Dan Crenshaw Says He Loans Guns to People, Offended When AOC Wonders if Any of Them Are ‘Violent’ Felons

It is difficult to know what Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) hoped to achieve by using his admission that he regularly loans handguns to his friends as an argument against any kind of law that would require universal background checks for private gun sales. Unless his goal was to get dragged on Twitter by his fellow congressional representatives. In that case, congrats! Mission accomplished.

Crenshaw kicked off the exchange on Tuesday night with this tweet:

Situations like this story are why we protect the 2nd Amendment.

Side note: With universal background checks, I wouldn’t be able to let my friends borrow my handgun when they travel alone like this. We would make felons out of people just for defending themselves. https://t.co/x60mdd1WW1

— Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) September 4, 2019

Crenshaw is referencing reports that the gunman who killed seven people and wounded over 20 others this weekend in Texas had failed the background check required to buy a gun. So he purchased the AR-15 he used in his shooting spree from a private seller, a transaction that is exempt from background checks.

There is so much wrong with Crenshaw argument that one wonders where to begin. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez certainly tried:

You are a member of Congress. Why are you “lending” guns to people unsupervised who can’t pass a basic background check?

The people you’re giving a gun to have likely abused their spouse or have a violent criminal record, & you may not know it.

Why on earth would you do that? https://t.co/TQFjcLQebO

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) September 4, 2019

This is a good question. Why do Crenshaw’s friends not own their own guns? Can they not pass background checks? Is he loaning his guns to people who can’t pass those checks? Because that seems irresponsible at best.

Crenshaw, of course, went all You have insulted my honah, how dare you in his response:

Just so I’m clear: you think my friends are domestic abusers/criminals? Seriously that’s your argument? That they can’t pass a background check?

Wrong. People lend guns to friends, esp if they don’t own a gun, for self-defense and hunting purposes.

This is America outside NYC. https://t.co/wkWPhfi0JB

— Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) September 4, 2019

You said w/ universal background checks, you wouldn’t be able to “lend” guns to friends.

If a background check would be a problem, then you shouldn’t “lend” a gun.

And btw, NY is one of the safest states in the country when it comes to guns, incl rural areas.

Try to keep up. https://t.co/4RV4DNg7FM

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) September 4, 2019

Crenshaw is arguing the wrong point. There is no suggestion that self-defense and hunting are not legitimate reasons to own guns. The suggestion is the kinds of guns we allow people to have for those purposes.

Beyond this back-and-forth, it is not apparent how Crenshaw’s argument fits in to the story he linked. If one watches the entire piece, there is nothing in it that suggests the woman who shot a mugger was not properly licensed to carry a gun, had not failed a background check, or had borrowed the gun she was carrying from someone else. It does not even say what kind of gun she was carrying, which could have been a six-shot revolver and not a semi-automatic with an extended magazine holding 30 bullets.

In short, nothing in the story matches Crenshaw’s scenario of no longer being able to loan guns to friends if the universal background check loophole gets closed. And that’s assuming legislation to close that loophole would apply to loans as well as private gun purchases.

Crenshaw’s zeal for the Second Amendment is such that he completely botched his own argument, and made himself look incredibly irresponsible about his own gun ownership to boot. Otherwise, great job.