Last week, a United Airlines flight attendant forced a passenger with a small dog to put the dog in an overhead storage bin during a flight, even though there were no vents for the dog to breathe. The dog did not survive the flight, and in less than a week, legislation was introduced into Congress to prevent such a tragedy from happening again. The bill is called the WOOFF Act — the Welfare Of Our Furry Friends.
When a defenseless puppy dies on an airplane, Congress is almost instantly roused to action. Why then, are our legislators so reluctant to provide the same level of care and concern for our children, when we have already lost so many to gun violence? How many mass shootings will it take before we see some meaningful legislation that could begin to turn the tide and make our schools, theaters, malls, and other public places safer?
Rather than allowing the National Rifle Association and its proponents to shut down any discussion of possible solutions, we need a real conversation in America about what meaningful legislation would look like, and we need a critical assessment of some of their key talking points, as follows:
Talking Point 1: Gun laws will only hurt law-abiding gun owners since criminals will not abide by them.
If you follow the logic in this argument, it would be pointless to have any laws at all since some people will not abide by them. Since some people will rob, should robbery be made legal? How about speeding? We do not pass laws based on whether some people are going to break them anyway. That is absurd. The question is whether the laws make sense and might make a difference. In what ways are law-abiding gun owners “hurt” by sensible gun legislation?
Talking Point 2: People who are in favor of gun control want to take all of our guns.
This may be the crown jewel in NRA propaganda, because it gins up the fear, anger, and paranoia of its constituency. The vast majority of people I know who support some form of gun control do not want to take away everyone’s guns. This is one area where the most progress could be made, if only we could get past the paranoia and propaganda and discuss it rationally.
We already have some types of gun control in place, so it is really just a question of where to draw the line in the types of guns that citizens need. Does anyone need more than a double barrel twelve-gauge shotgun for self-defense? I haven’t seen any proposals to eliminate those. Does anyone really need an assault rifle to hunt deer, rabbits, or quail? Aren’t there literally hundreds of guns to choose from for target shooting?
Why does anyone
