This edition of Well Regulated will take a break from discussing current events, and instead will focus on an issue of rhetoric. Being a good ambassador for the Second Amendment entails more than just proper firearms handling, a willingness to openly advocate for your beliefs, and practicing what you preach. In order to effectively advocate for the right to keep and bear arms, you must be prepared to respond appropriately to the arguments put forth by those who would like to further infringe upon your rights. Many of the claims espoused by gun control advocates are easily repudiated with a basic knowledge of firearms law and technology. For example, if someone were to claim that “you don’t even need to go through a background check to purchase a firearm”, all you would have to do is cite ATF Form 4473 (the form submitted by FFLs in order to complete a firearm transfer).
In my personal experience, I have rarely struggled to argue with someone anti-gun when the discussion is focused on that which is blatantly empirical such as the number of firearm deaths in a year, the rates of fire of various firearms, or when various technologies were introduced. However, the gun control lobbyists and activists have spent decades carefully perfecting rhetoric to win over the uninformed while also framing their opposition as unsympathetic and dangerous. A question that proved difficult for me to respond to – when I was less experienced in debating gun rights in person – was: “Why do you need ___?” This question is usually (although not always) asked in an incredulous tone in response to the notion of a civilian owning an AR-15, standard capacity magazine, or some other firearm or accessory which the person asking the question finds objectionable.
On its surface, this question does not seem complicated or difficult for an advocate to respond to. If you asked someone who is working on a car why they need a torque wrench, they would respond by explaining the function of the tool and when its use is needed in a car. Applying this type of response to the possession of standard capacity magazines would mean detailing that a magazine feeds ammunition into the action of a firearm and that the use of standard capacity magazines is most useful in situations which necessitate the ability to fire many rounds without reloading, such as during a self-defense encounter. Personally, I have encountered well-meaning people who were simply ignorant of anything relating to firearms and were completely unaware of a particular item’s function or use. The purpose of their question was just that – a desire to have something explained. Encounters such as these are not the focus of this column, to the contrary, the people who ask “Why do you need ___?” that this column is centered on do not consider themselves ignorant on the issue in any way. Rather, they feel very well informed on the subject of firearms, laws, and crime. An explanation of function or use will not suffice as a response to their question, because their question is not intended to solicit information or clarification.
If asking “Why do you need ___?” is not meant as a means of seeking information, then what is its purpose? Consider if you were a gun control advocate, arguing with a pro-gun individual. Your goal (at least in part) is to make your opponent step back from one of their convictions. If you asked, “Why do you need an AR-15?” the response might be that the other person uses it for home-defense. At this point, all you would need to do is establish that this same goal could be accomplished by a shotgun or pistol. After all, if you can adequately defend yourself with an alternative weapon, then why do you need an AR-15? At this point, the gun control advocate would likely cite public mass shootings – extraordinarily rare crimes that have been used to twist and abuse public perception of the most common firearm platform in America as a means of advancing the gun control agenda. But the facts do not matter to an uninformed observer, because all they will hear is that this weapon isn’t necessary for an acceptable purpose but is used to commit horrific crimes. In the mind of someone ignorant of the complexities and realities of the issue, this is enough to completely frame the argument as a reasonable individual seeking to save lives versus someone who is only self-interested and won’t change their ways to prevent tragedy. Of course, this could not be further from the truth, but once this dichotomy is established in the mind of the observer, it is extremely difficult to correct.
Put another way, the question of “Why do you need ___?” is so pernicious because it conceals not only the information sought but also its intent. To use an analogy, if, after a long and difficult day at work, you said “I need a drink.” that would be mere colloquial use of the concept of “need”, a strong desire or preference, but not an actual necessity. However, if a doctor said you need to have emergency surgery, he is saying that the procedure is necessary to continue living. In common conversation, we understand that most often, saying you “need” something is not describing a requirement for the immediate continuation of life. The question at hand makes no such distinction, leaving either interpretation possible. As a result, a particularly motivated person could use a careless statement that the use and possession of a given item is not necessary for the immediate continuation of their life and use that to build a framework for a complete prohibition on firearms. Perhaps this seems an extreme leap, but it is not as difficult a conclusion to reach as one might think. Take the previous example of not “needing” an AR-15 because a handgun or shotgun could be used as an alternative tool. By extension, the handgun isn’t necessary as an option, because the shotgun could also perform the task. It isn’t strictly necessary to have a shotgun with a shorter barrel and full-length magazine tube, one could defend themselves with a 32” sporting shotgun. There is no point at which the argument reaches a logical end, it can be extended into perpetuity as a means of justifying a ban of almost anything. Indeed, it is not even necessary to discuss this danger in the abstract. Look towards almost any firearms-related court case – such as Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General New Jersey (covered in last week’s Well Regulated) – and the argument made in favor of stricter regulation is that it is to protect public health and safety. This same argument was used almost 100 years ago with the passage of the NFA, or when New York passed the Sullivan Act in 1911. By not insisting on the absolute necessity of the use and possession of arms, Americans have allowed our compassion to be used as a weapon against us.
This column began with the premise that the question “Why do you need ___?” is most often used in debate and discussion between individuals. In keeping with that premise, it is important to conclude this column with the best means of addressing such a question. As already stated, this question can easily be used to establish a framework from which you will have tacitly endorsed gun control. The best way to avoid such a dilemma is to stop the tactic before it can begin. When asked, “Why do you need ___?”, simply say that the question is far too broad. Tell them that there are so many possible interpretations of what information is being requested, that the only way to give a proper answer is with a more specific inquiry. If they are asking in good faith for practical uses of the item in question, then they will have been provided the opportunity to specify, and the discussion can continue in good faith. On the other hand, if the goal was to trick you into allowing for some degree of gun control, you will have forced your opponent to either show their hand or change course entirely.
