Connect With Us

FacebookTwitterRSSYoutube

Want Honest Gun Control Discussion? Pro-Gun Fictions Must Stop

English: Maschinenkarabiner 42 (Mkb 42W), Germ...

English: Maschinenkarabiner 42 (Mkb 42W), Germany. Prototype for an assault rifle, developed by Walther. Attached at the muzzle is a Schießbecher, a device to fire rifle grenades (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Enough is enough. It is quite apparent that those who do not have an actual argument rely upon slippery slope arguments and blatantly unreal hypotheticals. The fearmongering is only part of the problem, but the lack of any rational arguments. Take, for instance, Gayle Trotter. She is a lawyer and a gun rights activist, and she testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about how a ban on assault weapons would hurt vulnerable women.

The Huffington Post reported that:

Trotter painted a picture of mothers under siege in their homes, and when Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) questioned the details of one example she offered, she told the lawmaker he didn’t understand the issue. “You are a large man, tall man, a tall man,” Trotter said to laughter from the audience.

“You are not a young mother who has a young child with her and … you cannot understand. You are not a woman stuck in her house, not able to defend her children, not able to leave her child, not able to go seek safety, on the phone with 911,” Trotter said. And that woman, “she’s not used to being in a firefight.”

Despite arguing for serious firepower, Trotter said later the most important thing about assault weapons for women’s defense is the way the guns look.

“An assault weapon in the hands of a young woman defending her babies in her home becomes a defense weapon,” said Trotter, a mother of six. “And the peace of mind she has … knowing she has a scary-looking gun gives her more courage when she’s fighting hardened violent criminals.”

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Trotter also painted a picture of how a five on one firefight inside someone’s home was normal. Whitehouse should have sat there and demanded a real example of a time when such an incident occurred. He should have demanded to know if Trotter had ever faced such a situation. He then, when Trotter failed to actually bring up an actual example of those, should have told her to just not bother.

Assault rifles are pretty useless in home defense. This is partially because they are unwieldy in a small space. Another problem is that an assault rifle is designed to have serious punch to it- which means that the bullets can and will tear through the walls in most houses. This raises the likelihood of hitting innocent people like, well, one’s own children.

Trotter is, as HuffPo notes, not exactly a major voice in the gun debate. Her own writings do not appear to have addressed this issue until fairly recently.

The thing is, rifles are not very useful inside a house. A pistol is very useful, though, and less likely to go clean through walls. Part of the problem is that getting a rifle aimed in the small space of a normal house accurately is kind of difficult. This is why you pretty much never hear of anyone defending the inside of their home with a rifle. Sure, someone might defend their property with a rifle outside their home, but so far, there are very few times anyone bothers with a rifle inside the home, and that includes criminals. They just aren’t useful. Add to that, the fact that, to date, there have not been any instances of a mother having to hold off any group of criminals in a five on one battle recorded in the news in the US, and what you are left with is a baffling problem with the testimony.

The reality is that the NRA and gun rights advocates may have an argument when it comes to people owning pistols for home safety and hunting rifles for hunting, but they cannot come up with a decent argument for someone owning an assault rifle. They are useless in hunting because they pretty much turn the hunted into mush. They are too unwieldy and dangerous to safely use inside the house for defense. They are meant for offensive actions.

The NRA has to lie. They have to create these false realities so that they can pretend that they will happen. They are casting themselves as the heroes in a horrible action movie. They are glamorizing the very violence that they say they are trying to fight against. The NRA has done more than buy in to the Hollywood portrayal of guns. They are perpetuating it. They honestly and truly believe that these are real portrayals of life.

The NRA and gun rights activists are trying, desperately, to cover the fact that they have no argument when it comes to assault rifles. They have no arguments that will make any sense, so they create these fictions. It is time that we start calling them on it, and do so in such a way that comes down hard on these excuses. It is time that these people tell us the truth, and we can only do that by rejecting their manufactured reality.

Comments

comments

Share This Post

4 Responses to Want Honest Gun Control Discussion? Pro-Gun Fictions Must Stop

  1. JR Holt

    February 1, 2013 at 3:50 pm

    I keep hearing the term assault weapon but can anyone define just exactly what an assault weapon is or is not? I wonder what the term assautl weapon meant in 1775. Would the Minutemen recognize their smooth bore flintlocks or their Kentucky Long Rifles were assault weapons when compared to the British Brown Bess? Jump forward 85 years to the outbreak of the civil war. As I recall it much of the union army was equipped with what was called the farmer’s 1854 smooth bore musket. When the Sharps and Winchester repeaters came out those soldiers who were lucky enough to have them were the ones at first any way who had family who procured them for them. Later Lincoln who tested one personally ordered that they procured for the troops but an 8 shot Winchester helped save the Union so I wonder did my great great great grandfather have an assault weapon hanging over the fireplace mantle?
    As I understand it the 2nd amendment guarantees first the 1st amendment and all the others. From whom must the Constitution of the United States be guarded? Our founders were suspecious of all government which they saw as a necessary evil. I am part american indian i do not trust the US government and believe that a properly healthy relationship with any govenment requires we as citizens remain skeptically vigilant on guard against any attempt by our government to usurp our God right.

    • Bridgette P. LaVictoire

      February 1, 2013 at 3:52 pm

      With regards to our government- our first and best line of defense is a sharp mind, a good understanding of what is going on, and making sure that no one takes away our votes. The best defense to tyranny has always been making sure we can participate in our government.

  2. beatbox

    January 31, 2013 at 1:54 pm

    You don’t know what you are talking about. Yes, pistols are best for an immediate threat in the home, but if you are in a hurricane Katrina type of situation, an AR would be the way to go.

    • Bridgette P. LaVictoire

      January 31, 2013 at 1:57 pm

      That the best you have? Really? Katrina? So, basically, what you need an assault rifle for is when there is complete and utter anarchy on the streets?

      Sounds like I’m not the one who doesn’t know what she’s talking about.