As I write this, we are between mass shootings in the United States. I don’t mean mass shootings in the way that statisticians use the term — referring to four or more people injured or killed (besides the shooter) — because there has been literally no breathing room between gun incidents of that variety this year. I’m talking about mass shootings in the “demand widespread public attention” definition of the term. Shootings with simple, chilling designations: Kip Kinkel, Sandy Hook, Columbine, Pulse Nightclub, Vegas, San Bernadino, Isla Vista, Parkland. (These are out of order and off the top of my head.) The fact that we are between mass shootings by its nature implies that public outcry for a remedy to gun violence is at a low. Though Parkland’s students have done a valiant job pushing their agenda forward and keeping people focused, this is the cycle we’re in. People fighting for social justice on a variety of fronts are always going to struggle going up against a singularly-focused organization like the NRA. Gun zealots use the calm between shootings to pass small-scale gun bills (like the silencer bill in Arizona); those fighting for gun control would be wise to do the same. Part of that means deepening their knowledge of the issues they’re up against. You remember the end of 8 Mile when Eminem’s B-Rabbit predicts what everyone is gonna say to beat him? It’s a hell of an argument tactic and one well worth paying attention to if you’re fighting for reasonable gun control. To win the battle, you have to be ready to parry the other side’s attacks. You even have to be able to see some degree of logic to their thinking. Sure, you can act totally baffled that they believe what they believe and mock them to your private echo chamber, but… how’s that been working out over the past two decades? If you really want gun control — and plan to be vocal about it — you need to understand these pro-gun arguments.

1. Mass shooters are statistical anomalies. There have been 250 mass shootings (four or more shot, not including the shooter) so far in 2018. We don’t know how many people own guns in the US (it’s against the law!), but the rock-bottom estimate is 40.4 million. That’s less than a 0.0007% chance that one of America’s gun owners has been involved in a mass shooting this year. It’s statistically negligible. We’re talking lightning strike-level odds. If you include all 36,378 gun incidents this year (in which a gun was discharged leading to injury or death), you’re still down at less than a 0.09% chance of any given gun owner being involved. You can play with these stats all you want, but what you’ll find is that when grouped in with gun owners as a whole, mass shooters are statistical anomalies. If that’s your sample size (total population of civilian gun owners), this sort of violence is indeed exceedingly rare. THE ARGUMENT AGAINST — For a pro-gun advocate to act as if you are in contention with all gun ownership and thereby contrast statistics on shootings with a sample size of “all guns in circulation” or “all gun owners” is disingenuous. You’re not fighting those battles. Because — most likely — you don’t want all guns removed from circulation. You simply want tighter rules and regulations, more oversight and licensing, mental health evaluations for certain gun owners, and the restriction of specific weapons. In these cases, there really is no way to parse statistics because we’ve never tried things any other way in America. So your argument against the “mass shooters are an anomaly” line is to say: “Right, but they are a preventable (or at-least semi-manageable) anomaly. Throughout history our government has always tried to prevent/ minimize the effect of disasters (earthquakes, hurricanes, wildfire), there is no reason we wouldn’t do it with mass shootings.” Or, if the person you’re arguing with just won’t let go of statistics, “The U.S. has no useable statistics because things have always been this way — there’s no ‘experiment in progress.’ If you won’t allow us to compare gun statistics from literally any other country on earth, then let us try things another way for 10 years so we can have data to study.” 2. The Second Amendment protects gun owners. End of story. Our nation is governed by a constitution. It is the framework of our democracy and the document that irrevocably separates us from monarchies, communist-states, and dictatorships. That constitution protects the right to bear arms. It is clear and unwavering in that point. Yes, people have died and yes, that is a tragedy. But because those various tragedies are essentially anomalies (see above), they aren’t worth sacrificing the constitution for. This sacred document is the foundation of everything we do. To alter it in order to prevent an absolute statistical improbability is absurd. Do we change the first amendment every time someone yells “fire” in a movie theater? THE ARGUMENT AGAINST — We absolutely should not abolish the second amendment. It has a place in the constitution for a reason and belongs there. But the “‘fire’ in a movie theater” example reminds us that the Constitution itself (via further amendments, state laws, and the Supreme Court) is always being reinterpreted to reflect changing times.