How do I justify opposition to legal concealed carry of handguns against the "right to self-defense" argument?

Question

I get in email/blog discussions, and the "right to self-defense" argument is the most difficult one for me to handle. What are some ethical arguments I could bring up to convince someone that their right to self-defense should not be of primary importance to them? Please give me some solid ethical points, not emotional or anecdotal ones. The emotional/anecdotal arguments get torn to shreds. I need some SOLID arguments that they can't dispose of so easily.

Ian, I've seen your point expressed, and the typical response is:
In the absence of guns, there is still violence perpetrated on victims. Victims have the right to defend themselves and, especially weaker or elderly ones, the right to do it with a gun.

How do I counter that argument convincingly?

Tas, same thing as Ian, see above.

How do we counter that self-defense response I mentioned?

Answer 1

You can't. There's a reason that argument can't be fought, and is difficult for you to "handle."

The right to self defense is a basic inalienable right that EVERY living creature has.

To argue that any living thing doesn't have the right to defend itself is beyond stupid.

There can be no ethical argument that any human being doesn't have the right to defend himself, because denying that human being the right to defend himself is in itself unethical. You do not have the authority (morally, legally, or ethically) to deny another person their right to live or to defend themselves. Therefore, any argument made to do so is unethical, immoral and contrary to legal standards.

As said before, you are on the wrong and losing side of the argument.

To Ashley: The Brady Campaign figures (as usual) are a little off. Go look up the data from where they get their numbers . In addition to being incorrect (**the actual number listed in the FBI UCR 2005, table 14 for handguns was 119, not 143**), the table itself doesn't actually reveal what they are trying to imply it reveals.

Look closely. It only uses felons killed by private individuals, during the commission of a felony. What if the person killed had no prior convictions as a felon? Does that mean it doesn't count as justified homicide? Of course not! Yet, it would not be included in the table, according to the FBI. And we don't prosecute dead people, so they won't be tried and found guilty of commiting a felony (for their very last act, the one in which they are justifiably killed).

This of course, also completely ignores those wounded, but not killed, and those scared off by the mere presentation of a firearm.

Great sleight of hand, but that's what the Brady Bunch are good at.

Do yourself a favor, and never quote their BS "facts" in any argument or discussion concerning guns. You won't be taken seriously if you do. They lie, they know it and so does everyone else.

If you want to post numbers, go directly to their source, and post those numbers to draw your own conclusions. At least, then, we can all use the same data, rather than blatant attempts to mislead, which is all the BB is good at.

** http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_14.html

Answer 2

I am not in agreement with you whatsoever, but I have honestly thought about this question. As I see it, your only leg to stand on is that the connection between the Second Amendment and "self-defense" is weak. It is not mentioned explicitly.

Often we can go to original intent for clarity. In this case, the Second Amendment was not meant for self-defense (which is probably due to the right to self-defense/property being self-evident) but rather for the execution of a tyrannic govenment.

Translating this original intent of broad-spectrum protection into private protection or more specifically, a concealed gun, requires several leaps that the Constitution does not necessarily imply.

How's that?

Answer 3

So you don't believe life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? A criminal does their best to steal these thing, thus violating the civil rights of law abiding citizens.

Since SCOTUS has declared police don't have to respond to a call, let alone those that if the police do respond the police are at least 45 minutes away, when the police do respond all they can do is draw a chalk outline.

There are too many criminals that will just kill someone, even if the person "does give it up."

If you don't want to defend yourself, go ahead. BUT leave those of us that love life and love our families enough to take responsibility for our own safety.

Answer 4

That right is important, but a handgun is not the only means of self-defense.

Some historians argue that the Second Amendment allows for the collective, not the individual, right to bear arms.

You could also argue that an attacker is less likely to have a concealed firearm if it is illegal, making a gun less necessary for self-defense.



Best I could do, I honestly support the individual right to bear arms, I just wish weapons weren't so easy to obtain.


EDIT:

"In 2004, firearms were used to murder 56 people in Australia, 184 people in Canada, 73 people in England and Wales, 5 people in New Zealand, and 37 people in Sweden.[8] In comparison, firearms were used tomurder 11,344 people in the United States.[9]

In 2005, there were only 143 justifiable homicides by private citizens using handguns in the United States"

Answer 5

The problem is you can't. Our constitution give us that right in the second amendment. Also not being able to carry concealed only causes more crime. Take Pennsylvania where if you can legally own a gun you can get a carry concealed permit. Philadelphia is the only city you can't carry conealed, yet murder is the highest. Or take Washington DC where hand guns are completely illegal and year after year they have the worst murder rate.

Answer 6

You don't think a person's ability to defend themself is important!?That is a rediculous statement sir,and if someone feels strongly that it is important,as I most certainly do,your attempt to justify your position will be dissmissed as nonsense or lunacy.I have no idea how you came to feel that a person's right and ability to self defense is of no importance but I must tell you that you are operating on a seriously flawed viewpoint.I won't berate you or argue with you but I confess that I am troubled by your stance on this issue.

Answer 7

There is no argument against concealed carry.

In every state that has passed a concealed carry law, the crime rate, especially violent crime, has dropped.

As of 2007, only one person with a concealed carry permit, has been found guilty of committing a crime using a firearm.

Thats one, in the entire United States !!!!!!!!!

Answer 8

I'd like to hear some of your arguments AGAINST the right to carry a concealed weapon or the "right to self defense".

I think you are just trying to stir the pot, because to attempt to tell somebody they have no right to self defense is, for a lack of better words, just ignorant.
The Carry Conceal laws, I am for them as long as some training is conducted before you carry. It is a proven fact where carry conceal laws are in effect, violent crimes against people have gone down.

Answer 9

I don't think there are any. If defending yourself is not of primary importance than just about everything else doesn't matter. Regardless of your position on guns, everyone has the right to defend themselves. The issue is what tools to use, if any.

Answer 10

We have no right to self defense? Does that mean if i walk up to you and start punching the crap out of you that you would be obligated to stand there and take it, without fighting back?
you are on the losing side of this argument.