The first thing we need to acknowledge when dealing with topics like mass shootings, is that there is a problem that we all want to solve. Put aside the arguments for a moment and remember that when we talk about the 2nd Amendment in America, there is a cultural, linguistic, and even religious charge to the words that we commonly use. “Common Sense Gun Control”, “If it saves one life, isn't it worth it?, “The Gun Lobby”, “2nd Amendment Rights”, “The Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!” all come to mind. To have these discussions, it is critical to disarm the explosive reactions that people are harboring for just the right phrases. Like an EOD expert unearthing the IED, let's attempt to unearth the truth from the lies that have buried the root issue: “Evil humans are doing evil things, often to the most vulnerable.” Today, let's look at seven of the common arguments and attempt to find the falsehoods that are hiding the solution. Argument 1#: If It Just Saves One Life, Is It Not Worth It? Response: Maybe. If you are willing to give up your freedoms for security, it sounds nice! I mean, just let the police handle it. They have guns. However, it's not like they can arrive on spot every time faster than you are able to draw from your own waistband. Not only do we have a recent poor showing at Uvalde, but we had Police preventing parents from rescuing their children. They went so far as to employ less lethal measures on a mother who just wanted to rescue her daughter. I understand the need to keep a clean scene, but that is only if the officers are going in. So police are not the answer, they are for bringing criminals to justice AFTER the murder has occured. During the murder incident is when most people want a force multiplier. The CDC has determined that roughly 500,000 to 3,000,000 defensive uses of firearms occur every year. This is hard to determine because the mere presence of a firearm can de-escalate a scene (I've been there, done that). So would you save the 500,000 (just going on the low end) or the 20,000 cases of homicide by person with a firearm (I'm taking suicides out of the pile because suicide is easily carried out in other methods)? One death is always one too many, but we are looking at solving the impossible. Man is evil. Preventing people from being self sufficient and independent enough to protect themselves is statistically the winning choice between draconian laws vs 2nd Amendment Freedom. The problem is that good people with guns DO save the day countless times every year. Steve Wiliford at the Sutherland Springs Shooting came from several doors down to stop one of the Country's most deadly shootings. In December of 2019, a gun toting deacon took out an active shooter before more than 2 people were killed. More recently a woman at a West Virginia Graduation shot a gunman that had intended on making the scene one of a mass murder. What if taking away people's rights equals more suffering and death? Children are more likely to die of parental abuse in America than Mass Shootings according to the statistics. In 2020 79 people were killed in Mass Shootings while nearly 1000 children died from parental abuse. Noone in their right mind is suggesting comprehensive government audits of parents. Argument 2#: The Majority of Americans Want Common Sense Gun Legislation. Assault Weapon Bans and Gun Laws Work. Response: Common Sense Restrictions, like background checks? We have them. Age limits? We have them. 18 for rifles, 21 for pistols are the common limitations. Anyone who has bought a firearm in the years since 1998 has had the misfortune of encountering NICS, The National Instant Criminal Background Check System. It is anything but instant and it has often has failures induced by the incompetence that only a government run system could produce. Consider this, a 21 year old girl (we won't even mention a 19 year old that couldn't purchase a firearm right now) has an abusive boyfriend, or has come under threat of violence when she lives in a bad part of town. She goes to purchase a handgun on the day after her 21st birthday and she gets a NICS check and it delays her purchase for days, or even weeks (as I have had). What if she gets a false negative? These mistakes happen every year. If this woman is raped or murdered by her abusive boyfriend, we prevented her from getting the protection she needed. Does the “If it saves one life” argument hold water here? Do Assault Weapons Bans work? Spoilers, they don't. This is a difficult one to prove one way or the other as far as the trend is concerned, but the Assault Weapons Ban did not have an appreciable effect on the gun violence issue as seen in this OJP report. Not only was there no appreciable decrease in violence, they even note that rifles represent a single digit number of the homicides in America year to year, but the proliferation of the contraband firearms grows when they become contraband. Prohibition vibes anyone? Argument 3#: You Don't Need Weapons of War for Hunting or Self-Defense Response: Maybe not, both are easier and safer with modern firearms but that is our right in America. (By the way, what the heck is a weapon not of war? Is this some sort of neutered firearm that has been neutered for no other reason than virtue signaling?) The real reason for the 2nd Amendment is to protect us against tyrants. In America the individual is the highest authority. Government officials were simply there to facilitate the protections of the inalienable rights granted by God. The 2nd Amendment was always intended as a deterrent to tyranny. The British would have done anything to have a defenseless population to oppress and the founding fathers knew that an armed populace was the best protection against the government's natural inclination to oppress its people. Argument 4#: Your 2nd Amendment Rights Have Limitations Response: Do they? What did the Founding Fathers think about canons, warships, and firearms? They had ample opportunity to speak on the issue. They did in fact mention the use of warships in the matter of Privateers. From Thought.com you can see this definition of Privateers: “Privateers were captains of merchant ships legally sanctioned to attack and capture ships of enemy nations. American privateers had played a useful role in the American Revolution, attacking British ships. And when the United States Constitution was drafted it contained a provision for the federal government to authorize privateers. In the War of 1812, American privateers played a major role, as armed merchant ships sailing from American ports attacked, seized, or destroyed a great many British merchant ships. The American privateers actually did much more damage to British shipping than the U.S. Navy, which was greatly outnumbered and outgunned by Britain's Royal Navy.” These people possessed much greater firepower than any AR-15. This issue is a non-start, and one could even argue that tanks, destroyers, etc are indeed all protected items within the 2nd Amendment. What kind of chaos this must have caused you may say. There is little to no chaos recorded because pirates were stringently dealt with. When there are dire and swift consequences for evil, people tend to not commit evil.. Argument 5#: The Founding Fathers Did Not Consider Semi-Automatic Weapons Response: Actually in 1777, Congress considered the Belton Flintlock which could fire 8 rounds in rapid succession. The only reason Congress did not proceed with the purchase was the cost of the rifles. The Founding Fathers had many chances to consider repeaters and revolvers and never held that a citizen shouldn't own one. Argument 6#: Are You Not Pro-Life? How Is Killing Someone The Right Answer? Response: Are you inferring that the active act of murdering an innocent is the same as protecting innocents by stopping an aggressor? What did God say about self-defense? Exodus 22:2-3: “If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.” Luke 11:21: “When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:” Luke 22:35-37: “And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.” Argument 7#: Jesus Said To Turn The Other Cheek. Shouldn't We As The Church Do So? Response: That verse was in a chapter. Let's have a look at this one in context with the whole of Scripture in mind: Mathew 5:38-41: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.” This was not in a vacuum. The same Christ also stated that one should sell their cloak if necessary to obtain the ability to defend themselves. In context this verse has nothing to do with self defense, but the issue of pride. From the Talmud: Sanhedrin 58b: “Rabbi Ḥanina says: A gentile who struck a Jew is liable to receive the death penalty, as it is stated when Moses saw an Egyptian striking a Hebrew: “And he turned this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he struck the Egyptian and hid him in the sand” (Exodus 2:12).” And Rabbi Ḥanina says: One who slaps the cheek of a Jew is considered as though he slapped the cheek of the Divine Presence; as it is stated: “It is a snare [mokesh] for a man to rashly say [yala]: Holy” (Proverbs 20:25). The verse is interpreted homiletically to mean: One who strikes [nokesh] a Jew is considered as though he hurt the cheek [lo'a] of the Holy One.” Note, this interpretation makes much more sense in the cultural framework than a call for pacifism. Remember, when we are fighting for the rights of Americans to defend themselves, we need to remember that those who disagree with us, may honestly want to solve the problem too. On the gun control side, there are those who want power and those who simply want peace. Remember that we must be winsome so that the latter may come to realize the truth. Bibliography: Defensive uses of firearms: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3887145 CDC on Gun Deaths: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence CNS on CDC Study NICS Information: http://fixnics.org/factinfo.cfm Charleston Loophole Fallacy: https://www.nssf.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/NSSF-Factsheet-NICS-Delays.pdf Gun Free Zones Statistics: https://crimeresearch.org/2018/06/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/ Good Guys with guns: https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/stephen-willeford-sutherland-springs-mass-murder/ https://nypost.com/2019/12/29/texas-church-shooting-leaves-2-dead/ https://www.foxnews.com/us/west-virginia-woman-shoots-kills-man-fired-party On Privateers: https://www.thoughtco.com/privateers-definition-1773340 On the Belton Flintlock and other repeating Muskets: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wOmUM40G2U&ab_channel=RoyalArmouries https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Belton_flintlock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock Sanhedrin 58b: https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.58b.18-19?ven=William_Davidson_Edition_-_English&vhe=Wikisource_Talmud_Bavli&lang=en&lookup=nd%20Rabbi%20%E1%B8%A4anina%20says%3A%20One%20who%20slaps%20the%20cheek%20of%20a%20Jew%20is%20considered%20as%20though%20he%20slapped%20the%20cheek%20of%20the%20Divine%20Presence%3B%20as%20it%20is%20stated%3A%20%E2%80%9CIt%20is%20a%20snare%20%5Bmokesh%5D%20for%20a%20man%20to%20rashly%20say%20%5Byala%5D%3A%20Holy%E2%80%9D%20(Proverbs%2020%3A25).%20The%20verse%20is%20interpreted%20homiletically%20to%20mean%3A%20One%20who%20strikes%20%5Bnokesh%5D%20a%20Jew%20is%20considered%20as%20though%20he%20hurt%20the%20cheek%20%5Blo%E2%80%99a%5D%20of%20the%20Holy%20One.&with=Lexicon&lang2=en