I get that not everyone agrees with us on guns. It would be great if they did, but since they don't, we just have to move forward with debating an issue that shouldn't require debate.
But what's even more frustrating is how often the arguments are just plain dumb.
I'm not talking about the usual stuff we all know is BS, either, but instead I'm speaking of the things that make absolutely no sense.
Take Iowa and its recent measure to allow adults under 21 to lawfully carry a firearm. The law only impacts who can carry and nothing else, and while I can imagine a number of arguments anti-gunners can make, let's take a look at one an anti-gunner actually did make.
A new state law will take effect tomorrow that will allow 18, 19 and 20-year-olds in Iowa to be able to carry handguns.
Art Roche is a board member with Iowans for Gun Safety, which opposes the new law. He says the group is concerned it could put more guns, more easily into the hands of people who may not be equipped to use them responsibly.
“We’re not interested in taking guns away,” Roche says. “We’re interested in being very thoughtful and very deliberate and very careful about how we introduce new avenues of gun availability into Iowans’ hands.”
Now, let's understand something right here and now. Nothing in this law changes anyone's access to firearms.
Under federal law, adults under 21 aren't able to buy a handgun, but there's no real prohibition on them owning one. So, many adults under 21 in Iowa own handguns because they were given to them by a parent or some other adult who could buy one lawfully.
What they couldn't do was carry one.
Now, they can't.
The availability of guns didn't really change, except now more law-abiding Iowans can carry one.
So why would Roche phrase it like that?
Well, there are a couple of reasons. One is that he's an idiot, which is certainly possible. He favors gun control, so we most definitely can't rule it out. Especially since he claims his group isn't interested in taking guns away, and we know that's a lie because sooner or later, every gun control group pushes for some measure that disarms people, at least to some extent.
And since he's suggesting this creates "new avenues of gun availability into Iowans' hands," it lends some credence to the idea that he's just an idiot.
But I'm not inclined to just dismiss everyone who disagrees with me as an idiot.
For one thing, it supposes I can't be wrong, which my wife assures me is most definitely not the case. For another, I've seen too many people seeming to play the fool, but only because I didn't fully understand what they were doing.
No, I'm starting to think this is a ploy to make this look like it does more than it does, which might make some folks very, very nervous about it. After all, if they think now young adults can buy guns, including for their younger friends--kind of like what happens with tobacco and alcohol--then bad things might happen.
That's not the case, but when have we seen the average person really understand what the gun laws are and what people can lawfully do?
The argument presented here is inane, but I think it's part of a deeper strategy to misrepresent what the law does in hopes they can gin up enough opposition to change the laws.
Anti-gunners are very good at one thing, and that's playing the long game. They take setbacks and immediately pivot to lay the groundwork for repealing those setbacks where they can. They celebrate their wins, then get back to work.
And part of that is convincing people that laws do things they don't actually do.
I'd really like to suppose that they're all just morons, but again, that's not a great idea.
I'm not saying that people will fall for this, because while some might, most won't. I'm saying that I think this is a ploy they're going to try until it either works or it's clear that it doesn't, then they'll try something else.
But regardless, the argument is still stupid.
