Help with counter points for anti-gun arguments?

Oh, sure. You're going to resist a government armed with nukes and MRAPs.
Click to expand...

The Vietnamese did.....and they won. (No offense to those who actually fought in that war - I recognize that they won after our politicians decided not to support the troops)
The Afghans did.....and they won - against Russia; and now against the US
The Islamic Extremists in Iraq are now winning with nothing more than small arms.

How exactly is a tyrant who takes over the US going to fight 400,000,000 with nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons are a non-issue in wars between countries today, and even more of a non-issue in civil wars. There is no evidence of any country using nuclear weapons to suppress a revolution - not even in Syria.
 
Skans,
All of your examples were supported by another government, and guess what those other governments supplied. Yep weapons! And they were not limited to semi automatic rifles and ammo, but much much more.
 
Most of those who were armed in those conflicts were armed with nothing more than an AK-47. Don't underestimate the power of millions of armed people defending their homes and homeland from tyrants and foreign invasion.
 
So were most of the people on the other side of the conflict. Infantry is still King. Even when they have to pile out of a Striker.
 
This conversation is a bit old, but I was talking with my brother on the topic of gun control and one of his arguments was the lower gun death rates in countries that have heavy restrictions. When I commented on their general higher crime rates he rebutted with "but the topic at hand isn't stopping violent crime as a whole, but rather mitigating or stopping violent crimes with guns. Guns being present in a way promotes gun violence so there needs to be restrictions to prevent more psycho paths from getting a hold of them"
Click to expand...

Here is the problem with the argument as I see it. Yes, countries with fewer guns have less gun violence/death, generally speaking. No problem there. HOWEVER, they do not necessarily have less violent crime or less violent deaths.

So the issue of removing guns removes a particular tool, but fails to address the problem that still exists regardless of the tool, violence and violent death. As a result, there are plenty of countries with higher levels of violence and violent deaths despite tighter gun controls.

Plus, as noted, such measures won't stop felons.

The notion of doing away with guns is nothing but a feel good measure, but one that fails to resolve the ultimate problem.
 
..their general higher crime rates he rebutted with "but the topic at hand isn't stopping violent crime as a whole, but rather mitigating or stopping violent crimes with guns...
Click to expand...

This reminds me of a scene from the old All in the Family tv show. The daughter spouts off some number, of people who committed suicide with guns (IIRC) implying how dangerous they are, etc...
The dad responds with,
"Would you prefer they jumped out of windows, little girl?"

When you look at any incidence of violence involving a gun, the only intellectually honest thing you can say is "if there had been no gun, it would not have happened exactly THAT WAY"

Anyone who assumes that, that same situation, without a gun, would have turned out better is just making the assumption that their particular fantasy of how things would turn out would be what happens in reality.

Things might turn out better. Things might turn out worse. Things might turn out the same in the end. No one can know, because it didn't happen that way. Believing in your own fantasy does not change reality. Sorry.
 
Yes, countries with fewer guns have less gun violence/death, generally speaking.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. Brazil has far fewer guns than we do, and their gun homicide total in the last year I can find was about triple ours. Their gun homicide rate per 100,000 was about SIX times ours. Mexico has far fewer guns, and about half the guns per person as we do. their homicide total about matched ours, while their rate is double on that same site. Their intentional homicide rate with all weapons appears to be quadruple ours according to the UN DOC intentional homicide report.
 
To clarify Jim, I we were comparing countries of similar status I suppose. Ie. UK, Australia, Germany etc.

Among the supposed "more civilized" countries. I tried the argument of saying if it's not a gun it would be a knife, my brother rebutted with, it takes a person to be considerably closer to do harm with a knife, he made the argument that you are far more likely to win a fight against a man armed with a knife if you were to mob him than a guy with a gun, who can simply spray from the door way of a room if he so desired.

I refuted that with the fact that human natures instinct typically has us fleeing from danger rather than charging into it. So even if the criminal was using an axe or a knife, the damage will still be done.

The school stabbings on China were an example, to that he replied that there were far less fatalities in those cases. However tragic it was, he stated that if a gun was used, the death toll would likely be much higher.
 
You'll also want to explain the Tueller drill that suggests inside 21 feet or so a knife can be more dangerous than a gun.
 
I wonder how many people in Syria have been killed by guns? Less than 4% of the citizens own a gun, it has strict gun prohibition laws and a gun registry. I wonder how that is working out for those who didn't vote for Assad? I guess it's not "murder" as long as a tyrant is slaughtering a country's citizens. We should call this "population control" or the "more for those who remain" project.
 
The problem with gun control in the USA is the constitution and bill of rights.
So the question to the anti-gun folk is: Are you prepared to end this experiment in liberty, are you saying that men can't govern themselves, that we should give up and fall in line with a world that watches us for leadership, giving all power to an elite group to tell us what is good for us?
 
eldermike + 1

Being anti-gun or pro-gun, is always political and soon after starting a conversation with this point of departure, eventually turns into a spitting contest and goes now where. .... :rolleyes:

Instead of discussing the politics, I turn it over to the Constitution which is sovereign. No politician, including the president, is sovereign. .... ;)

There is a great little book out there called; The Second Amendment Primer, by Les Adams, that clearly captures the spirit and history, of it's foundation. Lots of great 2A Ammo, in there ..... ;)

Be True and;
Be Safe !!!
 
To clarify Jim, I we were comparing countries of similar status I suppose. Ie. UK, Australia, Germany etc.
Click to expand...

And to clarify myself, Kimio, I dispute that the UK, Australia, and Germany etc. are "of similar status". I don't know that any country in Europe or Oceana has inner city street gangs being fed by South American drug cartels inflating the violence on their streets. It's a bit far to fly a Cessna under the radar to Scotland from Colombia.
 
Analagy:

Fighting gun violence by means of banning firearms can only be expected to be as (un)successful as the heavy restrictions and banning of drugs has been to reduce drug overdoses and addiction.
 
Whenever anyone makes a reference to the idiotic UK gun bans and their supposed effect on "gun violence" I like to retort by quoting Norwegian crime stats, which are virtually zero across the board by comparison (barring one terrorist attack after WWII which ironically could have been curtailed if concealed carry were permitted).

Norway's stacked with guns both long and short, the country has some of the most liberal firearms laws in all of Europe, there are some 450.000 registered firearms owners (as well as probably several thousands of unregistered owners of older shotguns and relics from WWII) out of a population 5 million strong, yet "gun violence" is basically an unknown concept here.

Guns do feature in illegal activities, but the people who use them for such are almost exclusively career criminals. It's a funny old thing isn't it.
 
You'll also want to explain the Tueller drill that suggests inside 21 feet or so a knife can be more dangerous than a gun.
Click to expand...

Just don't let him watch the episode of Justified where that didn't work out so well for the knife guy...;)

If your "solution" to gun violence is to remove guns, then your solution to rape would be to remove..what? men? or just a certain part of them?

If you will agree to have that part(s) of you removed, to reduce the rape statistics, then I will consider giving up my gun to reduce the gun violence statistics.

You go first!!
 
I like to retort by quoting Norwegian crime stats, which are virtually zero across the board by comparison (barring one terrorist attack after WWII which ironically could have been curtailed if concealed carry were permitted).
Click to expand...
Anders Breivik? IIRC, that's the worst non-combat public shooting in history.
 
statistics lie

As once was said "There are lies, bold lies, and statistics." Statistics can be bent to fit anyones needs. In the most simple form, firearms are used most often as instruments of fun i.e. target shooting or sustinence i.e. hunting.

Those of us that carry firearms for protection long ago realized that guns are the most effective means of self-defense. Disarm law abiding citizens and the criminals run rampant.

Another reason for firearms is to be able to ensure that the government does not become a dictatorship.

Finally, read your constitution. The only place in the entire constitution or any of the amendments that you find the phrase "shall not be infringed" is in the second amendment. The forefathers understood that an armed citizenry is needed to ensure the survival of the nation.
 
Worthless Rat? IIRC, that's the worst non-combat public shooting in history.
Click to expand...
That is correct, it was also such an aberration that it was not included when crime statistics for 2011 were compiled. Of course, many terrorist attacks have caused far more casualties, usually through the use of explosive devices.

By the way, many people would like to see that name buried and forgotten so I fixed it for you. Hope you don't mind.
 
How about asking a gun banner what they intend to do if confronted by violence.
Call 911, right?
And expect a perfect stranger to come to your aid, risk their own life to protect yours, because you are not equipped or prepared to defend yourself?
Kind of cowardly, ain't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top