Your arguments are so fundamentally flawed you should be embarrassed to make them.

Your first argument is that assault weapons should not be banned because few people are killed by them.

Not many people are killed by unlicensed people driving big rig trucks, therefore, by your reasoning we should let unlicensed people drive them.

No, we require people who want to drive a big rig to have special training, have good driving record, and be specially licensed to (1) weed out unqualified people and people with bad driving records and (2) so that they will be deterred from future bad driving by the fear of losing their license and (3) so that we can revoke the license of people who demonstrate bad driving habits.

Similarly, we would treat assault weapons like Class 3 firearms requiring a special licensing procedure. An argument that assault weapons shouldn’t be class-3 licensed because “not many people are killed by them” is just dumb.

Not many people are killed by hand grenades and machine guns, therefore, by your reasoning we should allow anyone who wants to buy hand grenades and machine guns. Horrible logic.

You don’t let anyone who wants to have a dangerous thing — dynamite, machine guns, bio-toxins — have it simply because “not many” people are killed with it. Duh!

Your second argument was that since guns have sometimes proven useful therefore they should be available to everyone without training, without background checks, without licensing and without registration.

The first premise “guns have been helpful” has absolutely zero logical connection to your conclusion “therefore gun should be available to everyone without training, without background checks, without licensing and without registration.”

This is the straw-man argument that common-sense gun laws mean the abolition of all gun ownership and therefore there should be no common-sense gun laws. Who falls for that silly reasoning?

Guns should be treated the same way we treat cars.

People who want gun owners to be trained and licensed are no more anti-gun than people who want drivers to be trained and licensed are anti-car.

You want to drive, great. Get trained. Pass a background check for prior driving violations. Get a driver’s license. Register your car. If you drive well, great, keep driving. If you drive poorly. Lose your license and stop driving.

If you want to own a gun, great. Get trained. Pass a background check. Get a license. Register your gun. If you use it properly, great, keep it. If you use it recklessly, lose your license and your gun.

None of a “same as driving” policy prevents the proper and beneficial use of guns. But you know that. You just don’t want to say the real reason for your no background check, no training, no licensing, no registration position out loud.

The real reason “gun people” don’t want to pass a background check, pass a gun safety test, and register their weapons is because they want anonymous ownership of guns so that they can be ready some day to use them against the “evil government.”

Get over it.

— David Grace

The first premise “guns have been helpful” has absolutely zero connection to your conclusion “therefore gun should be available to everyone without training, without background checks, without licensing and without registration.”

Graduate of Stanford University & U.C. Berkeley Law School. Author of 17 novels and over 200 Medium columns on Economics, Politics, Law, Humor & Satire.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store