How do I counter the following specific anti gun-control argument convincingly?

Question

The gun-control proposition:
If no one carried a gun then there would be no need for any individual to carry one, concealed or not.

The anti gun-control argument to that proposition:
In the absence of guns, there is still violence perpetrated on victims (rape, battery, attempted murder, etc.). Victims have the right to defend themselves and, especially weaker or elderly ones, the right to do it with something practical, easy to use, and with guaranteed stopping power like a gun.

How do I counter that argument convincingly?

Answer 1

You don't. You're on the wrong side (again!).


Here's a better set of questions for you:
Do you believe that taking away guns will really make crime go away?
Is that in fact your real motivation for taking guns away, or do you have an ulterior motive?
If your motivation truly is to lower crime/eliminate crime, what other options do you see besides infringing upon people's rights?
Do you believe people's rights are more important, less important or equally important to stopping crime?
If guns were gone tomorrow (simply vanished, along with all knowledge of guns, and how to manufacture guns), what do you think would happen?
How long would it be before people would invent guns again (after the guns simply vanished)?



CJR: Your first sentence is accurate. After that, it goes down hill.

The word "Arms" does very much include things like swords, knives, rifles and even grenades. The NRA has nothing to do with that definition.

The fact that the government has seen fit to restrict those things doesn't change anything. In fact, all it does is prove Thomas Jefferson correct when he said (paraphrased) that government tends to look after itself, and it needed to be watched cautiously.

There needs to be no "justifiable reason" for people to own arms. We have the inalienable right to arms for our protection, just as a tiger has the inalienable right to his claws and his teeth for his own protection. It doesn't matter whether he is protecting himself from another tiger, or a human hunter, or an angry bee.

It doesn't matter to us whether we are protecting ourselves from an over-reaching tyrannical government or a murderous intruder or a carjacker. The end result is the same. We have the right to keep and bear arms.

The right to keep and bear arms absolutely confers the right to overthrow a government that has overstepped its bounds. Read and then re-read the Delaration of Independence. Read anything written by the founding fathers, but especially Thomas Jefferson. Government was and always should be distrusted and kept to a minimum. More government is more 'bad' (pardon the grammar).

I have absolutely seen tracer/incendiary ammunition for sale. Go look anywhere on the web. What planet do you live on?

Gun laws vary by state, so many of the areas you mentioned are legal to bring guns into in some states, and others are much more restrictive.

If your point was that some gun control is allowed (and therefore constitutional), I'll agree that it has been allowed, but it's constitutionality is being questioned, and rightly so. We should constantly question the constitutionality of every law.

Guns don't necessarily take the intimacy out of killing. They simply level out the "playing field." A 90 year old man and seventeen year old kid can both use one with equal outcomes. Tell a 90 year old man that he has to wrestle with his attacker, instead of using his gun to defend his life. He likely will lose. A seventeen year old would have an easier time of it, but even his youthful strength might not be the match of his attacker's. Give them both a gun, and play the scenario again. Who loses now?

Guns level the playing field. Everyone can use one, and they require no special skill to use proficiently. The plus for society is that criminals prefer unarmed victims, and don't like the level playing field.

Disarming society only helps the criminals. We will always have criminals. If you want to live as a servant; fearful, on your knees, hoping that no one hurts you and begging for scraps--go for it. I prefer to live as a man.

Answer 2

I think we should start looking at some of those studies that sociologists have done and see why it is that we are such a violent society. Lack of opportunity? Lack of social connectedness? Racism? Etc. etc. many reasons, and work on those reasons. A young person who has no potential to be anything in life will go ahead and wreck others' lives, whereas a homeowner with kids to raise will be unlikely to do that. Gun violence is a symptom of a sickness that we have in our society.

And I don't know what you're supposed to do about rabid raccoons or if a grizzly bear charges you. If people worried about those things carry guns, then, well. . .where are you going to draw the line?

I think if you were a small woman in a bad neighborhood working as a clerk overnight in a convenience store, you would not see this as an academic debate. I don't think there is a good response, except to say that those who are small and weak will be unable to defend themselves, and some of those people will be sacrificed for the greater good of society. And maybe you're ok with that.

This would be like considering that seatbelts usually save lives, but in some cases, a person loses their life because of the seatbelt itself. That is true, by the way. So having fewer guns on the street would mean less homicide, but it would also make smaller people more vulnerable to predators.

the gun control proposition is stupid anyway, you will never get rid of all the guns. A person can easily enough make a gun, if it comes to that.

Answer 3

You need to go back to the basics, and when you do you will realize that there should not be gun control. The founders understood that people need guns because the government will always have them. The people need to be able to defend themselves in case the government gets out of control. The English kept their population in control that way long ago, only the rulers could have weapons such as bows and arrows. That is the essence of the 2nd amendment, to allow the people the ability to protect themselves .

Answer 4

Many who own guns today aren't legally permitted to do so - mostly the criminal element.

If guns were banned, only the honest citizens would obey the law by turning their guns in. Those who already are breaking the law would continue to do so.

I do not want to live in a society where only Thugs, Police and Military are permitted to have weapons.

If manufacturing of weapons was banned in the U.S., the manufacturing would simply move overseas and be sold on the black market to those who want one. Similar to drugs, guns would be smuggled into the U.S.....and sales would actually increase when law-abiding citizens realize that they still need to protect themselves from those who illegally have them.

What needs to be done is strict enforcement of the dozens of gun laws already in existence.....

Answer 5

It will be harder for the attacker to scare someone without a gun. The power that a gun gives to the perpetrator is enough to give them anything they want. Without it, the victims have a better chance of defending themselves. In dealing with the weaker and elderly point, you should propose community unity against attacks like these be enforced to prevent said attacks

Answer 6

Gun control is a misnomer.
The Second Amendment says NOTHING about guns or firearms. It says the right to bear bear ARMS. Arms is a much broader category than the NRA would like you to realize. Swords, knives, grenades, mines, missiles, rockets, even armored vehicles are, technically, "arms." However, the government has seen fit to outlaw the possession of these items to the general public. Why? Because there is little to no justifiable reason for a citizen to posses these items. And the "right to bear arms" does not confer the right to overthrow the government, as some would have you believe. The government is supposed to maintain itself in the face of the possibility of an armed insurrection.
So, why are firearms allowed? Well, only CERTAIN firearms are allowed. Guns over a certain caliber are outlawed, guns capable of full automatic fire are not allowed (without licenses, in most cases), crew-served weapons are not allowed, certain types of ammunition are not allowed (ever seen tracer and/or incendiary bullets for sale? Didn't think so), and guns are not allowed in many restricted areas (airports, schools, churches, restaurants, federal buildings, hospitals, etc.). Even concealed-carry laws have restrictions.
There are even laws restricting what people can purchase and possess guns. Criminals are not allowed to possess guns, and there is a push to restrict those with mental illnesses from ever buying a firearm.
So, there's LOTS of arms-control laws. And most reasonable people are quite happy with the majority of these laws.
We get into the difficulty with the extremists.
The major justification for gun control is that guns make it very simple to kill another human being. They take the intimacy out of the equation. For instance, there are many fewer murders committed with knives and bats than with guns, despite the fact that knives and bats are available everywhere. Why? It's one thing to stand 50 feet away dfrom someone , pull the trigger, hear a loud noise, and watch someone crumple to the ground. It's something else to feel a knife enter a person's flesh, feel that person's warm blood flowing over your hand, and feeling the knife quiver from the muscle contractions and pain. Yes, I'm trying to be graphic here, and that's the point. Studies show people are much more likely to kill if there is less intimacy involved. For instance, an experiment that involved a subject administering an electrical shock to a person they could not see but could hear showed the subjects pressing a button marked "dangerous" despite pleas for mercy and then complete silence. Another more recent study asked two hypothetical situations. One involved flipping a switch that would kill one person but save five, and the other involved physically pushing someone off a bridge to save five people. Most people would flip the switch to save four lives, but almost nobody would push someone to save four lives.

Guns take away the immediacy of killing another human being. Because of that, they make it significantly easier to KILL another human being, and they escalate any confrontation from an argument to a life-threatening situation. That also dramatically increases the possibility of a bad outcome.

All that being said, a gun in the hands of a responsible individual is not a serious threat to anybody. Making the determination of a "responsible" individual is the tricky part.

In our society, there are too many guns in circulation to make gun control very effective. Also, the culture is such that many of the irresponsible people tend to gravitate towards guns. Canada has a much lower murder rate because of the culture and the very strict laws on gun possession.

So, given the situation that we live in, more guns invite more shootings, but the hope of concealed-carry laws does have some merit, if only because it is impossible to keep the sheer number of guns we have in the US out of the hands of irresponsible people.
Given that belief, what restrictions/conditions/training should be required of those who WISH to carry/possess guns?

Answer 7

You don't, other than arguing that it is acceptable for the law-abiding to be victimized by the lawless. I suppose one COULD take that position just for the sake of argument, but...

why?

Answer 8

First guns the knives then sticks bats. What else can be used to kill or injure a person.

It is our RIGHT to have guns. If they do not want one then fin do not have one leave us alone.

Answer 9

England outlawed guns. Yet policemen,and innocent men,women and children are shot to death every day.