferred without a background check? How are you going to register the over 400 million guns currently in circulation? The ATF can't even keep the current machine gun registry of approx 800,000 straight. Now try and keep track of 400 million+...and yes, UBCs are an infringement.
Anti-aircraft guns? Limits? Look up the definition of Arms in Black's Law Dictionary. Paraphrasing, Rifles, carbines, pistols, and their accoutrement, & knives, hatchets, etc...
Suicide is awful, but it's not a public health threat. It's an individual heath threat.
1
People use cars illegally regularly. Laws against illegal operation have not ended the carnage of drunken driving, distracted driving, and cars used as weapons. 40,000 deaths a year and over 2 million injuries at a cost of almost 200 billion! But we love our cars, and there is no debate about , limiting their use further, even though these numbers show we are out of control. However, there are countries with different social standards and laws that have lower death rates and crime rates involving cars. Maybe we need to realize we do have a health and culture problem in this country and the gun issues AND cars stats reveal it. I'd start with emphasis on freedom without the corresponding understanding of responsibilities.
3
Both sides of this debate miss the point. There is clearly a social cost to widespread gun ownership and we should all stop pretending otherwise. If we waved a magic wand and made every gun or even a large portion of them disappear, gun homicide, suicide and accident rates would obviously plummet. Kristoff's faux shock and outrage at the Youtube shooting it is downright silly. Exactly what type of gun control measure, other than universal confiscation, can prevent that type of gun crime?
What Kristoff and other gun control advocates either won't or can't accept is that there is a countervailing important value to civilian gun ownership. The right of ordinary, law abiding citizens to self-defense without sole reliance on government actors, which inherently requires the ownership of weapons, is a right worth preserving even if such instances are relatively rare (and they are not as rare as gun advocates assert). Hence, we have the liberal vs conservative divide on guns: modern liberals (progressives) seek to ever strengthen the power of a progressive and supposedly beneficent state, and thus find civilian gun ownership abhorrent, while conservatives seek to preserve individual autonomy, and therefore see civilian gun ownership as a key individual right.
As an aside, Kristoff's analogy to seatbelts, airbags and other automobile safety measures is inapt; the vast majority of gun related deaths arise because of intentional misuse of firearms, not malfunctioning guns.
3
I am a modern liberal who believes in the power of the voting both. In the power of civic involvement.
No government can be "beneficent" without having some measure of accountability--and if you rely on a firearm to "preserve individual autonomy" as a conservative, I have three reactions.
One, you cannot possibly have a peaceful society if the reaction to any perceived threat or disagreement with governance is to go for your gun.
Two, what about the rights of a woman to "individual autonomy"? Many conservatives seem quite able to deny a woman the right to choose, claiming that abortion is "murder" while at the same time, caviling not at all at the right of a male (most commonly) to fire if he feels threatened. That's the reasoning behind the Castle doctrine. The issue of sentience doesn't enter that line of "logic".
Three, the Second Amendment says NOTHING about self defense. The Second's rationale is the security of a free state.
1
Since your brought up abortion, look up "emanations and penumbras" to answer your own Constitutional questions.
Something that will help my understanding is a comparison between a handgun and a weapon like an AR15
What are the differences/similarities in terms of distance, accuracy, rate of fire, type of ammunition/damage it causes ?
This comparison seems similar to one also used for cars. Nitro fueled funny cars are not street legal because of their higher performance.
Marty -- the second worst school shooting in US history was Virginia Tech, only a few less killed than Newtown, and it was done with a pair of 9 mm semi-automatic handguns, with their standard replaceable10-round magazines.
The key issue affecting efficiency at mass-murder at close ranges is rate of fire, rapidly-exchangeable magazines.
Semi-auto handguns are fully capable of mass murder. A bullet that penetrates the skull is almost always lethal, ditto heart, or anything that cuts one of the big blood vessels.
That being said, the semi-auto carbines fire bullets with almost twice the velocity ... considerably more damaging and capable of much longer ranges. Paddock's Las Vegas massacre could not have been done with handguns. Most users find them much easer to use and aim than handguns.
There are multiple reasons most mass murderers use AR-15 clones; another important one is that they are less regulated in most jurisdictions than handguns.
2
Re: "Almost two-thirds of those gun deaths are suicides, ...if someone wants to kill himself, he’ll find a way. "
First, that is not a reason to make it easy for a potential suicide to obtain a gun.
In fact, it argues for making access to guns harder. States with low gun ownership rates also have just as many depressed people in gun-friendly jurisdictions, yet their death by gun suicide rates are markedly lower.
Finally, many suicides are done on impulse; if no gun is readily available, the likelihood that the victim will actually commit suicide is reduced.
1
What is it to you if I kill myself? It's my body and life.
What a beautifully done article! Thank you for this! You not only provide common sense rationale, you’ve provided those of us for gun control with a tool and clever weapon in our arsenal.
Bravo.
Christopher Bilcheck
3
Perhaps the argument should be about whether gun owners should have to pay something towards the cost of the high level of gun violence in the U.S. After all, highway taxes and fees are sometimes diverted to help fund state police and other public safety costs. Why shouldn’t gun owners be asked for similar assistance.
1
Because everyone who drives on the roads imposes those costs. Only those who misuse guns impose any costs at all.
2
I've got a garage full of reloading equipment and gun safe loaded with firearms. I'd give it all up to save one life. I gave up deer hunting with rifles because of the increase in hunters using full camo and firing semiautomatic rifles indiscriminately into the bushes. Bow hunting became much safer and fun with my son. I've got along just fine with revolvers, bolt, lever and pump action guns. Bow hunting is so much more a challenge than shooting deer 300 yds out. So, as far as I am concerned get rid of semiautomatic firearms. The public doesn't really need them. They only allow a mass killer to shoot a flurry of bullets and cause mass casualties. So, full background checks, no semiautomatic weapons and the hunting public should be happy with the bolt, pump and lever action rifles that we have used for years with great success. You want a real hunting challenge, go bow hunting and leave the firearms at home. I am an NRA member and have written them regarding making changes in background checks and getting rid of semiautomatic military type weapons, no response!
6
Unfortunately, John, I suspect that you are the "moderate" exception that proves the rule - at least among NRA members.
But if polls are to be trusted, it seems you are not the exception among a much larger number gun owners: why not work to start a gun owner organization that supports common sense gun control?
Don't think it would peel off many NRA members, but it might give gun owner moderates a 'third way' of supporting legislation that preserves their past-time, but imposes common sense regulation - NRA cries of 'Trojan horse,' 'traitor,' 'liberal' etc. notwithstanding.
The anti-gun portion of those advocating better gun control want to restrict gun use and ownership to a very few and to limit how many and what kind of guns can be owned. They consider guns a danger that can only be controlled by removing them from the access of nearly everybody. They fear guns and they especially fear all who have them. They cannot in truth compromise on this issue. They hope that their moral clarity will penetrate into the reasonable majority who want better gun control because that is the only rational way to reducing gun violence.
No guns, nobody can be shot. End of discussion.
The opposite extreme group is convinced that all gun control efforts will serve the intentions of the anti-gun side, and insist that keeping and bearing arms is the right of everybody, even those who are likely to do harm. They advocate that everyone carry guns in public and engage in gun fights with those who turn them on others. To them it’s a case of blood nourishing the tree of liberty.
So the debate descends into the irrelevant argument of the right to bear arms verses the right to live. It pleases the emotions but it prevents practical solutions like Kristof presents.
"Over all, 3,600 Americans drown each year, while 36,000 die from guns (yes, including suicides)."
The disingenuous argument by gun control advocates when '36,000 a year die form guns' is brought up is that their primary focus is on assault weapons, where less than 400 a year are killed with rifles of all types, of which assault weapons are a subset. The vast majority of firearm homicides are committed with handguns, primarily in low income urban minority neighborhoods. Ironically 46 of the top 50 counties for the number of firearm homicides are in areas controlled by Democratics. Quantity of firearm homicides needs to be used as the majority happen in neighborhoods, something that state and other other measures based on rates effectively hides.
3
How about this one? Other first world countries that have reduced their guns have reduced their instances of gun related violence.
1
I'm so tired of this being posed as an argument between people who want to ban guns and people who want unregulated access by anyone who wants any kind of gun. We gun control advocates (90% of Americans) understand the Second Amendment. We're not trying to take away people's legally acquired guns. We just want guns to be "well regulated" (Second Amendment).
293
Sorry the "We're not trying to take away people's legally acquired guns" lie has been exposed. The movement has now moved on to call for the repeal the Second Amendment, thanks to former Supreme Court Justice Stevens.
At least Anti-Constitutionalist no longer have to lie, maybe it is the beginning of a new era?
17
Perhaps. But when people make the "if it can just save one life" argument in support of a gun control measure, that is an argument for confiscation and prohibition. No law or laws will prevent all or most shootings, not with 300+ million guns in civilian hands. So, when gun control advocates stop using the term "common sense" to justify any and every gun control measure, when they stop advocating for bans and confiscation of artificially defined categories of firearms that are no more lethal than any other firearm, when they stop making baseless "blood will run in streets" arguments with respect to concealed carry laws, and when former supreme court justices and pundits (see, eg, Brett Stephens in this paper) stop calling for repeal of the Second Amendment, I will believe that you're "not trying to take away people's legally acquired guns."
14
Justice Stevens spoke for himself and probably a contingent of others who agree with him. That doesn't mean he spoke for all those who seek more reasonable firearms policies.
Moreover, arguing for the repeal of a section of the Bill of Rights, does not conflate with being "Anti-Constitionalist", though I quite understand why a Russian bot would prefer exaggeration and hyperbole to facts. It is necessary to go through a rigorous process in order to repeal any Constitutional amendment.
1
The Pursuit of Happiness was penned before the 2nd amendment, and thus should be more important to this country. Gun enthusiasts can still be happy without access to military bullet pushers; I am and know their capability, along with their uselessness in civilian circles.
Let's think about this in similar terms. Is the short-lived happiness of a small minority of gun owners (and you know you are a minority) really worth the stolen happiness of many more Americans? I'm not a selfish gun owner (i.e., I need to buy whatever I want!), but a practical one. I'm sorry they can be in short supply. Never the NRA, they are not responsible Americans, but purveyors of paranoia.
1
Let's put the car/gun analogy in a different light.
Without a gun I couldn't get to work, or take the kids to the mall. No getting to the grocery store 10 miles away without a gun. No family vacations to national parks without a gun. No merchandise in any stores without truck drivers and guns. No rushing to the hospital with my pregnant wife without that gun. Yup! Guns are essential to commerce and living in the modern world.
2
Your arguments are persuasive, Mr.Kristof. To some.
But those of us interested in eliminating the ubiquitous threat of spontaneous gun violence in America don't want to simply win arguments with gun owners, we want to win legal action against them.
Readers interested in the interests of society over the interests of gun owners should demand to know where candidates stand on gun control this November.
Then vote for the champions of strong measures like the still viable Assault Weapons Ban, https://bit.ly/2JcbnAO.
We can easily have sensible gun laws with Democrats in control of both houses of Congress and a Democratic president. We would need 60 solid Democrats in the Senate and none like Joe Lieberman.
1
These senseless tragedies are exhausting- and dangerous in so many ways. The phrase “another school shooting” should be devastating rather than commonplace.
This is one of the most sensible articles that justifies the importance of gun control (NOT taking your guns away, you gun lovers!). It answers, point by point, the oxymoron and disingenious arguments made by the NRA!
Kristof should have added the utter folly of owning assault weapons (like AR-15) and limitless cases of bullets;for what? Do those who use guns or rifles for sport, need to use AR-15s to pump 100 bullets into a deer?
Or, are they truly afraid that they will need to stand up against hypothetical federal militias, some day ,attacking them and taking away their freedom?
Nicholas, your forgot this one: "But I want to show how big and strong and tough I am." Then join the Marines. They will let you play with those guns. After they train you in their use.
Cars were designed to get you from one place to another. Guns were designed to kill; and military style guns were designed to kill people.
Swimming pools were designed to help us exercise and to hear the laughter of little kids as they play.
Guns were designed to kill; and we hear the sounds of little kids dying in terror.
I am a liberal who owns a couple of guns. I would not really want to own or even fire one of the military style rifles so worshiped by the NRA zealots, but if I did renting one from the range seems reasonable.
If you are one of those yelling at Colin Kapernick to "stop disrespecting the flag of the Nation I am hoarding guns against" then know this. If the government wants to come and get you or your guns they will do so. Their guns are much, much bigger.
1
Not only does the Second A not preclude the regulation of guns, but it actually mentions 'well-regulated'.
Another oft-used argument by those who refuse to consider any gun control: '...even if we ban semi-automatics, etc., criminals will simply obtain the weapons, accessories, etc. they want, by ILlegal means. So making new laws won't make a difference to criminals.'
The above 'argument' is moot, since the underlying premise of this argument is that we shouldn't bother making any new laws, since after all, criminals don't obey laws. By that ridiculous argument, we should not only NOT make any new laws, but we might as well take all of our laws off the books.
Now clearly we understand that such a proposal is ridiculous, no?
A related problem that does not get much notice: The NRA constantly conflates support for the NRA's positions with "support for the 2nd Amendment." This is nonsense. It is clearly possible to support a ban on AR-15s and still support the 2nd Amendment.
225
Being that the AR15 is a common, semi-automatic rifle, no, it is not.
5
I believe the correct analogy is "ignorance is strength". That is like saying you can own a few slaves and still support "freedom".
6
Jon W., AR-15s have only become commonly-owned in the last 20 years particularly after the NRA commenced the strategy of 'shoehorning" them in so that they would be difficult to ban. To me, whether they have been commonly used for such a short part of our country's history should not be relevant to whether they are permissible under the 2nd Amendment but whether they are consistent with the uses (hunting and self-defense) that guns have been used for in prior periods.
1
2nd amendment supporters and the NRA care only about one thing -- owning/buying guns. If they put more energy into legal and moral responsibility of owning guns, the discussion surrounding guns would be different. Everyone who owns a gun should have a rider on the renter's or homeowner's insurance. Maybe even a multi-gun discount could be made available. If gun owners oppose even this measure, then it appears as though they think innocent lives lost is just a collateral damage to the constitutional right to own guns.
2
I just can't do the mental gymnastics required to believe that down means up and the 2nd amendment doesn't protect military-style weaponry. I'm firmly in the "repeal the 2nd amendment" category, but it clearly seems to protect gun owners and cites a vague military reason for doing so (not personal protection or hunting). What do you do when your constitution protects handing military weaponry out in crowded cities? You change it.
2
The bit about gun suicides is a total non-sequitur; how exactly is the author suggesting we prohibit people who are going to harm themselves from getting a gun?
Moreover, what percentage of people who kill themselves with a gun purchased said gun before they were suicidal?
Like most arguments in support of gun control, this correctly identifies a problem, but totally fails to translate the observation into workable policy.
2
After reading the comments to this article, I feel the USA is on a hopeless path to third world status with little concern for the "common good". It seems that guns are more important than human life, including one's own children.
Think about this: there were 1.4 million guns deaths in the USA between 1968 and 2011 vs. 1.2 million gun deaths in all the wars fought by America during the same time period. Does any of this make sense?
6
We wanted more cars, so we made safer cars and better roads. That has lowered deaths per miles driven. However, cars are still used dangerously and recklessly. So it is the driver, not the car. Two women recently drove six children over a cliff to their deaths. Unlicensed drivers abound, especially among undocumented immigrants and convicts. No one makes the argument that people don't kill people, cars do. We all know drivers control the car. The injuries and deaths that result from illegal operation show the limits of laws intended to protect us. There is the analogy to guns.
2
Here's another: Is the 2nd Amendment absolute? If not, then we should be able to pass the safety provisions you list; if so, then any American should be able to own and carry ANY type of firearm, including Rocket Propelled Grenades, Surface to Air Missiles, nuclear suitcases, etc. and we should be able to carry any and all weapons everywhere, including courtrooms, airports, the US House and Senate, City Hall. But if we agree that it's not absolute and that it's illegal to carry an AR 15 on to a commercial airliner, for example, then we've set the precedent for other restrictions. All we need is political will.
4
It's awkward to compare the death-per-gun rate to the death-per-car rate. The huge majority of cars are out on the road on a regular basis. Guns are not so uniformly distributed. There are many folks who have, say, six or seven guns but employ only one (for protection, hunting, or target practice). We have about as many guns as people, but many of those guns are stored away and unused.
1
I feel like we're living in some crazy dystopian novel like the Hunger Games, where our children are being offered up as tributes so the few can enjoy a limitless right (the images of David Hogg and other MDS HS students brought that up in my mind right away). Our response in many corners has become a dystopian nightmare - arm the schools, create armories within the schools, arm the teachers, put bullet safe boxes in classrooms for teachers to hide their students. It's like the silver parachutes floating out of the sky, each with crazy plans for more destruction instead of common sense solutions.
As a teacher that has had two bomb evacuations, two lock-in drills, and a planned ALICE (Active Shooter) drill tomorrow, I can tell you the fear is real and just the drills are scary. As a nation, we need to step back and look at ourselves. We are so much better than this. There are so many common sense solutions. Buying an assault rifle should not be easier for an 18 year old than buying a bottle of vodka. This is madness straight from a young adult dystopian novel.
8
I am so tired and frustrated trying to answer the same lame questions and counterpoints of Second Amendment defenders who believe that owning guns cannot be abridged no matter what the Second Amendment actually states. Thank you Mr. Kristof for debunking their main arguments and throwing common sense into the mix.
2
Here’s an idea. Why not ban guns from appearing in all movies for the next five to ten years (like the ban on actors seen smoking) and see if it helps reduce the macho gun-addicted culture. This alone won’t be enough of course but it would be a start. How about it Hollywood?
2
I agree. Let’s amend the 1st amendment to ban any speech that makes anyone at anytime feel unsafe.
3
Is there really a way to convince anyone so misguided about the world and in particular the meaning of living in a civil, democratic society? We give up our rights to defend ourselves with guns and any kind of violence and pay taxes to the government so that they maintain an army, navy, police force etc. If one must need to hunt (in itself something to think about given we are no longer hunter gatherers and haven't been so for quite a while!), we could obtain guns from a local authority and return it back after we are done shooting at poor deer and birds. That is it, really. No other argument needed. The idea that one is being reasonable and finding a way to have a discourse with people whose brain's are stuck in the colonial era is not a way to go forward. Wishy washiness does not get us anywhere we haven't already been, Mr. Kristof.
4
I’ve yet to see one of the “Times Pick” rebut these arguments so I’ll go ahead and do so.
1. he draws a false equivalency between cars and guns. He discusses methods of regulation to prevent damage, but this ignores the fundamental difference between cars and a gun. A gun’s primary purposes is killing. A car’s primary purpose is transportation. Deaths are accidental side effects. Seat belts, insurance, etc. are all incompatible analogies because they regulate the product in a way that doesn’t effect its primary purpose. His analogy is in fact so absurd, he never is actually able to translate it into a concrete gun regulation in the end. He simply says “evidence” and moves on.
2. This is an argument from authority to the Supreme Court. It is him justifying his point by saying “look what the Court says.” While SCOTUS may be the LEGAL interpreter of the Constitution, these arguments are intellectually sloppy. If Roe v. Wade we’re overturned, I don’t imagine he would argue that women don’t have a Constitutional right to an abortion. He would say the Court is wrong and then argue the merits of why. Instead of arguing the merit, he simply says the Court says it’s ok.
3. Absurd. Using his logic, the first amendment shouldn’t protect speech because some people say mean things. Our rights don’t depend on how other people use theirs. It’s tragic that people commit suicide, but that doesn’t change the Right’s existence.
49
It's gun supporters who repeatedly draw the comparison between cars and guns. I've seen it over and over. They say cars kill more people but we're not banning cars. Nevermind that know one is talking about a ban. The equivalency is NOT false. The comparison is about how effective rules of use are. Thank you to Nicholas for providing strong arguments to the ones gun addicts keep flinging around.
56
Here is the neat little trick of the gun defender. Somehow he is not responsible for making guns more safe. Somehow we are. Nothing can be done until we come up with the perfect answer to making sure guns do not get in the hands of people who will use them to cause harm. I think as a gun owner he is responsible for making sure that guns do not get in the hands of people who will use them to cause harm. It is a high standard, but I think a fair one. Insurance is a good example of how this might work. Until we can make guns 100% safe then guns should be covered by liability insurance. And the price should be high enough to cover all of the social costs that guns create. Just like cars.
86
When seat belt use was first mandated, many people argued that it interfered with their comfort and enjoyment of the car; similar arguments are made about mandating helmets for motorcycle wearers. I do argue that the Court was wrong in the Heller case. I am a lawyer and I do not think that the banning of certain guns, or requiring registration or insurance would be a violation of the Second Amendment.
38
Mr. Kristof, your arguments aren’t inaccurate, they are off-target.
The NRA is the only reason our Second Amendment is proving to be unworkable in today’s society.
Everyone knows the NRA derives power and money by exploiting fear, paranoia, and racism to advance a totally loony agenda.
Get rid of the NRA and this country would still have a Second Amendment but would be cured of it’s gun sickness.
3
I would go a step further and say get rid of them both. We are living in the 21st century not in the time of our so called slave-owning founding fathers. As for guns for hunting, we have stopped being hunter-gatherers even a for a little longer than that, even in the "rural" Oregon Mr Kristof hails from via Cambridge, MA.
1
"Get rid of them both"
Sounds really easy, almost like it wouldn't spark a second Civil War.
The key question: "What's wrong with trying to save lives?" It seems to me that many gun advocates really do not care about individual lives; they only care about their "liberty" to own guns. Even if giving up a gun equalled saving one child's life, do you think most would give up their gun? It seems we've abandoned human kindness, and as a society we're veering towards violence and hatred; thus people value their guns more than human lives.
6
Just for the record. Switzerland has high number of firearms for person because the country has not regular army and each man is a permanent soldier with training, possession of firearms and the same rank than their private activity. No comparable with the USA unregulated system.
5
Logical arguments don't sway politicians. Only $$$ do.
5
I believe Mr. Kristof's frame of reference is limited to his late-20th Century existence. He is ignoring some modern day developments in American Society.
To a large extent, after Ronald Reagan's term of office,,,,American Society began abandonning individual responsibility. We began segmenting ourselves into various "special interest" groups, creating unique spaces on the the new Internet thing.....largely faceless, with only "virtual" identities, that could be changed as fast as you can change your underwear.
We began volunteering to surrender our privacy, our freedoms, our individual rights....shamed into a new value system of "social justice", "transparency", "security".
Orwellian, even as we mocked anyone who pointed this out, as a "tin foil hat" paranoid "enemy of the state". Webcams on every street corner....just like in the book.
We consolodated all the schools, which now actually DO resemble SuperMax prisons, armed guards, lockdowns, shakedowns, metal detectors....while loners, victims of "interent bullying" roam the hallways, just like in the 1st Person shooter Video games........
1
The idea that the object of discussion is to “win” is a big part of the problem.
Winning arguments does not consist of having a wise-guy answer to every point your opponent makes and then saying, “because I said so!”
The NRA will, "Yeah, but . . ." any argument the restricts access to their lethal "toys." A person riled up by the NRA is not any position to think, only to respond with the "NRA line."
2
Yes, please. And more, thank you.
I'm trying to understand why the YouTube shooting story is buried 3-4 rows down on the mobile app, below several articles on Trump. There must be something about this story that makes it less .... convenient and opportune to report on.
1
To all the gun fanatics (notice I did not say responsible owners who agree with reasonable limits and laws and the right of the rest of us to live) who complain liberals don’t get to comment on gun control measures because we aren’t gun experts and commit the deplorable crime of using the wrong words when pleading for sanity: Fair enough. We can hold off on having a reasonable discussion until I become a gun expert and you become a trauma surgeon and can expertly save the life of a child whose body has been pulverized by a bullet from an AR-15. Then we’ll both have each other’s perspectives, eh?
8
So you're a trauma surgeon, then?
And only trauma surgeons are qualified to express anti-gun sentiments?
1
We are at a point in America where arguments cannot be "won" using fact, logic, and reason. We have two sides at each other's throats. Conservatives deny basic science. Liberals deny that there are any costs to immigration at all. There was a time when Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill could debate policy and have drinks afterwards. Those times are gone.
3
With due respect to the justly revered columnist, this column amounts to well-meaning nonsense. These arguments have been made already for decades to zero avail.
The path to "winning" is much simpler and more basic: The 90% of the voters who are not NRA members or dupes of its vile deceits, need to organize as an anti-NRA and work directly to rid Congress of all of its NRA tools.
5
I escaped Western PA Trump country. According to Facebook, many people I grew up with have stockpiles of weapons. It’s the white poor. They’re my extended family. (I no longer go to Thanksgiving.)
Imagine if all the gun-obsessed lived in one locale, and all of us without guns lived in another locale. And we stopped sending them our federal tax dollars to support their SSI, Medicaid, and opioid addictions.
Just a thought.
7
If they're poor, why do they waste their money on guns which probably sit unused most of the time? Guns aren't cheap. What is it they say about personal responsibility in these places?
2
You know, Person, I think that most of the people in the "middle" of the US would be just fine with that.
We could start by declaring NYC the 51st state and detaching it from Upstate NY. Around here, you've got more than enough votes already.
1
@bcb for the white poor gun owners I know, the guns are status symbols. They represent patriotism, strength, honor, and somehow also history.
I didn’t mention in the first post, but knowing these folks well and typically liking Kristof, I think he’s totally misguided in this article. There’s no reasoning with them—frankly they’re too uneducated. This is my family I’m talking about.
He needs to go spend some time in Trump country and see for himself. I suspect he’ll come running home shortly, and defeated.
The 2nd amendment must go.
Why argue? Get out and vote. And do a little digging on candidates and their relationship with NRA before you head out to the polls.
3
To preface: I am a gun owner, avid competitive shooter and firearms safety instructor.
I largely agree with Mr. Kristof on how he addresses a number of common poorly reasoned pro-gun arguments. However, I would like to draw attention to the title, about winning an argument.
So you've won a debate, then what?
Does your pro-gun opponent submit to you? Do they suddenly snap out of some delusion and now agree to whatever legislation you may agree with?
Many in the comments appear to believe that if you've so much as fired a gun you must therefore be a rabid foaming at the mouth Trump voter that cannot be reconciled with.
Presentation of these points is key to swaying an opponent. I believe asking questions such as "What's wrong with trying to save lives?" inherently dehumanizes them and will only set you back.
I suggest to anyone stuck in a debate, do not scold, but ask for a hand in forming a solution. Hear the other side out, it is fine to disagree but never stop looking for the common ground.
Don't forget that pro-gun advocates are also sending their children into the same schools where these horrific acts continue to happen.
4
Why shouldn't someone - anyone - have the choice (right) to end his/her own life? Guess we should institute a "suicide tax or fine" against their survivors?
1
It's easy to say "let's talk about gun safety"... and yet none of the proposals your side make actually make a difference in terms of "safety".
Right off the bat, you decide to bring in the Youtube shooter. While details are still emerging, I will wager that #1 the gun was obtained legally (and since it's in CA, it was with a 10-day waiting period and a BG check), and #2 the gun was most likely a handgun, not an "assault rifle". So the calls of Universal BG checks and assault rifle bans ring very hollow.
And there in lies the crux of the problem. Yes, reducing the suicide rate would actually help solve 2/3rds of the gun problem. Solving our gang issues would help resolve the majority of the remaining 1/3rd. But the anti-gun left doesn't seem to have any good solutions for either of those problems, aside from the tired tropes of AWBs and UBGs. It seems as though the hoplophobes aren't actually interested in solving the problem, but rather just restricting guns. Horses have left the barn long ago for that -- we have 400 million guns in this country, you're not going to restrict your way to paradise.
What, pray tell, do you propose to do about the suicide issue from a "common-sense" gun control perspective? You haven't mentioned any solution here.
1
"Gun control" is all about making sure black people don't have guns. It's a political convenience that hatred of rural cultures is a politically correct target for the gun control agenda.
2
There are about 100 "horse riding related deaths" each year in the U.S. Get ready for this argument from gun enthusiasts: "Instead of going after my guns because every once in a while somebody has an itchy trigger finger, why don't you finger Trigger instead?"
Is it easier to eliminate evil and insanity in society, or regulate weapons that these evil or insane people can access? This should be easy answer. The NRA and their ilk says mental health is the problem and everyone should be sane and good. Look in the mirror.
These arguments about guns, health care, and other obvious concerns of large developed societies should be a slam dunk for America to solve, given it's wealth and availability of mass education.
But they are not easily solved due to the negative forces that speak to individual selfishness rather than the needs of the group.
How embarrassing it is to be a member of a culture that insists on being so stupid.
How easy it was to solve the problem individually by simply moving to a more sane society. Sorry I can't do more for my fellow Americans instead of just looking out for myself!
2
If we couldn’t agree about what constitutes “common sense” gun laws after Sandy Hook, I fear it may take the dying off of a generation (influenced by NRA projected paranoia) before these Parkland kids can achieve their goals.
4
Suicide by firearm is statistically more final than most other means.
Suicide survivors may thereby receive liberation from their suicidal condition.
Arguments can't win debates if one side is not debating. You said yourself - 9 out of 10 Americans favor basic steps to reduce firearm violence. The rational argument has been won.
Then why is nothing happening? I believe it is because one very well financed and extremely well organized side is covering their ears with their hands and screaming no, no, no. That is not engaging in any dialogue.
So what is left? Vote them out and keep marching.
4
When has losing an argument ever convinced someone to change their views? Behavioral psychology indicates that the opposite is usually true. The loser clings all the more tightly to their original views. Therefore this objective of "winning" the abstract argument over whether gun control is good or bad policy (to be glib) is itself counterproductive to the end goal. Instead, those who want to actually MAKE A DIFFERENCE -- instead of just "winning arguments" and self-congratulating their own cleverness -- should pick a single concrete choose issue (like universal background checks) and work toward it. Stop calling such issues "common sense", as this instantly indicates to anyone who doesn't already agree with you that you view them as an idiot. Then in any conversation, express explicitly that this is simply your moral opinion, and that realize you don't have any moral superiority over your conversation partner -- but that even so you still strongly hold your beliefs. THEN you can begin to have a conversation about why you believe what you do. Be open to leaving ambigiuty & unresolved differences at conversation's end. Allow your conversation partner to feel the possibility that you might be swayed. People's views evolve slowly over time, as a result of many such respectful conversations where they feel listened to & where they feel like their views are respected (even if not agreed with). NOT from losing arguments to smug persons who got talking points from a NYT primer.
2
Mr. Kristof, Surely you don't expect your very reasoned and reasonable argument to actually win the argument?
1
We are in this crazy, sickening era of gun talk because the NRA funded its pool of revisionist historians and legal nitwits to rewrite the history of the Second Amendment. We now have people of all political and moral shades prefacing their remarks with a shout out to the Second Amendment. This country and English Law that preceded it have erected innumerable roadblocks to an "armed citizenry" in spite of Scalia's cherry picking to write his majority opinion. The militia clause is an integral part of that amendment and the ability of anyone to purchase the wide range of lethal weaponry with accompanying magazines, bullets, bump stocks, etc. is a damnable blot on our nation's character. Instead of Paul Ryan's damnable legislation to extend gun rights, we need right now universal background checks, technological ability to trace all bullets back to the guns they were fired from, locking mechanisms that only respond to the owner, strict rules for who can carry in public, total ban on AR-15's and the like with a mandatory buy back program and all the rest that will help eliminate this madness. And someone on the national stage who can tell the "Defense Against Tyranny" idiots that this is the 21st century with the most powerful standing army of all time and one composed of your sister Clara, nephew Tony and uncle Al.
2
Yawn. Let start from the start. More guns equals more gun deaths. Access to military weapons equals gun deaths on steroids. Any questions?
Gun zealots use the same flawed slippery slope argument that once the military weapons are ‘well regulated’, then next it will be all guns.
Bottom line: engaging in reasoned discussion with people who ultimately believe that their unregulated ‘right’ to have military weapons is worth more than all of the misery and death these weapons exact is particularly disgusting. It’s disgusting.
2
Kristol notes, "courts have found that the Second Amendment does not prevent sensible regulation (just as the First Amendment does not preclude laws on defamation)." This, to me, is the most salient point in any debate about gun rights vs. regulations.
I say this because what seems to be the greatest sticking point in such debates is gun owners' firm belief that regulation is the first step toward confiscation. It's not only the paranoid lunatics stockpiling weapons in anticipation of a raid from the ATF (or the U.N., or the Black Panthers, or whomever) who hold this view. Plenty of sane, law-abiding gun owners have expressed similar sentiments.
Therefore, we cannot say it often enough: No freedom is absolute, and sensible restrictions are not the same thing as draconian oppression. Kristof can freely express his opinions in these pages, but he does not have the right to knowingly libel a public figure. You can purchase a handgun or a hunting rifle from a legitimate gun dealer, but you should not be allowed to buy an assault weapon, no questions asked, off the back of a truck.
Mr. Kristof you left off training in your description of the ways we regulate automobiles to make them safer.
We don't let people drive unless they can demonstrate that they can do so safely. Yet almost any suburban 18 year old kid who learned everything he knows about firearms from playing video games can walk into a gun store buy an assault rifle and all the ammunition he wants. That's crazy!
We could easily argue that the 2nd Amendment phrase "well regulated" could be used as a valid argument to require training before owning the more lethal firearms.
But all this discussion is moot for now as the NRA and their GOP water carriers won't allow any of this.
3
There are different types of gun owners.
Some see it as a sport, so the 2nd amendment is irrelevant because sports or hunting are not protected.
Others claim self defense but usually from perceived criminals, not other powers so they’re not part of any regulated militia
Others have profound emotional insecurities and feel better about themselves by owning military style weapons . Again, no constitutional protection for feeling insecure or less manly.
Criminals and mentally ill are the core issue and these folks do not ask the questions that Mr. Kristoff eloquently addresses. There’s no room for so called healthy debate.
I think judge Stephens hit the nail on the head.
The 2nd amendment is anachronistic.
1
Never let a good crisis go to waste, eh?
What evidence do you have that the Youtube shooter would have been stopped by more extensive background checks? None, you admit? Then you might as well have raised Climate Change as somehow relevant to the discussion.
Car analogy? Fine. Make guns safer for the user, based upon the accidental harm they cause, just like cars. What’s that you say? Guns are already absolutely safe for the user? Well, then, what about safety for crime victims? Curiously, we haven’t been able to design a car that won’t mow down pedestrians, either.
“Evidence and data” are wonderful things! So, for instance, compare events in VT with those in NJ. Which state is freer – more liberal – with guns; which state has a bigger problem with guns?
Yes, facts. They’re stubborn things. So, for instance, compare suicide rates in restrictive HI with those in free VT. They’re the same. Back to the drawing board.
And a pool won’t protect you from a home invasion.
If you want to win the argument, the question ultimately boils down to this: are we, as a society, safer when only governmental officials – police and military – have access thereto? Looking back at the history of the 20th century, with a few hundred million unarmed victims of socialist governments, do you REALLY think that’s a wise bet?
“Paranoia” like that motivated the Framers. Right-wingers like HHH echoed it, because they understood humanity and history.
And we’re taking direction from teenagers.
1
One question is why adult congressional members are so susceptible to the NRA idiocy.
Another question: how would one enhance the chances of a) NRA, and b) congressional members, to read Kristoff's column,
Nicholas, if you can remember back to your Oregon days, probably the desired result of your argument will be similar to prohibition -passive resistance and deepening the divide. In your argument please look into the variation in gun homocides among the states with the best and worst in the D to F category and why we focus on low gun crime in Japan and So Korea but forget to address their suicide rates when the greatest proportion of US gun deaths are from suicide. The argument has become about which American tribe will win — not true dialogue and progress. It should not be an argument.
Very well written.
Very weak argument, Mr. Kristof. Your bosses at the Council on Foreign Relations will be disappointed. How many people were killed in Iraq and Vietnam? Are you going to disarm the military? Which lives are more valuable? I will disarm when the cops and the military do. I haven't killed anyone. And I thought Trump was Hitler or Mussolini. You would voluntarily disarm under the threat of a dangerous dictator? Come clean and admit that the president doesn't have much power in America.
We have a fundamental right as a human being of self-defense. And making the citizens a subservient class pretty much ends any hope of freedom.
1
You try to win with logic and reason. The NRA wins with dollars.
Thank you Nicholas.
The comparisons to automobiles and pools/bathtubs are not completely valid. Automobiles, pools and bathtubs are regularly and properly used for good reasons. And as you point out, they are regulated to increase safety.
There are only two purposes for firing a gun. The first is to kill someone or something. The gun under the pillow for protection is a myth that generally ends badly for the gun owner.
The other legitimate purpose is recreation. Guns used responsibly in a specified area with sensible regulation is certainly reasonable and most people probably would support that use.
All those weapons in well regulated Switzerland.
Switzerland ranks fifth in the world per-captia as an arms exporter behind Belarus, Sweden, Russia and Israel. The US lags behind in 6th place.
Gotta give them credit, they play that neutral country angle better than anyone.
2
Yeah given that I've made all those arguments to gun owners I can promise you they don't work.
Where or what Cities are the highest rate of gun violence? It seems obvious that these cities are all talk. Liberal Democrat Cities are manufacturing killers. Why blame the guns when it is the liberal democrats producing the fingers that are pulling the triggers. https://electxrextheelectriclion.nfshost.com/
1
When we can't even trust the police to use guns judiciously what makes us think the average person without training will? And this isn't a mental health issue. How many nazis were mentally ill? What about every terrorist who has ever lived? If the argument is in favor of apathy because there are ten million guns in this country; what about the ten million who get cancer every year? Are we giving up on them too, in a much tougher fight? Mob mentality and ignorance are the most pernicious things to human beings, and hubris will dull every sense we may have.
1
Re: Israelis and guns,I have been told from someone who lives there that they are only allowed to purchase 50 rounds per year. And if they loose or have their gun stolen, the consequences are serious.
2
We are past regulation - We need responsible citizenry and parenting! We have let an entire generation of children flourish unsupervised- left with electronic devices which now dictate their lives. We are Godless and liberal. We sacrificed the very fabric of American culture at the expense of globalism and multi -culturalism which destroyed our nation. Free college and health care for illegal aliens while we turned our back on the "forgotten man" .. Call it Trumpism .. I call it NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS - Trump will be re-elected in 2020.. because the liberal left hijacked common sense and paying for it now. It will be decades before this county is on a sane path to recovery .. but it's probably too late now anyway.
1
Most Americans who support 2A are in favor of reasonable gun regulations. The NRA should support reasonable gun regulations now because as the mass shootings continue Americans will get sick of the gun nuts refusing any reasonable regulations and move for a repeal of 2a, the NRA's worst nightmare. When one side refuses to budge on an issue they are at risk of losing everything, in this case they are at risk of losing their precious 2A. Time for the NRA to get smart before they lose it all.
Nicholas, here is my response as a gun owner and fan of the 2nd Amendment.
Cars: it doesn’t matter that cars have some safety features and regulation (guns have both). Cars should be banned anyway because in the end they still kill too many! (I think your argument does not hold water.)
What are ‘sensible’ gun laws? This is the gun controllers’ fuzzy and vague buzzword. When extended to gun owners, palm leaf in hand, with ‘sensible’ uttered, you intend, “just a wee bit more background-checking before you go through the checkout.” But, later we always learn it means banning all so-called assault rifles and even all semi-automatics. Guns must be registered, made inoperable and locked up. Essentially barred from use when needed! This is exactly what is being proposed in my state today!!!
About Suicides: Suicides happen anyway. Don’t glum onto one example about suicide by asphyxiation in the U.K. Look at Japan. That’s suicide run amok!
About our culture: You said, “...we magnify the toll when we make it easy for troubled people to explode with AR-15s rather than with pocketknives.” Well, do we? How about this: in London, the murder rate has now eclipsed New York’s murder rate. The leading method? KNIVES! Yes, that’s right. Knives. Another favorite and rising method in the U.K. and Europe: Murder by cars and trucks. Whoops, we’re back to that again.
(Cont)
1
Where are your voted sources, so their accuracy may be considered?
The youtube lady shooter seems really confused, how could she be an animals rights advocate and yet shoot humans who are also animals. Bizarre.
1
Excellent logic for a N.Y. Times audience and readership. Now, let's step into the real world. Until owning guns is more trouble than they're worth to the owner, the number of guns and violence is not going away. A few suggestions: Show photos of wounds and bloodied limbs. No more sanitizing the flesh damage. Headline the photos so people realize it could be them or their loved ones next. Make people pay. If your gun is stolen and used in a crime, you lose your house, possessions, retirement and go to jail because you did not exercise due caution. Add a $1000 fee on gun purchases with the funds dedicated to a public education campaign on gun violence prevention. Your gun mania is causing the problem, you help solve it. Invite legislators thwarting gun violence measures to gun ranges and put them to the test, then publish scores. Show the "good guy with a gun" is a myth and the average gun owner couldn't shot straight if their life depended on it. Americans exposed the cigarette lobby for what it is, time to do the same with weapons.
3
We don't have any real chance for productive gun regulations when the NRA begins the conversation with "god-given, constitutional right to bear arms". Tight background checks and a license renewal system are needed. Yes, regulations. No, we don't need confiscation of all guns.
Regulate and regulate some more. We have a problem. #Fix2A
2
Your best article ever.
It's not just about guns in this country. It's the whole culture. How else to explain the loose cannon being in the White House?
thank you! great points!
A friend’s dad gave me some advice in the form of a question in 1981 when I was merely a teen as his son and I were having an argument: Who is the bigger fool, the fool or the person that argues with the fool? I rely on that advice regularly, unfortunately. If we had an unbiased arbiter, countering irrationality with reason would make sense but that is not the reality we live in.
1
I hate to say it, but this article was just click bait. Nothing here is new or would compel any gun zealot to reconsider. We need some fresh ideas, like a small cadre of billionaires doing the right thing for this country by putting together a new NGO designed to make the NRA obsolete by outspending them. Can you imagine the social impact they could have?
2
Write as many of these article as you like, guns are NOT going away, not in this country, at least....
2
It is nice to see an intelligent response to the serious assertions of 12 year old boys, but if you are serious about ending gun violence, control the bullets. Even jerks such as Thomas and Alito will be hard pressed to argue that the 2nd Amendment protects bullets, particularly in light of Scalia's Heller opinion. No bullet, no bang, and nobody dies. Keep it simple, you are arguing with simpletons.
4
In Switzerland and Israel, a higher percentage of their citizens have semi-automatic weapons at home due to the requirements of their military. You trivialize this point by suggesting that they only have pocket knives.
1
Professor, so your research. It’s simply untrue. In Israel, gun ownership is tightly controlled and the numbers Re in the thousands - not millions.. You have to have a reason, you have to be over a certain rank in the military and permits are reviewed regularly.
Read about it here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israe...
3
If you can dismantle a false-equivalence, the gun debate is over as soon as it starts. Guns kill, period.
1
Before the Civil War, Southern States refused to discuss slavery in Congress, much like the NRA refuses to allow Government research on guns. We know how that worked out although many in the south are still upset about it. Both guns and slaves are rooted in money and profit. And, a lot of people have been brainwashed on the need to own a killing machine, just as a lot of people were convinced they couldn’t live without slaves long ago. In both instances, tragedy resulted.
2
You simply cannot argue with the "logic" used by the gunners, and the gun sellers don't care what you say, and neither to their bought-and-paid-for politicians.
1
A position arrived at by irrational emotion will not be swayed by logic.
We simply have to outnumber the crazies on election day. It is that simple.
4
Its unlikely that the Supreme Court will reverse Heller soon, even though it was only a 5-4 decision. Thus, repealing the 2nd amendment is the only realistic path forward. Once repealed, there can be realistic legal requirements for guns at the federal and state level, such as:
• high capacity magazine ban (more than 6 bullets)
• required training (including watching a graphic movie of shot and dead humans), licensing, registration, required insurance, annual testing, etc.
• criminal liability for having a gun stolen and used in a crime or an "accident"
• tax gun and ammunition sales to fully compensate the public health cost of gun violence
• cradle to grave tracking of all guns and ammo
• limit the amount of ammo possessed at one time
• a ban on carrying weapons in public that are loaded - why wait for the "accident" or the attack to start?
• required destruction of all confiscated firearms - melt them down
• a grace period of one year for existing possessors of firearms to pass the testing requirements for licensing, etc.
• oh yeah, allowing the federal crime gun tracing agency to be computerized, instead of having to use file cards - thank you NRA and your spineless servants in congress
And to those who say that we'll have to pry their guns from their cold dead fingers, we won't have to. You'll just have trouble getting ammunition and you'll have to pay the full cost instead of sticking it to the rest of us.
4
Reading this while in France where -- just like in every other advanced "civilized" countries in the world -- this never happens.
Trump utters the standard NRA reply: "thoughts and prayers".
Next he'll be calling for armed employees in all workplace cafeterias.
What a sick society America has become.
1
"No, it’s more about our violent culture. The Swiss and Israelis have large numbers of firearms, and they don’t have our levels of gun violence. Yes, there’s something to that." I would have said even no. It's not about culture. The Swiss and the Israeli watch the same violent (US) movies and play the same violent video games. The difference is that Swiss and Israeli guns are trully military tools for a "well regulated militia". Lunatics can't just show up and buy weapons in Switzerland and in Israel like in the US.
1
The gun control advocates are dishonest about their intentions. Their end goal is to make the private ownership of firearms within the United States illegal and make anyone who refuses to comply a criminal. It is similar to the right wing war on drugs which criminalized and marginalized large groups of American's liberal youth since the 1950's. If pressed they admit their goal is first handguns, then assault rifles, then all semi-automatic firearm, then bolt action rifles. Requiring every gun to be registered and certified where it is being stored will simplify confiscation. They say their goal is to make Americans safer but would it really make us safer? If you think Trump is scary and Pence is scarier and the police are the enemies of minorities, why would you want only the police and the army armed? In 2005, Congress pass the Real ID Act. The same people who want to take away firearms and list the names of all legal firearm owners opposed an effort to create verifiable identity cards because it was an intrusion into our privacy. So we need to protect privacy and allow millions of illegal immigrants to live in our country and allow other criminals to engage in different forms of fraud or violent crimes because privacy is vital to our society. At the same time, we need to disarm law-abiding Americans because public safety is vital. And, we need to allow the seriously mentally ill to live freely and unsupervised because restrictions would violate their rights.
1
"Tragically, predictably, infuriatingly, we’re again mourning a shooting — this time at YouTube’s headquarters "
I really don't think Nicholas Kristoff mourns the victims of shootings. Why shy should he, unless, of course, he is personally acquainted with the victims. How many people die in the USA on a daily basis? Does he mourn them? Why not? If he does indeed mourn all of those strangers then he must be an insane liberal by now.
I'll offer a bit of advice (free, of course) I learned not to mourn the deaths of strangers while working in a hospital emergency department. I used to mourn the death of a patient I encountered, but then there was another, and another, and several more. I soon learned, with the guidance of some well experienced nurses, some who had served in war, not to mourn stranger's deaths. It's not healthy, it's counter productive, it's a ritual, it's depressing. But maybe that is just an adjustment for a professional who has to deal with a lot of death and not for the average citizen who only sees death at the funeral home.
There. I won that one too. I'm takin' ovah, you see.
Repent Liberals. I have won the argument. The earth will shift, the seas will rise. The laws of logic in the western world have become null and void. Life is meaningless until you adapt to the new reality. I have won the argument!
1
Here's a gun fanatic argument you missed that I recently encountered: "Do you know why we've never been invaded by a foreign country? Armed citizens!"
My reply: Never mind that the US has been invaded (albeit long ago), how about those giant oceans on either side of us? If one can't win a land war in Russia largely due to long supply lines, how would a country wage war against us from across the sea? Not very successfully! Just ask Germany and Japan.
1
Any gun-fanatic who claims we've never been invaded needs to go back to 6th grade.
The British burned Washington DC in the War of 1812.
It is not possible to "win" an argument about guns with gun rights activists because their positions and rationales have little to do with guns. Guns are simply a symbol-- A symbol of power and masculinity. If you take away their guns or limit their access to them, they are threatened by and fear their loss of power and masculinity (think "gun" as "phallus"). And the reason assault rifles are so desirable to them, is thqt their belief is that the bigger their gun, the more masculine (and powerful) they are. Until this definitional link is broken, it will be very hard to "win" an argument with a gun rights activist.
This is great; liberals need a lot more help with talking points than they get. There should be a repository of Q&A by subject on the NYT for tax cuts, income inequality, climate science, economic stimulus, etc.
What's wrong with trying to save lives? It costs the NRA money, that's what's wrong with trying to save lives. Right-wingers have been emotionally manipulated by NRA propaganda, and they are immune to reason and logic, no matter how sturdy and eloquently presented that reason and logic may be.
Please stop, Mr. Kristof. Your arguments are full of logic, reason and facts, and as such, have no place in the gun debate when the other side is playing by a different set of rules.
1
Actually, Israel has some of the strictest gun-control laws in the world. The average citizen isn't able to walk around with firearms without proof of need and proof of training.
1
Look, if the author is going to use facts on this situation, I'm afraid we will have to part ways.
1
Reading this while in France where -- just like in every other advanced "civilized" country in the world -- this never happens.
Trump utters the standard NRA reply: "thoughts and prayers".
Next he'll be calling for armed employees in all workplace cafeterias.
What a sick society America has become.
1
"No one argues that there is an individual right to own an antiaircraft gun" -- yet! Just wait; someone somewhere will be arguing in favor of this...
1
How to Win an Argument About Guns......Pose this question to anyone: If you are attending an event and a shooter enters, would you rather the shooter be armed with a handgun, a conventional hunting rifle, or an AR-15 with high capacity clip?
If you are attending an event and a shooter enters... would you rather be armed or unarmed?
public safety and welfare may justify limiting constitutional rights. We cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, nor are we allowed to make terroristic threats to another. Trigger locks, smart guns and clip limits would be good regulatory starts, along with background checks for all. And if you allow your child to use one of your own weapons to injure or kill another, you should be facing jail time as well.
As a Southern gun owner, I can sadly say I have known at least four people who have been shot, at various times over the years, of whom only two survived. None of the people pulling the triggers were mentally unfit or insane. Angry, stupid, and/or depressed, but not insane. The whole argument that focusing on the mentally ill to solve our national epidemic of suicides and mass shootings is missing the point. You don’t have to be crazy to use the most convenient and effective method for taking a life.
A gun is a permanent solution for temporary problems.
You can argue until you’re blue in the face with people who see their gun as the last hope against a dangerous world, but there are some dogs that will chase cars, no matter how many times they get run over.
The old saw about “from my cold dead hands” is not hyperbole for those whose identities are tied to their guns, but appealing to reason is still useful.
Honestly ask them how to keep guns from the hands of children. Remind them that machine guns aren’t legal and that there have always been limits on gun ownership. Ask how do we as a society keep guns from irresponsible people?
And about that tyrannical government they’re saving up guns to overthrow? Remind them they will have to shoot some venerated American Servicemen first.
226
Well-made points re guns enabling suicide, protecting against "irresponsible" people, historic 2nd Amdmt limits, and the right wing scenario of killing government soldiers, KHL.
Re "The old saw about 'from my cold dead hands'" not being "hyperbole for those whose identities are tied to their guns":
To my knowledge, "cold dead hands" is not just an old saw, but originated as an NRA slogan as far back as the 1970s and was later popularized by then-NRA-President Charlton Heston shortly after a 1989 mass school shooting sparked calls for an assault weapons ban.
And right wing apologists wonder how we can accuse gun lovers of being complicit in the mass murder of children - of choosing their unrestricted "right" to any gun over children's lives.
http://www.quotecounterquote.com/2010/04/from-my-cold-dead-hands-charlto...
3
"A gun is a permanent solution for temporary problems."
Nope. Not necessarily. I've known someone who killed himself with a gun because he was diagnosed with early onset dementia. I would have done the same.
2
Great article.
Too many words!!!! That's the lefts problem. To heady.
"WELL REGULATED"
Two words. End of argument, on their own terms according to their own amendment.
1
Remember States Rights??? Let the voters in each State decide. The Red States can have and keep as many Guns as they wish. In their own State.
The rest of us can move out, and live somewhere sane. Absolutely NO transporting Guns between States. Goodbye Kansas, Hello Seattle.
Permanently.
Thanks for your intelligent article.
The second amendment of the US constitution is outdated in the US. (The Swiss still operate on it, with military issued weapons at home - it arguably prevented the Nazis from occupying Switzerland)
The Constitutions specifies how to update it.
It is time to try it.
The American people is ready.
No mention of mental health = no argument = joke = DOA. Sorry.
1
The only way to “win” an argument is to convince the public at large.
The left chooses, here, to do so via distortion. Slap a black finish onto an AR-15 lower and bam it’s an assault baby-shooter 9000. Put a wood grain finish around the lower and now it’s the sort of rifle the gun experts of NYC and SF think you ought to be “allowed” to use for hunting, which they know nothing about.
Good debate!
1
All good arguments, and all used constantly in a hundred comment threads on news sites and Facebook every day, and all roll off the backs of the atavistic gun worshipers like water off a duck.
1
The NRA would love to support anti aircraft guns for anyone if it would help expand its base and revenue. Legislators who bow to the god of the NRA should be booted from office.
lawn darts, banned. guns, still for sale.
I've got two sets of lawn darts in the shed.
Are you going to come and take them from me?
Bravo, Mr. Kristof!
I like to read science fiction. A good writer can use past and current trends to literally see into the future, and imagine for his readers how things might be different than today, for better or worse. One of the most popular subjects is what form our means of self defense might take, if societies evolve in various ways.
In Star Trek, society has apparently moved into a middle area. Guns that shoot metal with an explosive charge are historical relics, and instead our intrepid explorers use a multi function device that would seem to be based on some form of controllable energy, that, while still lethal when needed, can also be used to “stun”, temporarily incapacitating another life form while problems were worked out - perhaps restraining the threat, or perhaps exiting the scene before “it” recovered. We are close to that tech with the taser, and I have no doubt that the same technology that enables cell phone charging without wires or even physical contact with a charger could help bring the Phaser to reality.
Star Trek also showed us the future of communication, the flip phone. With incentives, industry worked that out, and continuous enhancements are being made - Kirk could only talk and hear, today we can see and record video, and send it to dozens or hundreds, or thousands, in a few seconds.
The argument should be, what should replace the Gun, once society decides to move past it? Who will make the next big thing in self defense?
There is no justifiable comparison of the proposed mandatory registration of guns and licensing of their owners with that currently required for owning and driving motor vehicles. If people believed that registering cars could ultimately result in their seizure by the government, their attitude toward car registration would be skeptical at best. But with respect to the ownership and operation of automobiles, the government makes a sincere attempt to provide positive, increased driver competence (through education) and car quality (through consumer protection), resulting in the public's confidence in the cars on the road and the drivers at the wheel. The government’s efforts advance car ownership and use, rather than preventing it.
If the government becomes active in promoting gun ownership in a positive, proactive manner, and actively supports firearms training as a benefit to the security of our community and society, then I’ll listen to a rational argument supporting government regulation of firearms ownership. Unfortunately, the call for registration and licensing of gun owners and their weapons appears to be a cover for another purpose: the elimination of the exercise of the right to own and carry firearms.
1
We place locks on ignitions and on car doors; require cars to be licensed; require testing of prospective drivers; require regular brake, tire, steering, and other component testing; require emissions standards; require a minimum age of drivers; require the use of seatbelts; require the use of child car seats; require glasses to be worn by drivers as dictated by medical practitioners; prohibit DUI convicts and those under the influence from driving. These are far more preventive, and intelligent measures in the governance of a lethal weapon we know as cars than simply "training" individuals to drive safely.
Would you be willing to place your guns in an armory just like the military is required to do? If not, why not? They don't seem to have a problem with it; nor should you.
I keep my guns in a safe, which is my own personal armory. The military uses armories for weapons owned by the military, not those owned by individual service members.
Last I checked, all states have a minimum age for gun purchase. In those states which respect liberty, there is also a minimum age for concealed carry permits. There are also laws prohibiting convicted felons from buying or owning guns.
Until every gun own is a member of a well regulated militia we are not following the constitution as written by the founders that conservatives hold so dear.
177
Regulated by whom? Citizen vigilante groups in Uganda and South Africa are sanctioned by political parties and are an affront to democracy. If citizens feel the need to participate in armed, organized crime fighting then they should make a commitment to join a police force or the military.
5
"Until every gun own is a member of a well regulated militia we are not following the constitution as written by the founders that conservatives hold so dear."
Until you understand the second part, ..."the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", then you don't understand the whole argument behind the Bill of Rights in the first place.
6
Tom - You don't understand the 18th century context of well regulated. You should be mustering and training with a state militia (guard?) to have the right to that gun you keep for militia call up. No militia, no inherent right to ego-stroking military weaponry (you know, bullet throwers).
9
It is interesting that Mr. Kristof draws an analogy to swimming pools at the end of his essay. Like swimming pools, any gun should be deemed by the law to be an "attractive nuisance," meaning that its presence presents a heightened level of danger and risk and can attract others, especially children, to use, explore or play with it. In civil law, when someone is injured or killed and attractive nuisance is involved the burden of proof shifts from the plaintiff to the defendant or respondent to prove the attractive nuisance did not cause the injury or death. Guns of any kind are obvious attractive nuisances and should be treated as such by the law and the courts. I do not know why they are not.
2
You're absolutely right that preventing access to firearms would prevent a certain number of suicides because, as you pointed out, research shows that people don't always seek substitutes. My objection to including suicides in the gun violence statistics is not because we cannot do anything about the suicides, but that the root causes are different. You concede that there must be something to the influence of cultural differences because of places like Switzerland and Israel with lots of guns and lower violence. Wouldn't you expect different factors to influence single homicide, mass shootings, and suicide? The statistics also usually include accidental death, but its inclusion is less of an issue only because it's such a small percentage of the statistic. Suicide is not (60.7% in the 2015 data). I want the conversation to move towards reasonable solutions. Maybe some of that is gun control and some social programs. Maybe it's all gun control. Whatever it is, we'll get there faster if we understand the problem better and including suicides in the statistic doesn't help with that. If you wanted to discuss suicide prevention, would you compare the number of bridge jumps to all firearm deaths? Of course not. You'd compare it to suicides by firearm. We can also have a concomitant discussion about how to limit firearm suicides, but if we don't expect the same measures to address both issues why would you defiantly lump them together?
Also, domestic violence victims should be included in numbers. Many women die from guns used against them.
Have to wonder if pro-gun Congressmen would think differently if they knew their child would be one of the 30,000 gun deaths this year.
4
What about the majority of guns stolen not from cars or other people, but from family and friends? I'm not saying we don't need some regulation, but an AR-15 is a tool. It's not a military rifle, but quite the opposite. The AR-15 was actually a prototype for the Army, but its original maker, Arma-Lite (hence "AR"), didn't sell well so they gave it to Colt, who helped to sell it as the M-16 and later M-4. After the patent expired in the 70's, Colt lost the patent, making a great profit selling them to the public as the "AR-15". It was well loved by the US for its lightweight due to its aircraft-grade aluminum alloy body, light recoil from its .223/5.56 NATO (all army rounds steal the design of its civilian brother), and its modular nature for being able to be used by many people. Also, that background check number, how many of those background checks are from private sellers, and why not tell us the number of guns from private sellers used in crimes instead? The rights in the Constitution don't give any rights, but are there to make sure the government has to acknowledge them as rights of all people. Well-regulated means how you get something is controlled, not restricting what you can own. The NRA supports background checks, but won't force private sellers not doing it for business to do a check since only licensed sellers have access to NICS. How many crimes are stopped with guns, not just killed? Also, you are using the bandwagon argument to support "limits"?
Then he reaches for his weapon and the argument is over.
1
Gun lovers are not listening. Your arguments are sensible & logical. You make great points. Yet your responses will fall on deaf ears. Gun lovers (note I didn't say gun owners, plenty of them are calling for more gun control) are unteachable. They are like the man with emphysema who continues to smoke a pack a day while on oxygen. No calm, reasonable education about the consequences of said smoking, i.e. not being able to breathe, will change their behavior. No amount of scientific fact will convince gun lovers that gun control will reduce gun deaths.
6
Furthermore, Mr. Kristof, your rebuttal to the perennial “Swiss/Israeli” NRA talking point was singularly uninformed. It’s not the differing levels of violent tendencies among our societies which is the deciding factor. It’s the entirely different approach to a universally shared service, ie, military service, that makes civilian firearm possession in Switzerland and Israel completely non-analogous to US civilian gun ownership. As a Swiss friend once pointed out, the years of compulsory military service performed by nearly every young Swiss male provides a great mechanism for sifting out those with violent tendencies who should not have access to guns. Plus, in the Swiss and Israeli armies, young soldiers receive extensive gun safety training. Plus the guns the Swiss get after their military service are very regulated, must be stored, unloaded, and in a separate place from the ammo, and on. And on.
A completely disingenuous comparison, which gun nuts LOVE to trot out, ignorantly and incessantly.
2
Can you win an argument with people whose beliefs are based in faith not reason?
2
About the 2nd Amendment Deception …
Despite all the repetitive and fallacious assertions about the absolute 2nd amendment “right”, the landmark 2008 Supreme Court Heller Decision (District of Columbia vs.Heller) makes it absolutely clear that this right is far from unlimited and absolute. Scalia wrote as follows:
(Section II, 1. Operative clause, sub-section c, paragraph 5: “Thus, we do not read the 2nd Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation”).
(Section III, paragraph 1: “Like most rights, the right secured by the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited” … “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms”.
(Section III, paragraph 2: “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms .. as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those [in common use at the time] 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of [dangerous and unusual weapons].”
These clearly articulated 2nd amendment limitations open the door for a wide range of entirely permissible firearm regulations consistent with the limitations enumerated in the Decision.
3
So why don’t the media and other bastions of sanity point out the finer points of this Supreme Court decision? It is so self-evident that constraints can be imposed. Where are the voices other than yours? What a shame.
1
I wish I had an answer. But, I will tell you this ... I've posted this exact comment on various well known conservative sites, and they don't like it one bit. While not surprising, that does tell you something.
This is a good primer for how to win an argument against a weak opponent, one who is prone to constructing easily-collapsed straw men. Cars? Ovens? Bathtubs? You need to refute more serious arguments than that, I'm afraid, and if you don't know of any, look harder. It's a serious trade-off, not as easily dismissed as you would have it.
1
The laws and regulations we have are in response to problems or potential problems. Yet, when it comes to guns, gun owners want no laws or regulations. I'm convinced what they want most is a reason to use their weapons whether it be for hunting or to shoot someone in self-defense. Guns are meant to destroy a life. They were never intended for shooting soda cans off fence posts.
Ours is a culture of violence. On our behalf our government allows the manufacture of guns, as well as their export and import. We arm rebels and terrorists around the world so they can undermine governments we don't like. There's money to be had when we support violence.
When will this stop? Maybe when we beat our guns into ploughshares and begin to build community. Until we do, expect more shootings and more senseless dying.
1
If Mr. Kristof has one failure with this article, it is believing that these arguments are being made in good faith. They aren't; they are window dressing to, and redirection from, the real argument that Mr. Kristof doesn't acknowledge:
"My assault rifles are more important to me than those 1.4 million dead people."
2
Unfortunately, you are assuming the rationality of gun rights advocates.
1
Follow the money. Gun lobbyists pay off people running for office to block tougher legislation that protects the rest of us and our children.
1
These are not the arguments presented to me. What I am told is that "My right to own a gun is God-given, beyond the reach of Man's laws." How do you argue against that?
You argue "Turn the other cheek."
But there is no guarantee you will win, as that didn't work too well for JC in the end.
2/3 of gun death's are suicides. Of the remaining 1/3, about, 12,000, probably 10,000 are black on black inner city gang homicides. So only about 2,000 homicides are just regular Americans killing each other. That's a pretty small number. Your last sentence, "what's wrong with trying to save lives?" Is it the government's responsibility to prevent suicides? What is the government's interest in preventing suicides? Why would the government care if someone wants to commit suicide? One might not have the right to end someone else's life, but that same person certainly has the right to end their own.
1
Thanks for this it helps me talk to my Dad, who is crazed on this topic. Everyone wants to feel like they’ve been heard. Trump cheated to win, but he also played on our lizard brains, the part that wins when rational thought stops!
I'm frustrated by the specious argument that guns are like cars when it comes to deaths. Cars are designed for transportation quickly and safely. Deaths are from accidents. Guns have only one purpose only - to maim or kill. No one should have that power over others, only the government is allowed to fight wars or put people to death as punishment. Sure guns are amazing machines and target shooting is fun, but all that fun is not worth one life. If all guns are banished, there is no need to have a gun for any imagined self defense.
What Kristoff neglected to mention: Cars have a valuable utility to the public. Semi-automaic weapons have none. Their sole purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time possible.
2
They have an excellent utility in self defense, especially against more than one assailant, as the Korean store owners in LA discovered during the Rodney King riots. If that is not important to you, then there isn't much to discuss.
Suicide barriers on bridges and less lethal gas in British ovens have decreased the number of suicides. But Mr. Kristof neglects to tell us how uniform background checks will decrease the number of firearm suicides in America.
One doesn't need a semi-automatic rifle, a bump stock, a high capacity magazine, or a weapon purchased at a gun show to commit suicide. So what, specifically, is he proposing?
2
Perhaps if more attention and coverage were devoted to the tragedy of suicide by firearm, firearms owners might begin to see the humanity they share with the victims, and some serious harm-reduction proposals might arrive on the table.
This column, like most of the Times coverage, seizes on and raises the profile of a multiple homicide, and uses it as a club to beat up a series of straw men, all in an attempt to further a goal that is as likely to be achieved as the deportation of all the undocumented immigrants from the country.
Instead of these incessant reminders that Congress hasn't changed its approach to firearms in the last 6 years, how about giving some serious thought to changing yours?
1
Alas, if only this debate was about reason . . .
Still, thank you for this.
The pro-gun arguments constructed by Mr. Kristof all flunk Logic 1. They are based upon emotion and buzz words. I don't know if these are their actual assertions. I do know that it is a fool's errand to try to have a rational discussion with people who are incapable of understanding a basic syllogism, who mix apples with oranges and who have zero interest in consensus.
You forgot the “Tyranny!” argument in which guns are meant to protect us from the government. That argument a) doesn’t mean guns shouldn’t be more carefully regulated and b) assumes that are friends and family in the military would traitorously oppress us on behalf of a dictator, a noxious and false notion.
active shooter with a handgun: three wounded, one in critical condition. Active shooter with a AR-15: 17 dead, 17 more wounded. Simple math! And it's not just the magazine capacity and rate of fire - each bullet from an assault rifle does horrifically more damage to a living body than the same shot from a handgun. A trained and practiced user with a handgun is totally capable of defending herself by incapacitating (and yes, potentially killing) an assailant. There's no civilized reason for anyone to have private possession and use of a weapon of mass slaughter.
208
Active Shooter with a handgun at VA Tech
32 Dead 17 wounded by gunfire some severely!
Shooter used "low capacity" magazines
By your math a handgun is just as dangerous if not more so than a rifle
I'm willing to bet if you had the misfortune to be there that day and someone handed you an AR you'd have taken it just as quickly as any sane individual would have...
Same as you would have done if they handed you a shotgun
Only difference? You'd likely find the AR easier on your shoulder than a Shotgun...
5
What about Virginia Tech?
4
Virginia Tech, 32 dead, pistol. I doubt that the Youtube shooter was very familiar with firearms.
5
There is no middle ground between those of us who value the right to keep and bear arms for defense of ourselves and our country and those who want guns banned (either de jure or de facto) for civilians. Most of you are calling for just that (a ban on semi-autos is a de facto ban on all guns). With this in mind, don’t expect us to “compronise” with you.
1
we need more and better data so we stop arguing opinions and argue with facts.
A true analysis that should resonate with families and public health advocates alike. The problem is that many gun owners would agree with your positions, however, the support of gun lobbyists to prevent such research and dialogue drown out such reasonable conversation. At the American Academy of Nursing we have called for a National Bipartisan Commission to amplify reasonable conversation and approach to solutions of gun violence that everyone is against, albeit on a continuum of how one defines gun violence. See the American Academy of Nursing's position on our web site www.aannet.org.
Eileen Sullivan-Marx, PhD, RN, FAAN
Dean, NYU Meyers Nursing
President Elect AAN
You know who I am thoroughly sick of hearing about?
"Law-abiding gun owners," that’s who.
I know they exist, but I am tired of having to buy them all a cookie every time somebody shoots up a school or a church or a country music concert in Las Vegas.
I’m tired of taking them into consideration.
I have no more room for them, their feelings, or their phony innocence.
There are no more seats left on my Consideration Train.
There are too many coffins on board these days.
You do not need to consider them, as you go on with your life, but nor do they need to consider you, as they exercise their Constitutionally protected rights.
Those who twist the 2nd Amendment away from the establishment of a well-regulated militia and toward an individual right to own any "arms" they choose are not offering a rational argument. And you simply cannot conduct a rational argument with irrational people, let alone "win" one.
Re: The violence in the US vs. Israel and Switzerland. The UK is a violent country (it invented soccer hooliganism) - but dispute resolution ends in the ER, not the morgue. As evidence, consider that the non-gun murder rate is also higher in the US than it is in the UK.
Even with universal background checks, restrictions on high powered weapons and better mental health screening we will still need a cultural change away from the "shoot first"/"stand you ground" mindset.
How to win an argument about guns? Don't start one, don't participate in one.
1
Vote. Period. Winning an argument will be tough, although Mr. Kristoff give us excellent talking points, simply because a certain percentage of gun owners, especially the super owners (those who own stockpiles of various guns), see red at the words “gun control.” It is visceral. Listen to Charleston Heston in his NRA clip quoting “from my cold dead hands.” That’s the only circumstance from which you will wrest my guns from me. (Listen to the most excellent Radio Lab piece “More Perfect - The Gun Show” for a great overview of the 2nd Amandment and the NRA). Let the conversation continue, but VOTE.
Rationalizing with irrational people won't get anywhere and that's what we're dealing with in this country. The biggest problem about the gun debate is how our politicians are voted in--they are no longer representing their citizen constituents but rather the organizations that provide their campaign financing. Until we change how campaigns are financed (i.e., get rid of Citizens United), we, the people, will never see what we want because ultimately, our politicians are bought and paid for.
Thanks for the article. In my debates with gun advocates, some civil and some not, all these arguments have been used, including some curious ones such as reference to "pickle guns". The fact is the NRA continues to create and disseminate fallacious factoids to defend guns in the face of the most recent mass shooting.
Reasoned commentary such as yours helps to blunt the NRA lies.
Good column Nick. Completely agree with your case here. Wished you had gotten to the heart of the matter about assault rifles. We had an assault rifle ban. Mass shootings after it was lifted became more deadly because THAT weapon is so readily available. The real warriors in the armed services or law enforcement should be the only people to have these weapons, not wannabe hombres who strut around town with their big fire power, little egos and insecure desires to imtimidate others.
1
While pure ignorance plays a large part in the gun ownership lack of regulations, there is little doubt that American cultural attitudes, that cowboy "my way or the highway" attitude, further drives the ignorant mentality.
Regulations governing ownership of guns are considered normal and desirable nearly everywhere on the planet, yet the United States of America, historically looked to for guidance, has fallen flat on its face in this regard, and it's government is apparently not listening to reasonable suggested measures to end gun violence, driven by myraid corporate interests getting richer off the killing and mayhem.
About that argument that both the Swiss and the Israelis have large numbers of firearms, a little peer-reviewed science here (open access article): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3267868/. From the Abstract: "Gun advocates claim that mass-casualty events are mitigated and deterred with three policies: (1) permissive gun laws, (2) widespread gun ownership, (3) encouragement of armed civilians who can intercept shooters, and cite Switzerland and Israel as exemplars. We evaluate these claims with analysis of International Crime Victimization Survey (ICVS) data and translation of laws and original source material. Swiss and Israeli laws limit firearm ownership and require permit renewal 14 times annually. ICVS analysis finds that the US has more firearms per capita and per household than either country. Switzerland and Israel curtail off-duty soldiers firearm access to prevent firearm deaths. Suicide among soldiers decreased by 40% after the Israeli armys 2006 reforms. Compared with the US, Switzerland and Israel have lower gun ownership and stricter gun laws, and their policies discourage personal gun ownership."
You are missing the point. Arguing the facts won’t get you anywhere with the arms sellers who fund the gun lobby and the republican legistators.
The shallow, easily disproved arguments are not meant to be a serious discussion of public safety. All it is meant to do is give political cover for the cowardly legislators to do nothing and continue to receive campaign help, or at the very least, not be attacked from even more right wing primary challengers.
A Facebook acquaintance spewed the tired "good guy with gun/bad guy with gun" argument. I won that argument by pointing out that a good guy with a gun couldn't have done anything to stop the Las Vegas shooter. In fact he might've made it worse.
Thank yo so much for this reasoned argument for sensible gun control laws. I fear that gun fanatics will still find their "alternative facts" to bolster their false claims that "guns don't kill people" argument. There is no reasoning with those people.
Try to exercise your Second Amendment rights in NYC or NJ (for example) and you will understand what “sensible regulation” of firearms is all about. Not a big trust builder.
1
Whenever a second amendment supporter claims his/her unfettered right to a gun, I start my response with tactical nuclear weapons. Can I have one? No? Why not? And as we work our way down in killing power from tanks to bazookas, hand grenades to 50mm sniper rifle- all of which the government prevent me from owning - they eventually have to admit we can regulate their gun ownership. It’s about line drawing, nothing more.
Yes, Nick you win the argument if your interlocutor accepts the idea that an argument is a line of reason that is logical and rational and the superior power thereof will persuade—or “win”.
But..if your interlocutor lives in a fantasy world that envisions armed citizens in gunfights with criminals for their protection, you lose. And if his other operative fantasy is that citizens need to have assault weapons to protect themselves from the government coming to seize their assault weapons (fantasy + circular reasoning), you can’t win.
Finally, if you are trying to persuade people whose livelihood as a lobbyist, gun manufacturer or politician is threatened by your proposal—forget it.
The high school kids have it right—identify the politicians standing in the way and vote them out. And remember that even if the government successfully bans assault weapons, expands background checks and 5 years from now, the number of deaths from GSW’s goes down—those facts will not persuade the crackpot fantasists and the cynical charlatans who lead them.
1
Someone please explain to me why, when citing the 36,000 gun-death figures, it's not fair to include suicides. A suicide with a gun is a gun death. Full stop.
One of the problem with guns is their ubiquity. If a severely depressed person does not have access to a gun, the likelihood of that person's death by his or her own hand goes way down.
1
I believe that if you really want to kill yourself, though I probably disagree with you doing so, in the end, you have that right. Full stop.
Yes, Mr. Kristof. Thank you for an excellent column.
I don't want to take away anyone's guns, but can't even gun owners admit that arms of war do not belong in the hands of public citizenry? The laws that have been passed in response to the NRA are certifiably crazy. Doctors in Florida are prohibited from asking patients if there are guns in the home. This should be a standard question for every pediatrician and psychiatrist. If gun owners could acknowledge sensible rules and regulations just as the auto industry and legislatures do, this polarizing impass could be dealt with. I am surprised that the NRA has not approached car dealerships with stocking sherman tanks in their inventory. That is just another weapon of war, like the ar 15.
This assumes the gunsters listening are rational. My experience with them is ttelling. They don't care how many die so they can continue to play with their gun toys.
None are able or willing to possess empathy for the dead.
Decent article, but including suicides in your statistics is a mistake and it undermines your entire article. You should compare the suicide rates with gun ownership for developed countries. Japan, for example, has a really high suicide rate and almost no guns.
1
Good arguments. We‘ve heard them before but they do not penetrate the mental armour that gun lovers wear. Their essential argument is “I want a gun and I have a right to have what I want.” Everything else is rationalization. Argument is pointless. The only solution is to find the majorities needed to pass and enforce sensible controls.
This is the standard Liberal argument. That is, it offers various logical thingies. It tries to set the question as being decided by logical thingies.
But that is not the real question. The real question is freedom. Freedom is not determined by such arguments. Its decided by the people, and who has the power (including the biggest baddest guns) to stop the other side.
Abortion is murder, and the left wing currently has the biggest guns. This need not last forever. If the anti abortionists get the political power, they will provide the "logical thingie" editorials.
If gun lovers haven't changed their minds after all the massacres, they aren't going to. Their reps have to be voted out of the house and senate and the WH.
Add to your list acknowledgment that sometimes the good guys with guns do win:
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/macomb/2017/02/01/rosevi...
https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/attempted-armed-robber-shot-by-victi...
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/macomb/2016/08/23/eastpo...
1
There is little to add to your excellent article, Mr. Kristof. except that we cannot seem to explain why Trump and Congress are voluntarily blind to 90% of the people they supposedly represent. Perhaps the first step to a solution is to replace them as quickly as legally possible with representatives who truly represent us. Thank you for your logic, your cogency, and your wisdom.
2
A good point is made that we regulate cars to reduce their deadliness. Perhaps if gun owners should be required to be licensed with regular renewals and demonstrations of fitness. Like cars, they should carry liability insurance with higher rates for deadlier weapons. Cars have built in safety equipment that improves with each new model. Guns should have built in safety features. Cars must meet certain standards to be used on public roads. Why not guns?
3
Note that we do regulate what kinds of cars are allowed to drive on the road. We do not permit people to drive down the freeway in a tank. All cars are required to meet certain safety standards. You have to have a license to drive one. We might have even more cars on the road if this wasn't true, but the highways would be a much more hazardous place for people to interact. It's not about taking away all guns, as so many gun owners seem to fear, it's about doing better to ensure guns are used safely.
4
A short, simple question: If a person wants to walk into a school and murder children with guns, should it be easy for that person to acquire those guns?
It seems logical, that it should be difficult, but, for some reason this not universally agreed upon.
Every single day, this issue is debated, editorialised, and argued in papers, magazines, and blogs; on talk radio, cable channels, and around dinner tables.
Another question: Why is our society creating so many people who want to buy guns to perpetrate mass-murder?
This question, however, is not endlessly debated, and editorialised; and argued every day, and every where.
Why? It seems obvious to me that these questions are two sides of the same bloody coin.
There are those who tell us - tell our children, to be afraid of terrorists, immigrants, those who look, sound, love, or, worship different. But, by the thousands, every year; from cities, to suburbs, to small towns, who is spilling the most blood? Who should we truly be afraid of?
And if we are so afraid of ourselves that we must arm elementary school teachers with guns, will the minds of those lost, murdering souls suddenly, magically untwist? Will their murderous energy just stop, or will it merely be redirected? Will the contagion be cured, or will it mutate?
Is America great again yet?
Far, far, away, those who wish to destroy this country, it seems, must be coming to realize that, for the most part, we are doing their job for them.
189
Making America Grieve Again
17
You seem to be able to use your First Amendment without any troubles at all. Speech has killed more folks than anything. Wasn't it the Free Speech of the bullies that bullied the Florida shooter that set him off? Not to mention other shooters?
How many have committed suicide due to someone's Free Speech? Hitler didn't even have Free Speech, but he was able, through Speech, to get all kinds of folks killed. So we aren't even talking of just Free Speech, it's obviously any Speech. Remember Jim Jones? He didn't force anyone physically, He spoke to them.
So what are your solutions to the Speech problem? Shouldn't you not be speaking to stand up against Speech?
2
"We have met the enemy and he is us." ~Pogo, 1970
Retake on the old battle report "We have met the enemy and he is ours."
2
VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!
4
More grossly uninformed generalizations regarding firearms and the individuals that, for whatever reason, choose to own & advocate for the common ownership of firearms.
Gun owners are not stereotypically conservative. Though as a group they no doubt lean more to the right than the population as a whole, there are many democrats & independents, many who support typically liberal political positions. Almost everyone that I know that owns a firearm, first & foremost, believes in Freedom. Capital F! Way too many "conservatives" are thinly closeted authoritarians.
No thinking person can fail to appreciate the emotional aspects of gun violence or the validity of the feelings of those affected. That being said, the nearly irresistable appeal of simple answers combined with the inevitable assumption of moral superiority makes for a really disturbing display of rational shutdown.
Study the intellectual foundations of democracy. Read some serious history. Don't fall into the thinly veiled Holocaust denial that dismisses the lives lost in the past and those at risk in the future. The cost of tyranny far outweighs the cost of maintaining freedom, though that is the only cost we experience directly here.
While there is much to admire among the survivors of MSD & they are obviously worthy of our compassion, we need to keep our perspective. Undue influence bestowed upon frightened children does not serve democracy. Our freedom depends on the commitment of courageous adults.
2
California has strict gun laws and this still happened. Could it be because gun laws do not stop bad guys from getting guns?
15
States with stricter gun laws, have a lower rate of gun related deaths than states with fewer/more lenient fire arm regulations.
That's a statistical fact.
36
Speed limits don't stop all speeders but they control the problem.
PS states like NJ that have much stricter gun laws have half the firearm deaths of less strict states even though a main source of illegal guns in NJ is from lax law states nearby.
22
No, it isn't. The actual studies show that states with high crime neighborhoods (containing gangs and drugs) Have high rates of gun related deaths. Caused, by the way, by people already precluded from owning firearms everywhere in this country.
Mr Kristof, One you've missed out - and I think it's a key reason for a lot of gun owners - is that "they need their gun to protect themselves". However, it seems that that, statistically, you're more likely to be harmed if you're a gun owner, than if you're not. (See: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-cr...
The other objection though - and in my view the only one that deserves serious consideration - is whether gun controls actually work to reduce homicide. (Note I said homicide, rather than firearm homicide, because gun proponents will argue that if you take away guns from criminals, then they will find other ways to commit homicide). This one you can only refute based on evidence, and, so far, I've not seen hugely compelling evidence. There is some: eg. homicide rates in Western Europe compared to the US, as well as some evidence comparing homicide across different states with different gun laws, and it appears that there is some correlation of stricter gun laws implies lower homicides, but it appears to be less conclusive than you'd hope. This may well be because we haven't been able to gather enough data to prove it one way or the other. (Thank the NRA on the ban on the CDC conducting research for that one...)
I'd be pleased to see if anyone has any good links to help resolve this question... (and suggest that perhaps the NY Times might commission an article on it themselves?)
2
Nick Kristof should change the title of his article to read: How A Liberal Can Win an Argument About Guns Against Close Minded Gun Loving Fanatics. To make matters worse Kristof's column is full of absurd stereotypes like the calm rational liberal who always has the right answer to use against that hot headed angry gun lover who refuses to see reason.
1
Still unaddressed here are two important arguments of gun fanatics: "resisting a tyrannical government" and "preparation for a race war". These are unpleasant topics, but we cannot have a problem-solving conversation while ignoring them. For the first, see the Bundy episodes (Nevada & Malheur). For the second, see the comments section on Breitbart or other right-wing publications. There is a distinct subculture that affirms that "black people are dangerous" and "you need to be prepared for the next race riot". A recent ad for campus carry at UT Austin featured a young white female "snowflake" trying to defend herself with a dildo against an attacker. He had a gun, and he was black. It's unpleasant to even discuss these things, but these are the opinions of our fellow countrymen, who vote and pay NRA dues. We need to deal with the actual motivations & arguments of the gun fanatics, not just the ones that can be mentioned in polite society.
1
Great intro regarding 90% of American voters want tougher gun control while our elected politicans don't, even though they represent us - why? Why else, the gun lobby supports the majority in office with money to support their election. Then why can the gun lobby influence our elected officials? Besides the high profits in the sale of guns. Because the Supreme court recognizes corporations as having individual rights. So besides gun control their needs to be political lobby and contribution reform including the demise of super pacs. Our elected officials need to represent the true individuals and not corporate America.
1
Amen.
Sigh. The right to self defense is non-negotiable. I will never meekly bow my head in submission to the Democratic National Committee and surrender my guns to a Democrat Party commissar. If you want to take my guns, you'll have to do it by force, in other words, with Democrat Party guns, which would reveal your true objective--Democrat Party power. Come and take them, Democrats. I DARE YOU.
2
Kristoff and his ilk won't rest until the only people that possess fire arms are the criminals. The second amendment is sacred. Without it there would be no America and Nick would have to keep his liberal drivel opinions to himself. Hey Nick, read the constitution. More reading less MSNBC.
2
Leftists will never win an argument on the 2nd Amendment. They can’t. They refuse to acknowledge history, and they refuse to accept the fact that the 2nd Amendment separates America from the likes of Nazi Germany and every other evil communist or fascist or totalitarian or socialist regime in world’s history.
1
There is only one thought that the columnist missed. Mutual trust and respect for the basic decency and good faith of people that allows belief that gun owners are not wild barbarians and people who want better controls are not seeking to force others to give up keeping and using guns without great restrictions to make gun ownership rare. The comments seem to offer little trust and tolerance in what is expressed.
2
"Yes, but courts have found that the Second Amendment does not prevent sensible regulation (just as the First Amendment does not preclude laws on defamation)."
Mr. Kristof, please the 2nd Amendment. It's written in plain English and uses the clear phrase "shall not be infringed".
Whether "sensible" (who decides?) regulation is constitutional is subject to debate, notwithstanding some jurists' embrace of that concept, including by Justice Scalia, and if "courts have found", so what? Courts "found" for decades that free speech was not free speech, until recently, and courts abused the notion of equality for black citizens for a hundred years after the Civil War. Hiding behind “courts have found” is very convenient when you want to advance an argument whose conclusion you’ve already pre-determined.
Second, though there are criminal defamation statutes in some states, there are no federal criminal defamation statutes, and my guess is the state ones that are on the books (and rarely if ever used) are unconstitutional as they violate the 1st Amendment. The government can’t lock you up for saying things. Defamation is a civil concept, and if you are found guilty of it, you will be subject to civil penalties because the other side has been damaged. This has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. The argument is weakened by the use of this false example.
So much for liberal debates on guns. The premises are false, the arguments are false and the conclusions are false.
4
The 2nd Amendment also refers to ‘well-regulated militias’. Did you overlook THAT part?
I notice that this Second Amendment purist says nothing about "a well-regulated militia."
rms, Lynn:
Did not say anything because there was nothing to be said, and did not overlook it.
But since you ride that old horse again, let us explain for the umpteenth time: The militia clause is a sufficient condition, not a necessary condition. Militias are A reason for the right not being infringed, not THE reason, and not the only reason. Otherwise the words would have been: "A well regulated militia ..., and solely for that purpose, ..." or something similar.
Example: “Water being necessary for survival, the right of the people to use water shall not be infringed.” Let’s say water is found not to be necessary for survival. Does that mean that using water is automatically forbidden, or could be forbidden or regulated? No. Water can be consumed for other reasons, including because people like to swim in it, or as a moat for protection.
Equally to the point, the 2nd Amendment says “… the right of the people to ….”, speaking of the right as pre-existing, and saying the government shall not infringe it. The right to bear arms existed, and exists, because we are free (so far), and not because of some connection with militias. All rights exist in that way. The 2nd Amendment does not grant any rights. It is a prohibition on government.
I trust this removes the militia objection once and for all.
2
Another common sense proposal that hasn't been discussed much, except by two lawyers in a NYT op-ed recently, is to eliminate the immunity that gun manufacturers have from products liability. This would give the gun makers an incentive to incorporate safety measures that would prevent many gun deaths. The technology for such measures already exists.
1
Because we do not keep track of guns and who has them, the vast number of guns means that there probably are many in the hands of people who will do harm with them. Background checks are a start but we need a better database, a national one, that is accurate and completely records all who should not be allowed to buy guns or ammunition. In order to assure that any guns in the hands of anyone who poses a risk can be taken and kept from them, it would be best to keep a national registry of all firearms (but the fear of confiscation has prevented this from being established). Finally, people who have lived with guns for generations follow rules to manage the danger. All users should have that knowledge as well as laws related to having and using guns which licensing could address.
Some people want to subtract suicides from the total of gun deaths because they think suicide is victimless. It is not. Survivors never recover from the loss of a loved one, never stop asking if they could have done something to stop it. My wife told me that she had researched ways to kill herself and found that a gun was the surest, quickest, and most painless way. I found out that she had bought a gun and confronted her about it. She said that she tried to use it, lost her nerve, and threw the gun away in a pond. I searched the house and didn’t find it. A few weeks later she was dead, with the gun next to her. I found the box in a stack of books next to her side of the bed.
160
I have been acquainted with a number of people who committed suicide and not one used a weapon nor some poison intended for killing things. While it would be wise to remove guns from anyone who might be suicidal, the notion that so many people would not hurt themselves without a gun is dubious. It’s more credible to say that fewer would hurt themselves with guns if they could not obtain them.
6
I am so very sorry for your terrible loss. Thank you for having the courage to share.
19
I have lost a friend to murder by gun and a close relative to a self-inflicted gun shot, whether by accident or intention was never determined. What I know is that in both circumstances, had a gun not been available or present then both would very likely still be alive today.
18
The right to arms must be subordinated to the right to life. Why? What is a right? A right is a moral concept that defines and sanctions an individual's freedom of action in a social context. There is really only one right, the right to life. All other rights are are derived from the right to life. For instance, the right to property is required for an individual to sustain his life by his own effort and that individual must be able to keep what he produces to sustain his life. It is a guarantee, not that he will earn any property, but that he will own what he has earned. Also the right to property is a right to action, like all others: it is not a right to an object, but to an action and consequences of producing an object.
The purpose of American gov'ts is declared in the Declaration of Independence: to secure rights. First among them is the right to life. We give the gov't's the exclusive power of force to protect our rights, to protect our lives. Police are the only agents equipment with arms inside our country that may use arms in the execution of their duties. But one may to defend's one life before the police can arrive. In that situation, an individual needs self-protection arms, so self-protection arms, handguns should be allowed.
So allow arms only in their role to protect an individual's life. Assault rifles are not needed for self-protection. Ban them as we ban hand grenades.
Subordinate the right to arms to the right to life.
"How to Win an Argument About Guns" is exactly the kind of talk one should not encourage in an already heated atmosphere even if the points made are unassailable. This issue is not winning an argument against the opponents , but about bringing them around to the goal of achieving sensible laws so the continuing nightmare of horrific mass slaughters by guns can be ended . The columnist can write his pieces and look smart, but the NRA spokesmen will keep writing theirs in rebuttal somewhere on other forums where they feel comfortable speaking to their base.
We won't win reform this way; we shall all win on the day when imaginative dialogue will convince the opponents that they were with us from the outset. I don't know who has the gift to nudge the two sides together toward such an amicable solution, but our universities have all kinds of courses on "conflict resolution." I am not a utopian, but how about at least harnessing the intellectual and moral skills of those whose entire career is about gently defusing arguments and helping attain a sane compromise for the opposing sides after fostering a sustained and quiet mutual engagement-- away from all the media and press limelight?
2
When has "a good guy with a gun" ever prevented or stopped a bad guy with a gun? I do not mean authorized law enforcement. Gun advocates always scream that everyone must be armed to defend themselves but I never see an average citizen return fire. It seems the millions of privately owned weapons are always firing at common citizens but none are there to fire back.
These arguments would work if you were having a discussion with someone who also deals in facts (as your imaginary opposing POV does) and is ready to listen to the other side. Unfortunately, just look at the abuse the Parkland students are taking and it tells you all you need to know about a great number of the american populace.
4
The same Parkland students who are calling people like Rubio vile names such as "murderer" and "blood loving?" You don't get to use incendiary language and rhetoric and then be protected from a response because you're "just a kid."
1
"Tragically, predictably, infuriatingly, we’re again mourning a shooting — this time at YouTube’s headquarters "
The fact is that we should be mourning shootings everyday in this country. So far in 2018 Chicago there have been 528 people shot. The reason the "youtube" shooting gets attention because it is a white affluent corporate environment. But shootings in this country are a daily occurrence. I agree with every point made in this article.
I believe there needs to be an effort at collecting all shooting data in one online public location so that Americans can be informed daily about the numbers of people who are victims of shooting violence in this country. This should be a daily news story. Maybe then we would be motivated to force our legislators to act. Maybe then NRA donations would lose their appeal.
3
The best and probably fastest solution is to vote for politicians who “get” the importance of taking very rational steps to regulate guns. Once that happens maybe the 2nd A folks will see regulation doesn’t harm their rights. The Parkland kids have done a great job of putting the spotlight on politicians who won’t budge towards rational rules and are in the NRA’s pocket. Vote them out.
3
The "cars kill people" argument seems to ignore the fact that cars are designed for transportation, while
guns are designed to kill people.
7
Our laws say something about us as a nation. What does refusal to adopt common sense gun safety laws say about our respect for life and desire to live in a non-violent society?
5
I think part of the problem in America is that we allow guns to be used for play. A gun is not a toy and trips to the range should be about maintaining a level of competence, not about having fun. This is a serious weapon that can be used to kill and Americans often just think of thrill they get when they use them.
Handguns should be allowed for self-defense maybe, rifles and shotguns for hunting. For sport, why not airguns? They actually take a bit more skill to be good - and they are mostly non-lethal.
This bears repeating. Guns are NOT toys. If you're having fun with a gun you're wrong.
6
Could a strict limited interpretation of the 2nd amendment permit banning the sale of bullets, while still permitting the sale of guns?
2
No. No more than a strict interpretation of the 1st Amendment could permit the banning of the sale of ink, while still permitting the sale of printing presses.
1
There is no point in arguing over guns.
Anyone who supports guns rights after Parkland will not be convinced by sound logic or the most artful words.
2
It would be beneficial to address, in another column, how bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would help to mitigate the fear that so many gun owners have of being stripped of their guns. And to address "fear" as well. Every day, every hour, certain networks are stoking fears of "the other" fears of "they will take away our guns", fears of"they want to take away my second amendment rights," and fears of the government itself."
Unless we bring back the Fairness Doctrine, overturned in 1987 by Reagan, people who watch or listen to media outlets touting only one point of view (and this is becoming more and more likely since in many parts of our country certain media conglomerates are buying up smaller, independent, news outlets), will have their fears stoked ad infinitum. And we all know what happens when only one point of view is acceptable in a nation...totalitarianism.
Yes, it's good to sit down and talk about our differences, but if the person sitting opposite you only listens to and watches a "one view" network, you can't reach them with any educated, thoughtful, argument.
5
"If you take our guns only criminals will have guns."
When was the last time the NRA actually responded to a sensible argument? They are in it only for lobbying for the weapons industry ... while paying no taxes, I might add. It will be up to our lawmakers if common sense is to end the carnage...
2
If a substantial number of liberal democrats registered as republicans, then they could (vote for who ever they please) write their representatives and say “as a registered republican I support gun safety legislation and (fill in the blank).” They would also, when responding to polls, change the perception of what other “republicans “ think is okay (we’re all more sheep than we like to admit).
There is no argument for me anymore on guns.
I simply will not vote for any candidate who takes money from the NRA and will not support common sense gun regulation. I am done.
5
This is a money issue, like everything else that has to do with government these days. When you allow the sale of government office to the highest bidder, you get results like this one: “Polls show that nine out of 10 Americans favor basic steps like universal background checks before gun purchases, but the exceptions are the president and a majority in Congress.”
NRA money, which is money from the gun industry, buys the congress critters and the president. Once the politician has accepted the campaign “donation,” the politician generally votes in favor of the NRA proposals over the desires of the politician's voting constituency. If the politician were to fail to vote as the NRA desires, NRA money is withheld and possibly given to an opponent who will vote the NRA line. The politician will generally not take a chance he'll lose his job, so he goes along and votes as the NRA dictates.
It works this way across the board, not just with the NRA. Examples from every interest group with money could be cited. As long as the pol votes the way the donor wants, the pol can be sure the campaign donations continue, and when the congress critter leaves office he goes through the revolving door into a cushy well-paid job provided by the donor.
Money is the cause of what ails America politically today, and the disease is slowly and surely causing the death of democracy (the bedside vigil is nearly over—the demise is near).
I honestly often disagree with you Mr. Kristof but this is a logical, well written piece that I applaud you for creating.
1
As a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I again applaud Kristof for a well informed discussion of his subject. A more favorable resolution of the issue may be reached without the (justified) emotionalism expressed by those who "come across as supercilious, condescending, and spectacularly uninformed about...guns."
34
Thank you. I don't think it's supercilious, condescending, or out of line to say that a murdered child makes me sick at heart, but a person deprived of his right to own a certain kind of gun does not.
7
If these are the best arguments you can muster in favor of gun control (or, more realistically, gradual gun confiscation), we don't need to worry about the continued free ownership of guns and the viability of the Second Amendment.
3
All thoughtful, rational and convincing reasons, Mr. Kristof but, sadly, this “just the facts” strategy has little to do with the underlying tribalism that the TIMES recently referred to as “gun culture.”
For many gun owners, a gun is a metaphor for a larger worldview — one that traffics heavily in themes like “liberty”, “rugged individualism”…etc. Owning a gun conveys a sense of belonging to a tribe that shares this worldview.
The arguments that these gun owners use are merely window dressing which masks those underlying emotions and that they may not even be able to articulate.
It’s hard to imagine an easy way out of the gun dilemma in which we find ourselves but it’s doubtful that your well-intentioned reasoning is going to prove very effective.
1
I can not believe this "blank blank". Maybe if this piece discussed autos and their registration in terms of insurance I would see and attempt at logic. For example some insurance companies include gun coverage in homeowners policies. Why not ask if an auto can be covered instead. Try insuring the latest car inexpensively. But your AR doesn't affect rates does it? Once the insurance companies stop the practice of forcing others to pay for gun owners weapons you will see registration, licensing and training for gun owners to keep economical homeowners, auto and umbrella policies.
Great article. I would also point out that there are different licenses for different types of vehicles. A license to drive a car is different from a license to drive a school bus or 18-wheeler. Perhaps we should require a license appropriately calibrated to the type of gun someone wants to buy.
4
Just wanted to add that, it seems gun owners by and large agree with Mr Kristof. What we face instead are a minority who vote in the Republican primaries, and misleading election ads placed by the NRA and similar folks.
3
Excellent article, but one crucial point is missing: car ownership is a necessity for daily life for most people, whereas gun ownership is simply not a necessity. Gun-rights advocates’ arguments that compare cars and guns fail because of this flawed analogy. Because car ownership is a necessity for most, our society must find ways to compromise between two conflicting imperatives: limit the serious damage cars can cause, while still allowing widespread access to them. We simply do not need to make such a compromise on gun ownership.
2
Facts and logic will not change the mind of some gun owners. Most gun owners already agree that we need to do more on background checks and education. They also are open to safety ideas and keeping firearms safely locked.
The problem is the false scare tactics applied by the NRA and accepted by the uninformed.
I often wondered why some are easily fooled that the government wants to take away their toys.
But the biggest problem is with our congress that care about the money and the threat of being primaried more than our best interest.
7
Imagine a society in which, even though the citizens have many guns, they don't routinely shoot classrooms full of children to death for no apparent reason.
Imagine a society in which even a man who can buy an automatic weapon wouldn't consider using it to shoot every single person at a country music festival, just because the angle was good.
Imagine a society in which violence, while it exists, is limited by shared cultural norms and practices, and the bounds of some kind of basic logic that holds human life as, if not exactly inviolable, then at least kind of important.
Of course, our forebears imagined they lived in exactly that kind of society, and for the most part, they DID.
We don't.
Maybe limiting firearms is a good first step back in that direction. So by all means let's do it. Still, it's a long road and I doubt just altering the profile of weaponry available is going to fundamentally change the cultural practices that led us to this place.
4
A number of commenters have stated that you can't win an argument with the NRA or it's supporters with logic. Perhaps, gun rights advocates may not be swayed by the arguments presented here, but this approach makes so much more sense then the ones that call for repealing the 2nd amendment which can only result in having these individuals "dig their heels in deeper".
NRA: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Every time I see this stated by the NRA I can't help but think the logical addition to it should be " therefore we support universal background checks" since these checks are on "people" not " guns".
The comparison to cars is excellent. I have heard gun rights individuals use the argument about how many people are killed by cars, but have not heard them advocate we eliminate the "rules of the road" stated in this article or express fear of "having their cars taken away". I guess they are capable of seeing the logic of not having a "free for all" with cars on the road in order to ensure public safety. Whenever I hear this comparison of guns with cars, I can't help imagining a scene depicting the chaos of people driving with no speed limits, red lights, stop signs etc.? Imagine also including allowing any type of vehicle on the road -- golf carts, riding mowers, etc.
Thank you Mr. Kristorf. So much of what you wrote reflects my own sentiments on the points that I believe individuals who want sensible gun laws should be making.
5
The argument that any particular car is more likely to be involved in a fatality than any particular gun is absurd. There are more guns than cars, and few car fatalities are deliberate.
2
My public health analogy is with cigarettes. When we found out that smoking kills we could have said that it is an issue of personal choice. People enjoy smoking and we should keep cigarettes affordable and put no restrictions where people can enjoy them. We will just go ahead and build more cancer hospitals and train more oncologists. It sounds crazy the same way that accepting we should have active shooter drills at schools, install bulletproof glasses and wait for the next armed assailant.
8
The solution is so clear. We have to switch sides. We need to push for less gun control, set up an organization crazier than the NRA and call for an end to all gun regulation. Naturally, Fox News will start attacking the Dems on this issue calling for stricter regulation. Trump will watch and away we go towards a safer world. They will never figure it out. Remember, it’s not about the issue, it’s about elections.
4
Your measured. common sense tone and your focus on basic first steps make your argument very persuasive. In addition, your method provides a model for the rest of us.
5
It's a common refrain from gun banners to demand that gun owners be required to get "insurance." This is not a good faith argument, as no insurance carrier will EVER underwrite a policy that covers intentional torts. Even if they did, courts would almost definitely find that such a policy contravenes public policy, as it incentivizes such intentional acts. You can get insurance to cover against accidents, and many gun owners already have policies like that. But if you're calling for insurance that will never be attainable, you're calling for a ban. At least be honest.
1
Jon, how many times must you folks insist that you're facing 'gun banners'??
You make up this boogeyman that does not resemble reality. It's amazing that in your version of language, any words like 'regulate' or 'insurance' or 'discussion' is exactly the same as ban.
Don't be so terrified of words, Jon! Or did you already go out and buy yet another assault weapon out of terror of the word 'insurance'? At least be honest, right?
When the Parkland teenagers and their peers across the country vote the NRA funded politicians out of office, we won't have to win these arguments.
Eventually, hopefully sooner than later, the country will return to its senses, and with any luck at all, they'll be a democratically controlled Congress, a filibuster proof supermajority in the Senate, and a democratic President ready to sign gun safety legislation.
8
Nick, you missed a whopper: since guns were BANNED from airliners (at least carry-on) since 1967, not one single gun death has occurred aboard an airliner. Is anyone proposing that we relax that absolute ban on guns?
Another example: guns aren't allowed in federal buildings, were, um, members of Congress work!! Imagine a proposal to allow people to carry guns into federal buildings and to arm supervisors and even members of Congress just in case, well, you know.
8
Yes, we can control weapons from being brought into secure areas where there is one way in and one way out, and where everyone goes through metal detectors staffed by armed guards. That isn't true for society as a whole.
1
It is true for society as a whole if we ALLOW it. An airplane is vulnerable because a bomb can kill a lot of trapped people. A school is the same. Kids trapped, exits unavailable. Same for concerts and movie theaters.
These should not have to be heavily armed, secured camps.
Vote and then consider voting with your feet. One can choose not to live in the equivalent of the Wild West, or to put one's children in schools where teachers are armed. I refuse to live in a community or society that values guns more than children.
3
It doesn't matter if your community values guns more, Kevin. Southerland Springs TX is a small town too. But people have cars, and can drive anywhere they want with their arsenal of war weapons. If their ex-wife's family lives in your town, or they get fired from the local gas station... Now in these amazing MAGA times, they can pretty much kill everyone in town!
People use cars for many thousands of hours over their lives. The actual time spent shooting any particular gun probably averages out to a few hours each.
Handguns are engineered to kill people. Permitting them is a de-facto endorsement of a putative God-given right to kill other people in moments of rage or panic.
4
England also had a big reduction in suicides by just switching from pill bottles, where you could chug the whole bottle if you felt like it, to blister packs where individual pills have to be pushed out one at a time. A simple change can yield great results.
3
Yes, as you say, we have serious social problems underlying gun violence, but we have to stop the monster that doles out dollars and favors that lead to support of the use of guns.
We all should ask our congressmen and state and local reps to go on record with a pledge not to accept monetary or other help from the NRA, its affiliates, or manufacturers of guns and their lobbyists. It's the best way to see where loyalties lie.
4
We call it car safety, not car control.
Let’s call it gun safety legislation. Such a change will at least change how the counter argument is started.
Baby steps to sanity.
Vote in November
4
If you're talking about suicides, call it that. Don't call it gun violence. When I hear "gun violence" all I hear is another anti inflating the numbers.
Without putting a thumb on the scale via suicide tons of states become poster children for lax gun laws and low homicide rates. Like Utah, and Idaho, and Wyoming, etc. And let's not forget those cities with rates fifty times as high as those rural states. There's another story on guns in your paper today, about lowering the homicide rate in your worst cities. Might be time for a rural kid from Oregon to start writing about the places and things causing our high rate of firearm homicide.
2
Fine arguments, but weak on one big point. One of the highest values of Republicans in general and conservative gun owners in particular, is freedom, including (especially?) the freedom to harm yourself. The freedom to commit suicide shares the same line of reasoning as the freedom to smoke cigarettes, drink gigantic bottles of Coke and fence off swimming pools.
Countering a core belief in freedom with nanny state arguments of regulating what's good for you will fall flat and probably even reinforce a gun owner's belief in loose gun laws. Instead the argument must go be on the ground of where gun owner freedoms cause harm to others and limit the freedom of others.
All guns should be registered and there should be yearly registration fees. True hunting rifles should have the smallest fee, hand guns higher and semi-automatic weapons very high. Women/mothers should stand up and say they are against any gun ownership in the family.
2
"Women/mothers should stand up and say they are against any gun ownership in the family."
Because women would prefer to be unable to defend themselves?
Very persuasive arguments.
Yes, ban all cars built to kill people, and ban all pools built to drown them. Guns and ammo have one primary purpose - to kill for offence or self-defence - and neither justifies their place in civilian life. There are three entities here - Gun owners/users, guns, ammunition. To find a lasting solution for public safety, we need to completely eliminate one of these three. The first one is impractical.. Justice Stevens is right. Abolish the 2nd amendment. It is vague, out of date, not sacrosanct and abused by the NRA and pols on its payroll and some SC judges.
1
There are some rational gun owners (I like to think I'm one of them) who will listen to common sense arguments and probably, like me, already support much stronger gun control laws. But those aren't the people who are preventing us from passing the kinds of gun laws we need. The obstacle right now is people who have an almost religious devotion to gun ownership. These gun cultists don't merely believe in the right to own guns, they believe more significantly in the right of individuals to choose to exert deadly force whenever they feel that they or their families face a threat to their persons, property, or liberty from either government or other people. They believe that individual right of self-defense against crime and tyranny is "god-given" and inviolable. They believe that the threats are real, with a government always just a step away from tyranny and dangerous illegal aliens and criminal gangs overrunning the country. And they believe that this right of individuals to use deadly force to defend their and their families' liberty, person, and property is the distinctly American value—the one embodied most in their myths of who the Founders were. To win an argument with these folks, you need to deconstruct their entire belief system—a belief system they and the NRA continually reinforce as patriotic, rational, reality-based, and responsible and which is central to their self-identities and wrapped in emotion.
Arguments won't win for us. But votes may.
3
Thank you for framing this debate using the term “Gun Safety” which is hard to argue with rather than “Gun Control” which is inflammatory and appears to be a trigger word. Most people are for safety and generally against government control.
You might wish to include that as one of your debating points. It is interesting that the media is frequently falling into this trap although generally avoiding it in the “Pro-Life” versus “Anti-Abortion” space.
Like virtually every argument we face in our culture, from the military, to mass incarceration, education policy, and guns, there is a prevailing force against reason: the greed of the very rich.
Gun owners and gun victims alike are pawns in a huge con game to benefit gun manufacturers. Forget reason.
1
Maybe, just maybe murder and suicide are the other side of the bread-and-circuses coin:
If I were in the 1%, I might not discourage such a violent venting of the 99%'s frustrations; upon themselves and each other.
Think about it:
- I take a bullet-proof limo everywhere.
- I live in a fortress-like apt. bldg or house.
- My apt. is guarded, accessed by private elevator
- House is behind a tall wall, also guarded
- I leave the city in private jets
- I shop where the 99% rarely shop
- Others shop for me
- I shop online for everyday items
- I am inaccessible on the job
- I cruise around the planet on super yachts, to which I fly in entertainers, models, friends et al
- I conduct business in secret
- I sometimes upend politics
- I hire lobbyists to write twisted laws
- I buy bunches of legislators to pass them
- I do not pay much in taxes
- I hide my wealth offshore
Small wonder people are angry, but do not know who at.
So, let the 97% have their small-arms and permit the "venting mayhem" upon themselves.
Please God, just not upon us, the 1%.
1
So I am a liberal, voted for HRC and I own guns. I do believe in training and background checks, but I also believe gun control is keeping a straight trigger finger.
The purpose of a gun is not to kill, but to stop someone or something from continuing their course of action. It's the pinnacle of escalation of force and it's use is only justified as a last resort, when all lesser means have failed and to protect your life or the life of another.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
I have had my home broken into in the middle of the night and used my gun to stop the perpetrator and hold them until police arrived. The perp knew exactly what I had when the laser sight was on his chest. He immediately stopped and pleaded for me not to take his life. He was hauled off to jail. Without my firearm, I doubt I would have been here to write this as he had a large steal pipe that he used to bust in my back door.
4
I don't think Kristof is arguing anything that would have prevented you protecting yourself (if the incident is actually true). He is arguing for background checks and other reasonable restrictions to keep them out of the hands of the guy who busted down your door (again, if he actually exists).
1
Pools are intended for swimming. Cars are intended for transportation. Guns are designed to kill or injure living things.
Mr. Kristof makes a good common sense case for gun control, but he leaves out the biggest arguments of all for the 2nd amendments, both of which are based on fears--fear of immigrants, black people and the government. These are the hot arguments being bandied about by the NRA and their likes on social media, with memes going viral. Kristof's arguments won't address these fears and won't stop the fear-mongers, including this President with his "caravans of violent immigrants" Tweets.
Kristof omits "the biggest arguments...for the 2nd amendment...are based on fears...of immigrants, black people and the government. These are the hot arguments being bandied about by the NRA and their likes on social media."
Agreed, Alexander - and anyone who doubts your claim should look for themselves at right wing social media to see attitudes towards guns, race/immigration and govt laid bare.
Two points:
1) Race/immigrants and govt are not two distinct fears - the right wing idea is that govt. already serves minorities and immigrants.
2) For practical purposes, the gun control movement can consider your point separately, since the hardcore pro-gun right will never be amenable to persuasion, and, therefore, we can focus on the reasonable, civic-minded arguments to persuade and mobilize the majority of citizens that open to gun control.
Mr. Kristof forgot the nearly universal requirement to put a fence around a pool.
That very simple "infringement" on my "right" to own a pool is an insignificant inconvenience that helps keep my neighbor's toddlers from drowning.
Would that gun-owners were as willing to help protect the rest of us.
some great points and arguments, but you forgot the one about how law abiding citizens will follow increased gun laws, while the criminal element will not!
"How to Win an Argument About Guns"
Many owners of guns base their need on emotions, not rational thought processes. Your arguments don't address this fact. They are fundamentally flawed.
2
"No one argues that there is an individual right to own an antiaircraft gun."
Actually if you can find one for sale you can own one, due to the National Firearms Act. This includes submachine guns, belt fed tripod mounted machine guns, howitzers, etc. The law was written so that a tax was placed on certain types of firearms instead of banning them. The NFA is one of the first federal gun laws, I would expect gun control advocates to be aware of it. In the meantime there have been additional Supreme Court rulings.
"Likewise, almost half of suicides in Britain used to be by asphyxiating oneself with gas from the oven, but when Britain switched to a less lethal oven gas the suicides by oven plummeted and there was little substitution by other methods."
You are claiming then that a suicide rate will forever remain low if a means is prevented, but the trends worldwide indicate something different. Looking at the statistics released by just the UK, Canada and Australia shows the US rate is not much different in spite of dramatically different rates of gun ownership. Even organizations publishing articles on the means of suicide acknowledge this, but for some reason the NYT doesn't.
3
I don't think Kristof is arguing anything that would have prevented you protecting yourself (if the incident is actually true). He is arguing for background checks and other reasonable restrictions to keep them out of the hands of the guy who busted down your door (again, if he actually exists).
I appreciate the intent of the column, but I am sick and tired of trying to "debate" solutions to this catastrophic problem, only to be met with endless "WELL, actually..." mansplaining responses that are designed only to divert the argument and shut down discussion.
Enough of this. The factual basis for our position is important, but it has little effect upon people who construct their worldview on intense emotions and a perception of the world and society that is grossly out of sync with reality. Frankly, I am tired of our society and our culture being held hostage by a minority of extremists who are given an outsized megaphone by the NRA and right-wing media.
Americans who want gun reform far outnumber the extremists who refuse any compromise. We need to outvote them and move our society in a sane direction. I'm done talking.
Could we please get out of this pointless discussion?There is no argument to “win” nobody wins this one. We need cool headed pragmatists who can see both sides and who realize that a solution is a win for all. This isn’t a discussion that will be won with logic or statistics. It will be solved when we can all understand the needs of all parties some of which want the security of a gun-free society and some who want the security of ownership. It can be done but we first need a way of discussing the situation calmly because with anger or excitement we close down the more rational parts of our brains.
1
Here in Texas, the arguement I always get is that people need guns to defend themselves against our government when it turns on us. Thats why my neighbor won't give up his semi-automatic gun. So my question is, would the armed forces have to obey an order from the president to attack their fellow citizens?
A very large portion would mutiny or defect, rather than attack their fellow citizens, especially since a large portion of the armed forces are from Southern or rural areas and hold the same beliefs as other gun owners.
1
tldr - same tired arguments in the article and comments.
I think Americans like guns and arguing rather than dealing with the issue: Your violent and selfish society.
I'm not asking you to change it, rather simply acknowledge it to be true.
It's also bizarre to read all these generalizations and recommendations for "gun control" seeing as California is among the strictest states w.r.t. gun laws. You need a permit (FSC program) and many firearms are restricted or banned. The level of "gun control" in California rivals Canada and European nations. Yet here we have another mass shooting in spite of this FACT.
So... why not identify specifically where California has gone wrong on "gun control" if that's your solution?
Otherwise please stop generalizing & arguing then expecting me to care or listen.
2
All the arguing needs to stop. We are past that after Parkland. 30 days to hand in your assault weapons. Fair market value for each one returned within 30 days. Issuance of a 32 caliber revolver, one only, in return. End of story.
I think your arguments are too rational. People don’t seem to be convinced by rational or factual arguments, at least not these days.
"does not prevent sensible regulation"
What is sensible regulation? Definition please, otherwise it's just a buzzword and I will ignore it.
The AR15 is legal in the EU. It's Category B. And there's an increasing number of them.
As for the antiaircraft gun, why not? The problem is not the power of the gun, but maintaining it and keeping it in working order. Same with, let's say, an M1 tank. Maintenance costs would never let anyone have those, plus the US military likes to sit on its hardware anyway, so it's not an issue.
Suicides? Nice paragraph. Now look at Japan and India. Hardly any guns. A lot of suicides. Yeah, there goes that theory.
Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Hungary, Czech Republic, all very lax gun laws in comparison to the UK. Who, ironically enough, has more gun crime? The UK. Hmm.
In Austria the legal firearm is used for 3% of violent crime, and that is usually murder-suicides. Illegal firearms? 4%. Knives? 44% and increasing drastically.
In Vienna (Austria) knife crime went from 190 in 2007 to 701 in 2017. In Austria in general knife crime went from 214 in 2009 to 743 in 2017.
Berlin now has an average of 7 knife attacks every day. How many people get shot every day in Berlin with legal firearms? None.
Permits change nothing. They don't make anything safer. Europe proves this without a doubt. Permits are also unconstitutional.
You want to win a debate, not bring workable solutions and so all your examples fail. Go figure.
4
The thing about cars and pools is that they are things that serve useful purposes but when misused can kill people. Guns are things that serve no purpose other than killing and when used to kill are being used exactly as they were designed to be used. More concisely, guns are instruments of evil while cars and pools are not.
Yes, they're weapons. All weapons are designed to kill. That's their point.
1
Guns are too prevalent in your country, and gun control advocates message do not state simply, clearly and forcefully what they want.
They should hammer relentlessly a single, simple argument: Apply car regulation principle to guns:
- age limits, insurance, registration, models limitation, test to get a permit, etc.
This is argument is easy to understand. It is already successfully used, insurance will protect gun victims from financial catastrophe, insane people will not obtain guns.
1 argument against the NRA.
While Kristof makes a compelling argument, he failed to point out a major difference in the gun to cars/pools comparison. In the case of the latter, when used properly for their intended purpose, nobody dies. Hand guns and military rifles are designed to kill people, and should not be in the hands of civilians (hunting weapons do have a purpose besides killing people, so the comparison there is apt).
1
Thank you, so sensibly argued. We will vote out the non-sensible legislators.
Means, motive opportunity---they all work together to lead to death and injury. That's what the gun rights fanatics don't deal with.
If people have uncontrolled hostility or depression, they can lose any sense of reality. And then, if the means to shootings or suicides are so readily available and also so easy to use in a split second, this is the mechanism that carries their irrationality to its tragic conclusion.
Compare rates of gun violence in other nations who have sensible gun control laws, supported by their citizens and all political parties. They don’t let gun maker lobbyists pay their politicians to run for office.
See NYT " How to Buty a Gun in 15 Countries."
What does Mr. Kristof think of Justice Stevens recent NYT op ed "Repeal the 2nd Amendment". He quotes Justice Burger who said the N.R.A. is perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
Quite a quote. Who could refute it?
136
I could refute it very easily. There is no credible reading of the 2nd Amendment, when you consider the Federalist Papers and other historical pieces from the time, that the drafters intended to protect the "right" of people to carry arms in the military when the military wanted them to. Such a codification would be unnecessary.
10
How about multiple other Justices? Read the Heller majority opinion.
3
And yet those five justices--led by Antonin Scalia--reversed over 200 years of Supreme Court precedent. Do you think the justices over those two centuries didn't know what they were talking about? The justices who agreed with Stevens over time certainly outnumbered those five who agreed with Scalia.
I think the Heller decision was a glaring example of judicial activism, where Scalia even invented English common law to claim that medieval English commoners had a right to be armed. Quite a stretch, no?