Help with counter points for anti-gun arguments?
- Thread starter Kimio
- Start date
This is ridiculous. Either you are going to talk about violent crime, or not. What is used to commit the violence is not relevant.
If you want to talk about objects causing death, than cars are responsible for far, far, far more deaths than guns. But, people never want to talk about that, now do they?
If you want to talk about violent crime, then fine. But arguing about 'gun crime' is a red herring. Of course a nation that has the highest per capita guns is going to have more guns used in crimes.
But, do we have more VIOLENT CRIME per capita? No, we do not. European nations (Switzerland excluded) have far more violent crime per capita than the US does. (England has 3 times the per capita rate of assaults!)
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime.html
Then we can stay at home and compare rates of violent crime between states. The Brady campaign rates states based on how tough their laws make it to own guns. California is #1. Using most recent published FBI crime stats, it is easy to determine the cumulative rate of violent crime per-capita in the 10 'best' states and 10 'worst' states. Curiously, they leave DC (which has TWICE the violent crime rate of any other state) out of their list.
Per capita rate of violent crime in the 10 Brady Campaign 'Best' (meaning toughest gun laws) states: 387.6
Per capita rate of violent crime in the 10 Brady campaign 'Worst' states (meaning the weakest gun laws) states: 353.7
So, on average, states with easier access to guns have a 10% lower rate of violent crime than states with restricted access.
==== sources =========
Brady campaign: http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/2011_Brady_Campaign_State_Scorecard_Rankings.pdf
FBI stats: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-4
g.willikers
New member
Maybe the bat just has to be in a locked box, out of reach, and registered. 
To respond to the baseball bat question, it's California (which should already tell you a lot) Penal Code
22215 makes it clear by inference that outside the special circumstances in 22215, wooden clubs or batons are included in 22210. I don't believe the statutory language of 'wooden' would be found to exclude 'aluminum' or other metal bats.
It is probably a very good idea to have a ball, catching glove, and an articulable place-where-there-is-a-game when transporting a baseball bat.
22215 makes it clear by inference that outside the special circumstances in 22215, wooden clubs or batons are included in 22210. I don't believe the statutory language of 'wooden' would be found to exclude 'aluminum' or other metal bats.
It is probably a very good idea to have a ball, catching glove, and an articulable place-where-there-is-a-game when transporting a baseball bat.
Andy Blozinski
New member
"In my state, carrying a baseball bat is a felony"
I keep a P-38 can opener in my wallet. It's been confiscated more than once. Seriously. It really has.
I keep a P-38 can opener in my wallet. It's been confiscated more than once. Seriously. It really has.
jason_iowa
New member
I can assure you the people killed don't care if it was a gun a knife or a bomb that killed them. Gun deaths like gun violence are bs terms. Violence and reducing it are all that matter. Violence existed before guns did.
carguychris
New member
People are always willing to accept a certain degree of latent risk when using products that have obvious utility value. Otherwise cars, aircraft, boats, chainsaws, and bathtubs would not exist.ghbucky01 said:
As the perceived utility value goes down, people generally perceive a greater moral imperative to regulate or even prohibit a risky technology, in order to serve a greater societal good. An excellent non-gun example of this is private aircraft (another passion of mine
). Many people have, for a long time, advocated regulations that would basically crush the industry, and it's not necessarily because they're bad people; fundamentally, they believe that the inherent risks (and public nuisances) of the technology outweigh the utility value, and therefore a greater societal good would be served if these "expensive, noisy, and dangerous toys" were eliminated.The key to winning the gun-rights debate is to convince people that self-defense is morally justifiable, and thus guns have utility value (beyond hunting and target-shooting sports).
[Also, as an aside, I dislike comparing guns to cars, because cars are quite literally the most heavily regulated consumer product in widespread use.]
Really? So any time I use my firearm and DON'T kill anyone I'm using it wrong? The government which is all but required to use things in the manner they're intended should be pulling everyone off Death Row when they're running the DHS or Army through weapon quals?
Firearms are designed to send a projectile downrange at a target. The nature of the target is a function of the user, not the firearm.
I said they are designed to kill, not that they can only be used to kill. The history and development of firearms is to make them more efficient and effective at killing when used for that purpose. There are plenty of arguments against gun control, but I think arguing that most firearms are not designed to kill is not one of them.
Last edited:
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
There's no sense in even engaging in the "designed to kill" or not argument. It will never be won. At best, it's an esoteric argument that only The Choir will buy. At worst, and what I believe (and I'm part of The Choir), it's false.
Guns were invented as weapons of war. They advanced because of war. Their primary function has been since their inception and continues to be to kill. Every "game" we play with them is simulated killing, from Trap, Skeet, IDPA, etc. The game being modified to the point where that particular, exact gun is incredibly specialized just for that game does not detract from the over-arching, undeniable purpose.
It's like trying to argue that because you can help a black eye by putting a steak on it, steaks aren't made to be eaten. It makes no difference what you use any individual example for, there is an over-arching intent and it is to kill/wage war.
As I said, arguments to the contrary will not resonate with any but a portion of The Choir.
Guns were invented as weapons of war. They advanced because of war. Their primary function has been since their inception and continues to be to kill. Every "game" we play with them is simulated killing, from Trap, Skeet, IDPA, etc. The game being modified to the point where that particular, exact gun is incredibly specialized just for that game does not detract from the over-arching, undeniable purpose.
It's like trying to argue that because you can help a black eye by putting a steak on it, steaks aren't made to be eaten. It makes no difference what you use any individual example for, there is an over-arching intent and it is to kill/wage war.
As I said, arguments to the contrary will not resonate with any but a portion of The Choir.
When they bring up the "guns are designed to kill" mantra, just look at them and smile, and say "and thank goodness for that! Otherwise they'd be pretty useless, don't ya think???"
Of course they're designed to kill. And knives are designed to cut, and animals are designed to be eaten, because they are made out of meat!
SO what?
Alternately, I suppose you could give them a blank look for a moment, then let your face light up, like you just realized the great truth of their statement. Then tell then, "by golly, you're right!" Good thing, huh?"
variations on a theme. And if they go off on you, you might mention that, if the ONLY thing they are good for is kill, why do the police have them?
Cops carry guns ALL THE TIME. IF the problem is the gun, the cops are putting us all at terrible risk!!! (if you can't tell, this is deliberate sarcasm)
I have given over trying to convert the fanatic. You won't convince them to change their minds, but often you can convince the bystanders what kind of idiot the fanatic anti gun bigot actually is.
Of course they're designed to kill. And knives are designed to cut, and animals are designed to be eaten, because they are made out of meat!
SO what?
Alternately, I suppose you could give them a blank look for a moment, then let your face light up, like you just realized the great truth of their statement. Then tell then, "by golly, you're right!" Good thing, huh?"
variations on a theme. And if they go off on you, you might mention that, if the ONLY thing they are good for is kill, why do the police have them?
Cops carry guns ALL THE TIME. IF the problem is the gun, the cops are putting us all at terrible risk!!!
(if you can't tell, this is deliberate sarcasm)I have given over trying to convert the fanatic. You won't convince them to change their minds, but often you can convince the bystanders what kind of idiot the fanatic anti gun bigot actually is.
japan is a poor reasearch file for gun violence. Japan has always had no real love of the firearm. sure they got it, but their whole religous core was built upon knives and swords. and when ive seen any record of modern day serial killer in japan, they always grab a good knife and get to stabbing people.
Another part of the debate came back to me recently. The debate initially started with my comment on how I would likely never move to California if I had the choice to due to their oppression of firearms owners. He had mentioned that he's met numerous members at his base that own personal firearms and are perfectly fine with California's laws on guns. I had mentioned I'm not against laws that are reasonable (like not allowing convicted felons and mentally ill people buying guns) but laws like the assault weapons ban and so on are ridiculous.
I had to explain to him exactly what those laws entailed, such as the ban on certain ergonomic enhancing furniture and the purpose of muzzlebrakes/flash hiders.
He commented back that? Having a more ergonomic weapon enhances the users ability to use it, so it makes sense that they would ban those items since it helps make the person a better shot since it's
more comfortable to use.
I argued that is not entirely true, new furniture and such features will never replace training. Sure you may be able to handle the gun more comfortably, but if you don't know the fundamentals and actual basics of using a firearm, it doesn't matter if you're wielding the most accurate rifle on the world because the majority of marksmanship comes from the user knowing what in the world they're doing.
He replied with, then how do you explain the mass murders where the peeps used guns like an m16 and AK? Their ease of use made it easier to spray rooms and murder dozens of innocents. They didn't need training to kill a bunch of people with those guns.
Let's face it, the only reason people want to keep their high capacity magazines and military style weapons is because they're cool
Any suggestions on how to counter this?
I had to explain to him exactly what those laws entailed, such as the ban on certain ergonomic enhancing furniture and the purpose of muzzlebrakes/flash hiders.
He commented back that? Having a more ergonomic weapon enhances the users ability to use it, so it makes sense that they would ban those items since it helps make the person a better shot since it's
more comfortable to use.
I argued that is not entirely true, new furniture and such features will never replace training. Sure you may be able to handle the gun more comfortably, but if you don't know the fundamentals and actual basics of using a firearm, it doesn't matter if you're wielding the most accurate rifle on the world because the majority of marksmanship comes from the user knowing what in the world they're doing.
He replied with, then how do you explain the mass murders where the peeps used guns like an m16 and AK? Their ease of use made it easier to spray rooms and murder dozens of innocents. They didn't need training to kill a bunch of people with those guns.
Let's face it, the only reason people want to keep their high capacity magazines and military style weapons is because they're cool
Any suggestions on how to counter this?
I could think of many reasons not to move to CA beyond their gun laws, and most of them have to do with policy that the state government has put into place over many years. But to your point, I simply ask your friend why the states (counties, and cities) with the tightest gun control often have the highest levels of gun violence. Or I'd ask him to look south to Mexico and ask him to explain how laws prevent gun violence.
The loss of innocent life via guns is a tragedy, I think that we all agree on that. But I still haven't found a convincing argument that restricting guns will reduce that loss. Just ask him to make that case and back it up with facts.
The loss of innocent life via guns is a tragedy, I think that we all agree on that. But I still haven't found a convincing argument that restricting guns will reduce that loss. Just ask him to make that case and back it up with facts.