Help with counter points for anti-gun arguments?

mexico and the uk have really bad laws regarding owning weapons. and the use of those weapons. Majority of people coming from the uk seem to love the right to own weapons and use them once they get to america.

and the big articles on illegal immigration from mexico claim most of the illegals come up here because they arent safe in mexico because they cant defend themselves from the cartels..
 
@Mainah I've tried that argument before, and if I recall, he used the population difference between the two as a means to counter that, and the other fact that he acknowledges that you can't stop the criminals.

His concern are those who are unstable and who would commit a "crime of passion" going out and grabbing their gun and shooting someone. I don't know about laws in Texas, but he did quote that there apparently is a law in Texas that if you go and shoot someone in a rage, that you were not in the right frame of mind, you would be able to walk away without so much as a slap on the hand, simply because it was a "crime of passion" or something along those lines.

That sounds almost as ludicrous as saying ever gun owner is a mass murderer just waiting to be unleashed.

He feels that having so many guns in our country promotes gun violence, but also states that it's so ingrained into our culture/society, it will likely never go away. He's not against people arming themselves, he just doesn't see the purpose of many of our "military" style firearms. If I tossed the whole "defend against tyranny" radio bit at him, I'd lose him on the conversation entirely. He's one of those that believes if you even remotely think something like this, you're certainly not in a stable mind frame and are likely just plain nuts or and extremist.

Limit the firearms in the home, and he feels that the chances of another Adam Lanza coming about will reduce. I've also tried the argument of, if he doesn't use a gun, it'll be something else, like explosives or whatever.

His argument is that it takes much more knowhow to make a bomb, and it's harder to kill someone with a knife, people can easily bum rush the attacker if they had a knife and subdue him if they wanted to. You can't really do that with a gun, where he can spray the room with a high capacity magazine.

There are other points I'm missing, that he made, but that's the gist of what he was trying to argue.

In the end, I may just have to end up agreeing to disagree with him, since nothing I say will make him think otherwise.
 
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?
Click to expand...

Well, there is one counter, but he won't buy it. And that would be the truth. We do think they are cool. We do like them. They don't. All they see is the misuse, and so would ban fire, because it can burn.

Personally, I think it is an infringement of my right of free will and free choice to own what I want.

Leave aside, for the moment, the entire argument about our natural right to self defense, and our political right to resist tyranny, valid though they certainly are.

I don't believe its right for someone else to decide on what kind of gun I might own, what art I put on my wall, what books are on my shelf, or what music I listen to.

And I believe it is doubly wrong for someone to take that decision away from me, via legal means, using what someone else might do as justification.

Pick something your friend likes, and tell him to ban it, as well, because of the deaths "caused" by them. And don't worry, there is virtually nothing that hasn't been used, abused, or misused to cause some deaths.

Golf clubs? SUVs? swimming pools, I'm sure someone has been killed with a coffee mug.

he won't allow the logic, after all, these things aren't guns, which he recognizes as "designed to kill". As if that somehow magically makes them more than any other inanimate object.

If he can't get past that, other logic will be hard for him to accept.

you may now return to the regularly scheduled discussion of self defense and the 2nd Amendment rights.
:D
 
44Amp

Thanks for that reply, just to clarify. Those were his words, not mine, hah.

I think the greatest irony of this, is the night after we had this "debate" my brother was (rudely) awoken by what sounded like someone trying to break into his humble abode. All he had to defend himself with was a handheld hammer. He called me the day after, asking me how much a gun would cost, which puzzled me greatly, since he's CLEARLY intimidated/afraid of firearms. Last I heard, he was considering a firearm, thing is, I don't know if that's even a wise thing, since I don't think he's the type to go out and practice with it enough to be proficient with it.

All in all though, he's still family, and I'll still care for him, despite our differing views.

I just hope he never finds himself in a situation where are gun would be handy, and he simply does not have one.

Heck, I remember discussing with him tonight, how it's important that we all stay fit in the military, even if we're a pencil pusher, due the possibility of having to fight. That's an entirely different topic however.
 
Last edited:
Kimio said:
He's not against people arming themselves, he just doesn't see the purpose of many of our "military" style firearms.
Click to expand...
When someone poses this argument, here's what I suggest. Have him repeat the phrase in his mind, replacing the objectionable term with, in turn, "lever action firearm", "easily reloadable firearm", "sword", "spear", "knife", "bat", "sharpened stick", and "small rock".

At some point, he will argue that such a restriction would be ridiculous, because it would be pointless to have such a weapon when someone might attack him with something that's clearly more effective and lethal.

Now tell him to imagine that HIS life is on the line. This time, imagine the list in reverse order. Which one does he want now? Uh huh. ;)

My argument is that high-capacity "military style" arms are commonly possessed and are not going away anytime soon. If he believes that people have the right to be armed, and that armed self-defense is morally justifiable, then the line should be drawn at commonly possessed arms. This keeps the proverbial playing field level.

Furthermore, I find that most people's major exception to "military style" firearms is the "high capacity" magazine. If one argues that they're only good for shooting multiple innocent people, consider that a mass shooter has the opportunity to plan ahead, and can simply bring lots of magazines (plenty of examples), or deliberately choose a scenario where low capacity and/or slow reloading is not a serious handicap (Navy Yard, DC sniper, and the mother of them all- the UT Austin tower). OTOH a person defending themselves is more likely to only have whatever ammo is physically loaded in the firearm RIGHT THEN; reloading may not be practical even if a reload is carried.
Kimio said:
I don't know about laws in Texas, but he did quote that there apparently is a law in Texas that if you go and shoot someone in a rage, that you were not in the right frame of mind, you would be able to walk away without so much as a slap on the hand, simply because it was a "crime of passion" or something along those lines.
Click to expand...
<emphasis mine>

This is only true if one considers a reduction in charges from a 1st-degree felony (5-99 years) to a 2nd-degree felony (2-20 years) to be a "slap in the hand". :rolleyes:

Notably, either punishment would cause one to be stripped of his/her RKBA more or less permanently under the current US federal law.
TX Penal Code said:
Sec. 19.02. MURDER. (a) In this section:

(1) "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.

(2) "Sudden passion" means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.

(b) A person commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual; or

(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.

(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.
Click to expand...
 
"why are guns accessible at all"?
Click to expand...

Lets assume for a minute that there are NO guns, good guys don't have guns, bad guys don't have guns. No guns no way to get guns.

What chance would an unarmed, 100 lb rape victim have against an un-armed 200 lb rapist?

What chance would a 90+ WWII vet with a walker have against two or three young thugs who like to play the "knock out game" against helpless victims.

Its my contention that gun control laws are sexist and discrimatory against the old and weak.
 
kraigwy said:
. . . .Lets assume for a minute that there are NO guns, good guys don't have guns, bad guys don't have guns. No guns no way to get guns.

What chance would an unarmed, 100 lb rape victim have against an un-armed 200 lb rapist?

What chance would a 90+ WWII vet with a walker have against two or three young thugs who like to play the "knock out game" against helpless victims.

Its my contention that gun control laws are sexist and discrimatory against the old and weak.
Click to expand...
Ding, ding ding! We have a winner.

To expand upon kraigwy's thoughts here, I'd suggest having your antigun friend read A World Without Guns.
 
There is an old saying, "the most staunch law and order conservative is a liberal who has been mugged".

Time after time, after time, we see people who take an anti-gun stance, UNTIL they personally face some kind of risk. Then they want a gun, and want it badly.

The people who say no guns for others, sometimes have guns themselves. And, what do they expect when the call 911? They expect an officer (with a gun) to respond.

back in the dark ages, pre-internet, one noted Washington DC columnist, who had written, for years, how NO ONE should have a gun, other than the police/military, he SHOT a 17yr old who jumped his back fence for a midnight swim in his pool. This anti-gunner, had a handgun, ILLEGALLY in DC! His response was that as long as society was awash with drugs, guns, & violence, HE was going to protect HIS family.

Clearly he had no qualms about breaking the law, or his own often stated moral position to "protect his family".

The trouble with anti gun folk who realize that they need a gun, is that they don't (usually) know how, or WHEN to use one, effectively, and legally.

If I had an anti for a neighbor, or a relative, who came banging on my door asking for a gun, because they were in danger, I wouldn't give them one. No WAY! Protect them, I would (if I could) but arm them? No. I wouldn't sell them a gun, either. One should not put arms into the hands of scared people who's only experience with them is watching tv. Its simply not safe.

Once they calm down, and are out of danger, you can teach them, and do they learn properly, they can arm themselves, if they choose.
 
It is funny...

...but if you google the phrase world-without-guns you will come up with that article as well as a number of other, older ones that all make the same point.

All of them are logical, clear, well thought out, and none of them say any more (or say it better) than what kraigwy just said, simply and directly.
 
It isn't hard to imagine a world without guns

Read history.

It was called Feudalism, and the common phrase was "Might Makes Right"

It is not an accident that the rise of firearms came at roughly the same time as the Magna Carta.
 
It is not an accident that the rise of firearms came at roughly the same time as the Magna Carta.
Click to expand...
Not really, although I suppose it's possible that a few hundred years from now, someone will say that the internet was developed at roughly the same time as the Civil War; that's about the equivalent time span, as the earliest known firearms in Europe date to about the 1360's.

The Magna Carta was signed in 1215; the battle of Agincourt, fought in 1415, was won largely by English archers. No firearms were involved.
 
To further expound upon my brothers aversion to "military" style firearms, he also questioned their function, stating that the nature of it being semi auto and having a large capacity (I hate that term) magazine makes it more lethal due to the fact an assailant can spray.

I argued that point using Columbine and Virginia tech as examples where it didn't make a difference if the perps had 7 rounds in a magazine or a 30 round since they could simply reload them as fast as any other magazine. To which he replied, then why the fuss? If you can reload the magazine as quickly as a 30 round, you should have a problem being limited to 10 rounds or "insert number here". There isn't any real purpose to having high capacity magazines, people just want them because they're cool. (His words not mine)

I refuted that by saying it's not about "cool" factor, it's about defense, in a stressful situation you are less likely to hit your target in a spot that will incapacitate them, so having those extra rounds helps leave a margin of error. Which he replied "so the answer is to spray? Tht sounds incredibly dangerous and just a bad idea"

I emphasized training again, to which he replied "but such training isn't mandatory and there isn't really a standard set for all states now is there. So we have a bunch of potentially dangerous people with guns who don't know how to use them who are going to just spray their guns at a bad guy in the event they have to use them."

"Limitations are needed, this is why we're not allowed to have our own personal nukes, they're dangerous in the wrong hands. My problem with gun activists is that they are so extreme, it's either arm everyone and let us but machine guns or get out. Screw the laws, because they don't do anything anyway, let everyone defend themselves"

The "screw the laws" part was a rebuttal to be saying criminals will do what they want, no matter what, making more laws a moot point.
 
One question I like to ask when in a conversation/debate on this subject is this: what do you believe is the strongest best thought out argument for the need for more gun control. This is where they fall apart. This is where the idea that crime is created by guns comes right out of their mouths. So I say this: If I am hearing you right you believe that crime is caused by guns?.....If they say yes I thank them and move on, (the lights are on, nobody is home). If they say no then I ask them what are the main drivers behind crime..........and now I am in a conversation that might bear fruit.
 
Kimio, does your brother think that folks like Adam Lanza and his ilk are going to comply with a 10 round magazine law when he already has his mind set on killing countless others? And the same for the gangstas in LA, Chicago, NYC, Newark, etc. who aren't allowed to have firearms anyway? Or do people believe that magazines with a capacity greater than 10 are somehow magically dis-invented? All the limited magazine law does is turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into felons, and does nothing to solve any problems.
 
From what I've gathered from the (frequent) debates we've had lately, is that he believes that by essentially limiting these kinds of arms in the home it'll ultimately lower the chances of people like Adam Lanza from doing the horrible crimes they did.

Less immediate availability = less chance crazies will get a hold of a gun

That's the frame of mind I'm getting from him. I said any responsible gun owner is supposed to lock up their guns, but he argues that not all do, and there isn't a law requiring it, so it's ultimately ineffective again due to lack of education/training or people just not caring.
 
Kimo,

1) Cats spray, assailants don't spray.
2) Tell him to google "1972 new orleans sniper" - he used a .44 mag Ruger carbine that held 5 rounds. Someone mentioned him in another thread (regarding whether or not mass shootings are more or less common now than in the past), and it was interesting that he was able to cause so much harm without a "high capacity" magazine.
3) He is your brother so you probably have to talk with him. I think too slowly to discuss anything contentious with aggressive people so I've learned to smile and say, "That's nice. I have to be on my way now."
4) Nuclear weapons are inappropriate for individual self defense.
 
Last edited:
The nuclear weapons bit stems from his belief that he's not sure if citizens should have something so powerful at their disposal. That amount of power in a single persons hands intimidates the crap out of him, the fear that something as simple as pull of the trigger can instantly end someones life.

Ultimately that's what it is, his lack of understanding that he is in complete control of what that gun does or does not do, and perhaps the fact that he has very little control over what a bad guy will do with a gun.

In the end that's what it's all about isn't it.

Control. This is something I've tried to emphasis on before, stating we can't control everything, to which he simply goes back to the argument of "So we're to do nothing? It's this kind of hand tying that I hate about pro-gun folks, they would tie the hands of politicians so they can't respond to things like New town, simply because "It's pointless to do anything since we can't possibly stop it"

At that point, I typically just sigh and agree to disagree, since I don't know any other way to get through to him (if that's even possible)
 
Kimio said:
. . . . I don't know any other way to get through to him (if that's even possible)
Click to expand...
Have you considered taking him to the range? If nothing else, he might enjoy it and begin rethinking matters.
 
Actually, I have taken him to the range. He fired both a Ruger .22 and a 92FS. He still has these feelings, though they do seem to have been dampened a little.
 
I'm on dangerous ground here and should think quite a lot longer before replying, but it is a slow Friday and I'm feeling reckless.

Yes - I do think it is all about control. Many facets:

1) I think many people who dislike guns are terrified of what they, themselves, might G-d-forbid do if they ever got their hands on one. They project their lack of self-control onto everyone around them.

Corollary - they are aware on some level that the veneer of civilization is very thin and they don't trust it to hold up.

2) They want to control the amount of harm one "bad" (crazy or evil or whatever) person can do, by limiting access to weapons / "large capacity" magazines - ignoring instances of people who use a bottle of gasoline or a propane tank wrapped in nails, or a pressure cooker bomb, or just drive into a crowd with their SUV.

Reductio ad absurdum: Eliminate guns / magazines and put everyone in handcuffs / hobbles and take away fire (lighters) and books (exposure to "inappropriate" ideas).

3) If they do decide to assume some control over their destiny by arming themselves, they necessarily must admit that there might be someone out there who means them harm. This is difficult because it is impossible to protect oneself against all imaginable foes, so it seems hopeless to try. Does he have a fire extinguisher? Or would having one of those make him a "fireman wanna-be" with illusions of being a hero?

Too much coffee too late in the afternoon...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top