Bumper Sticker Mentality
Bumper Sticker Mentality
Many of the phrases gun-rights advocates frequently
repeat are nothing more than bumper sticker slogans, which are overly
simplistic, but catchy. Some of the popular phrases are repeated so often that
the message they attempt to portray become embedded in people’s minds to such
an extent that they are widely held to be both true and relevant.
In this post, we will analyze
the following three popular slogans which are used as arguments to either
support gun-rights or denounce gun-control.
·
“Guns
don’t kill people, people kill people”
·
“When
guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”
·
“The
only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun”
Although these phrases have little substance, they have
become powerful tools that gun-rights activists use to deflect against any
attempts to criticize guns or impose restrictions on guns. Additionally, they empower
politicians to suggest that the United States does not have a gun problem. No
matter how damning the statistics on gun crime and no matter how many mass
shootings there are, many politicians will blame firearm deaths on just about
anything other than the gun.
It is now time to dissect the 3 slogans in question.
1. “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”
This bumper style slogan was made popular by the NRA and
to analyze the phrase “Guns
don’t kill people, people kill people” we need to separate the two clauses in
the statement.
Guns
don’t kill people – This is clearly incorrect when around 40,000 Americans are killed each year. All these fatalities were a direct
result of a shot being fired from a gun. If a water pistol had been used
instead of a gun then the target would be wet but uninjured. With a gun the
target if hit, will either be dead or injured. Guns are specifically designed
to kill which is why they are used in the military.
People
kill people – this clause is correct; people do kill people. People may kill
others on purpose or by accident and they may kill themselves either on purpose
or by accident. People kill people using many types of methods including guns,
pills, knives, blunt objects, or by using their own bodies.
What gun-rights
advocates are trying to say is that it is not the gun that kills, but rather
the person firing the gun who kills. This is nonsense and could be applied to
absolutely anything, dangerous, or non-dangerous alike e.g. butterflies don’t
kill people, people kill people, or nuclear bombs don’t kill people, people
kill people when clearly a nuclear bomb is more dangerous than a butterfly. The
1st clause is superfluous since it could apply to any noun and the
second clause is stating the obvious since all homicides and suicides are
perpetrated by people.
A more logical interpretation of the statement “Guns don’t kill people, people
kill people”, would be “People with guns kill people” however this only tells
half the story. In reality, the true statement should be “Guns make it easy for
people to kill people”. This applies to homicide, suicide, and accidents. Guns
are not only designed to kill they are also designed to make it easy for people
to kill. The prevalence of guns in the United States is the sole reason why their
murder rate is much higher than in any other highly developed country.
If
you are being pedantic you can argue that guns don’t kill by themselves, but in
combination with people they do kill and they are a dangerous combination.
This is a slogan used to warn of the dangers of confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens. The logic follows the 3 arguments below:
1. If
guns are outlawed only criminals will have guns.
2. A state
of affairs in which only criminals have guns is dangerous.
3. Therefore,
guns should not be outlawed
There
are 2 ways in which these statements can be analyzed depending on whether it is
a complete ban on guns which is being considered, or if it is just greater
restrictions on gun purchases or ownership which is being considered.
In
the situation where there is a complete ban on guns then statement 1 will be
true i.e. only outlaws will have guns because anyone owning a gun would
automatically become a criminal. In this scenario, however, statement 2 will
not apply since the criminals will include the following categories, good
citizens, police officers, military, etc. who are not generally dangerous. They
will only have become criminals due to the outlawing of guns. In reality, a
total ban on guns is never likely to be proposed and even less likely to be
actioned, so this interpretation is somewhat irrelevant.
In
the more likely scenario where just greater restrictions on firearms are being
proposed then the 1st argument will be false. It will not just be
criminals who have guns. The police and most law-abiding citizens who desire a
gun will still have access to guns. Since the 1st argument is false
the other 2 arguments are not relevant since they will not apply.
In
reality, sensible restrictions on gun ownership and gun purchases reduce the
danger imposed by outlaws or criminals in two ways. Firstly, restrictions based
on weapon type e.g. banning semi-automatic weapons may limit the amount of
damage an outlaw can initiate. Secondly, restrictions based on who can own or
acquire firearms e.g. banning people on no-fly lists, or those with a history of domestic violence from acquiring guns will
result in fewer outlaws having firearms.
It is
worth noting the difference between the prevalence of firearms used in crimes
between the United States and the United Kingdom. In the United States, data
collected by the FBI for 2011 show that firearms were used in 68 percent of
murders, 41 percent of robbery offenses, and 21 percent of aggravated assaults
nationwide[i]. By comparison for the
year ending March 2019 in England & Wales firearms were used in 4.9% of
murders and approximately 2.1% of robberies.[ii]
The strict gun regulations in the UK would, therefore, suggest that in general, outlaws in countries where there are few firearms do not have guns. This suggests that a more accurate translation of the phrase “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” would be “When guns are outlawed, most outlaws won’t have guns”.
3. “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun”
The
above slogan was coined by the NRA Executive Vice President, Wayne LaPierre at
a news conference on December 21, 2012, just 1 week after the tragic mass
shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school had left twenty young children and six
adults dead. Wayne LaPierre then asked Congress to put armed security into
every school in the United States. The theory is that when the bad guy with a
gun comes along there will need to be a good guy to shoot him down before the
bad guy does any, or at least not too much, damage.
This
slogan is wrong on many levels. Firstly, the use of the word “only” is not
correct, since there are many other ways in which a bad guy with a gun can
potentially be stopped, although no single method, including the good guy with
a gun method, will always succeed. Possible methods would include the following
with the effectiveness of each method depending on the situation.
o
Putting your hands up to show you are not a
threat and telling the bad man you will co-operate – this is effective in
burglaries or robberies in which the bad man is more interested in taking your
possessions rather than your life. Is it worth risking your life to save your
TV or cell phone from being taken?
o
Retreating to a safe place – this is effective
if you see the bad man with a gun before they see you
o
Persuasion – this may be effective in
situations where the bad guy is familiar with the intended victim e.g. a wife
explaining to her ex-husband to think about their children and the effect of
having their mother dead and their father incarcerated for life.
o
Playing dead – this may be effective in mass
shooting situations where retreat is not possible
o
Someone, either the intended victim or
bystander calling 911 – Effective when the caller will not be noticed by the
bad guy
It is
true that except for persuasion, or a prompt response to a 911 call, none of
the above stop the bad man with a gun. They do however buy time and time is not
on the side of the bad guy as in most cases the bad guy will eventually be
arrested.
It
also has to be acknowledged that a good guy with a gun, especially when the
good guy is a trained police officer is an effective way to stop a bad guy with
a gun and indeed probably the most effective way. In most situations however it
puts the good guy at enormous risk. A good guy with a gun will immediately
become a threat and hence a target for a bad guy with a gun. If the good guy is
a trained police officer then the good guy is most likely to prevail but if the
good guy is an ordinary citizen then it is 50-50 whether the good guy or the
bad guy will prevail.
Another
problem with the word “only” is that it could be a bad guy with a gun who stops
a bad guy with a gun. This no doubt happens quite frequently in gang or drug-related
warfare.
Given
that there are alternatives to good guys with guns stopping bad guys with guns,
the slogan would be more reasonable if the words “the only” were simply
replaced by the word “a” i.e. “A way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a
good guy with a gun”
The
next problem with the slogan is the definition of good guy and bad guy. In movies,
the distinction is usually quite clear, but in real life, the definition of
good and bad may be more blurred. A good guy may purchase a gun to protect his
family and property. Years later the good guy may have a row with his wife
become drunk and violent and become a bad guy. Similarly, a teenager may become
addicted to drugs and commit crimes to fund his habit, a clear example of a bad
guy. Twenty years later, following rehab, this guy has served his time and
learned his lesson. He now has a responsible job and is a loving husband and
father. This bad guy has turned into a good guy. The majority of people are
good most of the time but many have the capability of turning bad under certain
circumstances e.g. divorce, job loss, financial difficulties, alcohol, or drug
problems.
Whilst
accepting that the statement “A way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good
guy with a gun” is technically correct and that in most instances it will be
obvious who is the good guy and who is the bad guy, the slogan still fails to
reach the heart of the matter. This being why does the bad man have a gun in
the first place.
All
other highly developed countries have more restrictive firearm laws than the United
States which are designed primarily to prevent bad guys from getting guns.
Additionally, when there are fewer guns in circulation it is more difficult for
bad guys to get guns illegally. Instead of trying to find a good guy to remove
the threat of a bad guy, it would make much more sense to make it as difficult
as possible to stop the bad guys from getting guns.
This
underlines a basic problem in the United States which is the general acceptance
that it is impossible to stop bad guys from getting hold of guns. This simply
is not the case and in other highly developed countries bad guys by and large
are successfully prevented from obtaining firearms. In another post we will examine ways in which the bad guys can be prevented from having guns, but
for now, we need to translate the “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is
with a good guy with a gun” into a more sensible slogan and suggest the
following – “The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to stop the bad guy
getting a gun”
In summary, the phrases below should be replaced as follows:
“Guns don’t kill
people, people kill people” = “Guns make it easy for people to kill people”
“When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will
have guns” = “When guns are outlawed, most outlaws won’t have guns”.
“The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is
with a good guy with a gun,” = “The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun
is to stop the bad guy getting a gun”
[i] National Institute of Justice. (2019, February 26). Gun Violence in
America. Retrieved from https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/gun-violence-america
[ii] Office for National Statistics. (2020, February 13). Offences
involving the use of weapons: data tables year ending March 2019. Retrieved
from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/offencesinvolvingtheuseofweaponsdatatables
Comments
Post a Comment