Shooting Down the Pro-Gun Logic

Recently, Virginia Tech played it's first football game since the April shooting that left 32 students dead. This, along with the recent antics of Ted Nugent, got me thinking again about gun-control and the pro-gun lobby. Clearly, in countries where guns are less available, or banned altogether, citizens experience markedly less gun-related crime. But that's never evidence enough for gun people. The whole pro-gun logic is faulty to begin with, but here is a run-down (and rebuttal) of their greatest hits:

1. We need guns to defend ourselves.

What's wrong with pepper spray or a stun-gun? Why does defending oneself naturally mean killing the other guy? I think we should all be allowed to carry non-lethal arms. That would do the trick. Let the police carry the real guns.

2. Only criminals kill people with guns.

That's like saying only rapists rape people. Every criminal was a non-criminal at some point in their life. The VT gunman wasn't a criminal. Well, not until he killed 32 people with his legally-purchased handgun.

3. Guns don't kill people....If someone wants to kill someone, they'll find a way, gun or otherwise.

Someone please tell me how the gunman at VT could have killed 32 classmates with a hunting knife or a slingshot? Something tells me that if he didn't have the ability and the precedent to blow away a lot of people with a gun for the spectacle of it, he wouldn't have killed anyone.

4. The 2nd amendment guarantees my right to bear arms.

Okay, so maybe the Family Guy interpretation is a stretch, but the 2nd amendment is certainly ambiguous and outdated. It was written in a time when there were regular militias, a young, unstable government, and a depleted regular army. It could certainly be interpreted to mean a number of things. We assume that it doesn't permit citizens to possess nuclear weapons, but why not? Where's the ACLU on that one. I want my nukes! "Arms" could mean a pocket knife or anything. BTW, the constitution has been amended before. I believe they are called "amendments."

5. The "if-one-student-had-a-gun-this-wouldn't-have-happened-theory."

Study after study has shown that a gun in the home increases the likelihood of being involved in a gun-related accident, homicide, assault, and suicide. If one student or teacher in the class was packing, sure, maybe only 5 or 10 people would have died. But how many more incidents of gun violence would the presence of more guns create? We can't say for sure, but we know it would be more. And if this scenario had played out, would we be talking about the heroic, gun-toting student that saved the day? Hell no. We'd just be talking about a slightly-less-horrific massacre.