I've been looking to make my analysis of the most common / most convincing arguments against gun control in order to write a follow up to an article I wrote recently (available here: 19 Years on From the Columbine School Massacre, What Has Changed? | The Urban Twist).
So far, I've been presented with the following arguments which stand in favour of the second amendment:
• Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
• If guns are banned, it will push guns into the hands of criminals.
• Japan didn’t invade America because it knew the population was armed.
• Responsible gun owners shouldn’t have their guns taken away.
• An armed civilian population prevents dictatorships from forming.
• Gun crime prevents domestic violence.
• Guns save more people than they kill.
• The only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.
• Switzerland has lots of guns and very little crime.
• More people die from opiates than gun crime.
• Most of the mass killings by gun in the United States in recent years — Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Newtown, Charleston, San Bernardino and Orlando — took place in venues where local or state law prohibited carrying guns, even by those lawfully licensed to do so.
• The NRA says that from 1991 to 2012, the murder fell by half while the number of semi-automatic guns rose by 50 million
Does anyone have any stronger arguments than these? Or can anybody expand on them, or argue against them?
I've been looking to make my analysis of the most common / most convincing arguments against gun control in order to write a follow up to an article I wrote recently (available here: 19 Years on From the Columbine School Massacre, What Has Changed? | The Urban Twist).
So far, I've been presented with the following arguments which stand in favour of the second amendment:
• Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
• If guns are banned, it will push guns into the hands of criminals.
• Japan didn’t invade America because it knew the population was armed.
• Responsible gun owners shouldn’t have their guns taken away.
• An armed civilian population prevents dictatorships from forming.
• Gun crime prevents domestic violence.
• Guns save more people than they kill.
• The only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.
• Switzerland has lots of guns and very little crime.
• More people die from opiates than gun crime.
• Most of the mass killings by gun in the United States in recent years — Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Newtown, Charleston, San Bernardino and Orlando — took place in venues where local or state law prohibited carrying guns, even by those lawfully licensed to do so.
• The NRA says that from 1991 to 2012, the murder fell by half while the number of semi-automatic guns rose by 50 million
Does anyone have any stronger arguments than these? Or can anybody expand on them, or argue against them?
I have heard of gun-grabbers say that guns are "dangerous" and should be banned because they can kill a lot of people at once. So essentially, they want to ban something because that something is very good at doing what it's designed to do. Doesnt make much sense.
Weaponized anthrax is very good at what it is designed to do
But guns are not equivalent to a form of mass destruction. When guns are used correctly, they can save (good people's) lives. Weaponized anthrax just kills large swathes of people indiscriminately.
That was not your point. Each can be used to save lives if used in a war. The point is both require regulation to ensure they are only used correctly
I don't want to derail the thread but lets just say if it is in the US arsenal it is intended to be used to help end a war and save lives ultimately.How could weaponized anthrax be used to save lives?
Also, I am actually not completely against regulation. I believe some people (the genuinely un-hinged ones) should not have guns. However, I am afraid that if we allow the government to make this decision, they can abuse this new-found power. For example, they can ban racists from owning guns, or maybe political dissidents. I am sure you have heard of oppositional defiant disorder, which I think is BS. I am afraid that the government would cite this as grounds for denying weapons to people who do not agree with the government.
I don't want to derail the thread but lets just say if it is in the US arsenal it is intended to be used to help end a war and save lives ultimately.
ODD is only diagnosed in children by the way
But you see my point, dont you? Regulation of guns means giving more power to the government and they could abuse it.
Just out of curiosity, do you think the government should deny guns to racists?
Every single one of those points can be easily defeated. Where would you like to start?
Lets start with the first one, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Defeat that.
Gun control laws do not put guns in jail. They put people in jail. Lol
And they sometimes put people in jail who don't deserve to go to jail. People who aren't out to kill other people should not be banned from owning guns.
Now, lets go to the second argument, "If guns are banned, it will push guns into the hands of criminals."
Guns are already in the hands of criminals. I can buy a gun today in my state with no background check.
Exactly, and that just goes to back up the point that if guns are banned only criminals will have guns. Yes you can buy a gun in all 50 states without a background check by buying it illegally. The illegal market for guns is obviously not going to do background checks so the thing to do is to crack down on the illegal market and put a stop to it, not give people who want to legally buy and sell guns a hard time.
No need to ban them. Just control them.
You can keep your dirty paws off of my guns and my right to keep and bear them.
Would you rather everyone have them in their hands, or just criminals and "elites"? (If there's even a difference between the two)...Guns are already in the hands of criminals.
Legally? I very highly doubt that...I can buy a gun today in my state with no background check.
Thank you for your opinion
Would you rather everyone have them in their hands, or just criminals and "elites"? (If there's even a difference between the two)...
Legally? I very highly doubt that...
I agree.I would like less criminals to have them and more law abiding americans to have them.
You have never heard of a private sale? I can shop on Armslist today and get one with no BC. You are uninformed
I agree.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?