It’s exhausting living in unprecedented times and SCOTUS isn’t helping. In June 2022, it cut down a New York law that required a person seeking a concealed carry permit for a handgun to show a good reason for doing so. In one ruling, SCOTUS increased access to guns even though gun violence was at an all-time high.

The Straw Man Fallacy

Congress passed gun legislation shortly after the SCOTUS ruling, but it’s only a first step. There’s still a lot of work to do. That’s why you will still come across the straw man fallacy on gun control. This is one of the most common arguments people use when making an argument. It’s full out manipulation. The straw man fallacy takes someone’s argument and reduces it to a weak talking point that is as easy to pick apart as a straw man. Don’t fall for it.

Straw Man #1 — Gun control laws violate the Second Amendment.

THE ARGUMENT: The Constitution gives us the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment clearly says, “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.”

WHY IT’S WRONG: First of all, when the Constitution was written, bullets weren’t even invented! The forefathers wrote the Second Amendment with bayonets in mind, not automatic weapons. Second, they clearly said “well regulated”. The intention was not for everyone to be wielding a gun and shooting at everything that moves. Guns were intended to protect people, not harm them. This does not match up with lax laws that allow guns to get into the hands of people who have criminal records, domestic violence offenses, and psychiatric conditions that increase their risk for erratic behavior. There’s nothing “well regulated” about that at all.

Straw Man #2 — Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.

THE ARGUMENT: A gun is not alive so, of course, it is not going to kill someone. It’s the person behind the gun you need to worry about. Blame it on mental illness, video games, or rap lyrics.

WHY IT’S WRONG: As much as people turn to this straw man fallacy, little to nothing is done to address the lack of mental health resources in this country. More to the point, most people with mental illness aren’t violent. They are actually more likely to be the victims of crime, not the perpetrators. That does not mean that mass shooters aren’t disturbed. To keep guns out of the hands of people with violent tendencies, mental health screening should be done whenever someone tries to purchase a gun.

Other countries play the same video games and hear the same rap lyrics without an increase in THEIR crime rates!

Straw Man #3 — Criminals will get their hands on guns anyway.

THE ARGUMENT: If gun control laws take effect, good people will not be able to access guns but the bad guys will still get them illegally.

WHY IT’S WRONG: Gun control laws will not prohibit law-abiding people from accessing a forearm. They simply have to go through the proper channels. There should be nothing to hide. That said, many mass shootings are perpetuated by people who legally purchased guns (e.g., Aurora, Buffalo, Las Vegas, Newtown, Orlando, Parkland, San Bernadino, Uvalde) because the laws were lax or did not have adequate background checks to consider any violent tendencies or red flags. Those shootings could have potentially been circumvented with stricter gun control laws.

While it is true that criminals are unlikely to follow the rule of law, changing gun control laws could decrease the number of legally purchased firearms that are used in violent crime.

Straw Man #4 — The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

THE ARGUMENT: When a bad guy starts shooting, a good guy can stop them with their own gun.

WHY IT’S WRONG: Law-abiding people who pass background checks will be allowed to purchase a gun. That means there could be people out there who have a gun on hand when tragedy strikes. That does not mean they will be able to stop a bad guy with a gun. While there are rare cases where this happens, there are also cases where people freeze up, have their own weapon turned against them, or accidentally shoot bystanders.

Even professionals trained to handle a gun can struggle during a mass shooting. In Parkland, a school safety officer was on duty but did not go into the school to approach the shooter. A security guard in Buffalo took action but died in the process. In Uvalde, policemen sat outside for over an hour while a gunman slaughtered children and teachers. While it is reasonable to have a gun for self-defense, it is not reasonable to expect a good guy with a gun to solve the problem of gun violence in our country.

Straw Man #5 — Gun control laws don’t work. Look at Chicago!

THE ARGUMENT: If gun control laws worked, cities like Chicago that have strict measures in place wouldn’t have so much gun violence.

WHY IT’S WRONG: Chicago has a gun control problem and that problem is called Indiana. Strict gun control laws are only as effective as the laws in neighboring cities and states. Guns are easily imported from states that have lax gun control and that is why national measures need to be put in place. Generally speaking. states with tighter gun control laws tend to have lower gun-related deaths.

Straw Man #6 — You shouldn’t politicize a tragedy.

THE ARGUMENT: You are being disrespectful to the victims if you address the need for gun control after a mass shooting or other gun-related tragedy. You can send thoughts and prayers but it is more polite to address the issue at another time.

WHY IT’S WRONG: The aftermath is exactly when you need to address gun violence. This is how you honor the victims. Don’t let their lives end in vain. Respect them enough to prevent this from happening to other people. America has a short attention span and we cannot sit back and wait for the next tragedy. Enough.