This Is the Dumbest Anti-Gun Argument I've Ever Heard, and That Is Saying Something

I've been writing for Bearing Arms almost daily since 2017. Before that, I followed the gun debate as a gun person and Second Amendment advocate. In that time, I've seen and heard a lot of gun control arguments of varying qualities. Almost all of them are bad takes, to be sure, but every now and then, someone surprises me with an argument that takes a minute to consider before I try to rip it to shreds.

They're all better than one I came across over the weekend.

This one comes to us via an op-ed out of Australia, and while I tend to prefer to focus on American gun politics, the truth is that bad arguments rarely die where they stand. They get picked up and carried by those who think it's somehow clever.

Because this one is so dumb, I think someone here might find it profound, so let's take a look at it, shall we?

There may be an argument to increase security at the homes and offices of members of parliament. There are, however, limits to the desirability of having more armed people in public places. I have been very disturbed recently to see the Minns government in NSW decide to place police bearing long-range rifles on street corners, as well as by a plan to have armed private security groups in attendance at events. In my estimation, giving good people guns creates bad people with guns and is in no way a solution.

(Emphasis added)

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen, the most brain-dead take I've ever seen.

Now, I'd like to think that he's trying to make the case that if you allow good people to obtain guns, that makes it easier for bad people to get them, too, because at least some will pass all the checks you put in place. After all, the Bondi Beach killers weren't exactly toting full-auto AK-47s they got from ISIS. They used guns that were legally obtained.

But that's not what he's saying. He clearly makes the case that armed security is part of that problem, and folks, this is a moronic take.

Even the most totalitarian regimes that allow no one outside their elite and the government itself to own firearms still have armed bad guys. There is no place on the planet where bad people with guns simply don't exist. 

Let's say, though, you could somehow make all the guns vanish. Then what? Do you think violent criminals will suddenly give up their wicked ways? Or will they simply be violent via other means? The UK basically abolished private gun ownership in the home and while gun crime was never high, crimes involving knives and other implements went through the roof. Suddenly, bad guys didn't have to worry about getting shot, so they went buck wild.

That's how it shapes up all over the place.

The Gun Control Act here in the United States didn't just fail to stop an increase in so-called gun crime, it was passed in the middle of one of the greatest spikes in the homicide rate we've ever seen, one that didn't really come down to a more appropriate level until after the assault weapon ban sunset in 2006.

Bad guys are bad guys. This isn't Wreck-It Ralph, where you can be a bad guy without being a bad guy. This is the real world, where bad people are bad people and won't become good simply because the innocent can't defend themselves.

So yeah, this is the most idiotic argument I've ever seen, and that's saying something.

Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their extreme gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun-grabbing schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.