I once thought Harvard only accepted smart people.

Then David Hogg got in after being turned down by much lesser schools than Harvard claims to be. It became clear that the Ivy League's prestige is based on history more than anything else.

But one would hope that most who end up at Harvard have at least some inkling of an idea of how to think. I'd like to think that. I can't, but I'd like to, and this point-counterpoint article on guns certainly didn't help.

I'm going to to delve too far into the pro-gun arguments because, well, they'll all look familiar enough. I'll only use summarize them to frame some of the anti-gun arguments.

It starts with the pro-gun perspective saying that we need guns for self-defense. The author points out that defensive gun uses are far more common than offensive gun uses, etc.

To which his opponent in this debate offers this:

Proponents of individual gun ownership seem to continually emphasize their necessity in acts of self-defense. However, the reality is that firearms are rarely used in such situations. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, only 1.1% of all the self-protective behaviors undertaken by victims of violent crime involved the use or threat of a firearm, making it the least-employed method of self-defense in America. These statistics starkly contrast with the perception, often held by pro-gun lobbyists, that guns are necessary in America as self-protective measures.

First, understand that the National Crime Victimization Survey data looked at 2013-2015. That was an era when violent crime was relatively low, lower than it had been since the late 1960s. That matters because if there are fewer violent crimes then there will be fewer cases of people needed to defend themselves.

Further, the National Crime Victimization Survey is conducted by the US Census Bureau. The truth of the matter is that a lot of people who use a firearm defensively aren't going to open up about it to the United States government. For one thing, they might be concerned that they're going to get harassed by law enforcement or jammed up in some other way.

Then we have the fact that they use the phone book to get numbers for the survey. As a result, they don't get the most representative sample of the American population.

But even if all of that is true, it doesn't negate the fact that for those 1.1 percent, having a gun might well be the only reason they're alive.

He then goes on to tout a bunch of nonsense we've debunked here a thousand times at least. 

The pro-gun author then notes that proponents of gun ownership emphasize not self-defense but defense from tyranny, which leads this this crap:

It is undeniable that the historical context of the Second Amendment has made contemporary gun ownership in the United States particularly contentious. However, the original context in which this Amendment was ratified is arguably not applicable today. In fact, current American firearm laws are based on ‘‘interpretations’’ of the Second Amendment—in a modern context, what’s to say these aren’t misinterpretations?

The phrase "shall not be infringed" is pretty damn clear.

Moving on...

Furthermore, in its original context, the Second Amendment was intended to safeguard the right of militias to bear arms rather than to protect the rights of individuals to own guns. As evidence, in District of Columbia v. Heller, former Justice John Paul Stevens indicated in his dissent that “nothing in the Constitution protected the use of arms outside the context of a militia.” Therefore, it would seem that in America as we know it today, where the army has taken the place of militias in ensuring national security, the circulation of guns for private ownership is not necessary.

Additionally, even if the Second Amendment was indubitably clear about personal gun ownership in today’s America, it was written at a time when a typical musket used in the American Revolution could fire three rounds per minute. Compare this to a modern AR-15, which fires 45 rounds per minute with higher accuracy and greater range. It’s hard to imagine that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment in 1791, they could have foreseen the potential mass destruction that modern firearms would bring.

Again, this isn't new, but it should be remembered that the private ownership of artillery was permitted at the time of the nation's founding, despite claims by our current POTATUS notwithstanding. To claim that a modern firearm is too destructive for the Founding Fathers to approve

The author here should remember that our Founding Fathers were distrustful of government. They recognized a need for it, but they wanted it kept in check. That included a standing army. This is clear from the numerous writings they left behind on the subject.

To argue that the Second Amendment is irrelevant because we have an army that therefore negates the need for a militia is absolutely insane. 

But this is what we get from Harvard in this day and age. Nothing but regurgitated talking points based on absolute BS.