About a week and a half ago, someone posted an NRA TV video on facebook.
This video talked about the school shooting where a gunman shot two kids before a school resource officer with a gun. The man in the video went on to talk about the "lying news media" because you wouldn't find them reporting on this story simply because it involved a "good guy with a gun" and "didn't fit their narrative." I decided to comment on the post, and a whole debate ensued.
My comment on the video was, "We're not trying to get guns taken away from people like that school officer. We're trying to take guns away from people like the shooter so incidents like this don't happen. Would you rather a guy breaks into a school and shoots two kids before someone shoots him or would you rather he never shoot any kids because he couldn't get a gun?" My comment seemed to go unnoticed, as I felt I had made a valid argument.
Later, a man proceeded to comment on the video saying "Laws can’t physically stop people from doing things. Laws just tell you consequences of your actions. People today do what they want to do. People don’t have self discipline to what is right 100% of the time. What I want is for people to have respect for life and not WANT to kill one another."
I could not read such a statement and not give a counter argument. Should we abolish the drinking age and simply hope that people WANT to wait until 21 to drink? Should we decriminalize all drugs and hope that all people simply WANT to not take them? No. We have a drinking age and illegal drugs in place for a reason. We know people would misuse these things if given the opportunity. Instead of wanting people to not want to kill one another with guns, I want to give them real consequences by making stricter gun laws. This was the gist of my reply to his comment. This is when the debate began. I was not simply debating him alone. Two more guys jumped in the debate and at any moment I could find myself debating any one, two, or all three of these guys.
The debate progressed to me mentioning how easy it is to get a gun in this country. To which they responded by talking about New Jersey's strict gun laws. I had to explain how I was talking about how it is easy in many parts of the country, but I am thankful for the strict gun laws in New Jersey.
They went on to mention the usual talking point of the second amendment and how it was their constitutional right to own a gun. I had to fire back by saying that taking away guns would be a last resort, to which they got quite upset. They spouted anti-government conspiracies, and I had to explain how I would rather see their guns taken away than one more innocent victim of gun violence.
These guys kept mentioning the second amendment over and over again, and how they would never give up their guns because it was their constitutional right to own them. In response, I proposed a hypothetical situation where the second amendment was abolished, to which they responded that they would still not give their guns up. For clarification, I asked if they'd rather become criminals than give up their guns. This is when they said that they would start a second civil war if their rights to own a gun were taken away.
Every time I asked these guys to give me a good reason for owning guns they ignored me. Finally, they said they needed them to protect themselves. I asked if they ever had to use them to protect themselves. Again, they tried to avoid the question. However, one of them finally told me he had to use them when he was in the military and police. I thanked him for his service, but I asked about a time he had to use the guns he had at home to protect himself. I got no answer.
Eventually, the debate proceded into something more meaningful. We started to discuss alternatives to banning guns. I suggested holding gun sellers who knowingly sell guns to criminals accountable. They said that gun sellers would never do that because of mental health examinations. This helped drive my point that mental health examinations and background checks are not required at most gun shows around the country. This leads to the dilemma of bad apple gun dealers who knowingly sell to criminals and people with mental health disorders since the sellers know there will be no consequences for them.
I also proposed holding gun owners accountable for guns stolen from them which are used in a shooting. They asked why we don't hold car owners or salesmen accountable when their cars are misused. I mentioned how guns have the power to do more damage, cars have a much more practical purpose, and cars cannot be safely stored in the same manner as guns.
These guys even went as far as trying to disprove the gun buyback which Australia had after the Port Arthur massacre. However, the very article they shared simply proved how mass shootings had decreased since Australia's gun buyback.
The debate continued with me sighting all the mass shootings I could remember which took place at schools when one of them had the nerve to say "So disarm the law abiding citizens and eliminate their way of protecting themselves and their families because one asshole shot up a school?!?! " One of the guys even said "That's like sayin because someone has not been in a situation where they had to use a gun, and by use I mean actually firing or simply pointing it at a threat for protection, that they don't deserve the right to protect themselves." This further proved my point that if you've had guns for years and never had to use them, then what are you protecting yourself from? It's not like people are avoiding you because you have guns. You are not making it public knowledge to every person on the street that you own guns.
In the end, we agreed on making background checks mandatory. However, they were still adamant about not banning any guns because criminals would just find a way to get them anyway. But, that is such an overused and weak argument because based on that logic nothing should be illegal since "criminals will just find a way to get them anyway."
The debate spanned over a few days, and it lasted for about 155 messages. Two of the guys were respectful towards me while the third, at times, resorted to calling me names or saying I didn't know what I was talking about because I was just a kid (even though I am actually 20). He even went as far as looking at my facebook profile and saying that I was a bad Boy Scout if I wanted stricter gun laws.
I can't really say why I bothered debating these guys. These debates almost never end up changing anyones mind, and they certainly waste a lot of time. I still believe in stricter gun laws while these three guys still believe in protecting their second amendment rights and apparently prioritizing that right over the lives of all the innocent victims lost daily to tragic gun vioelnce.
