Most concise and convincing argument against gun control?
- Thread starter jkkimberfan
- Start date
JuanCarlos
New member
I think pax wins. That said, quick rebuttal from the OP:
The difference is that cars have a very clear purpose aside from causing harm to others, and that they're absolutely integral and essential to our society and economy on an everyday basis in such a way that far overshadows the harm they do cause (such as from drunk driving). I drive my vehicle every single day to fulfill the need to travel and participate in our economy; my (private) gun(s), on the other hand, I will hopefully never actually "use" in my entire life.
No, going to the range for fun doesn't qualify as a legitimate need.
Plenty of other good ones in the thread, and I believe all the ones I'd use are already out there. Just thought I'd quote one that's a personal favorite, though...
Especially true since, continuing from the rebuttal above, backyard swimming pools serve no necessary purpose.
The difference is that cars have a very clear purpose aside from causing harm to others, and that they're absolutely integral and essential to our society and economy on an everyday basis in such a way that far overshadows the harm they do cause (such as from drunk driving). I drive my vehicle every single day to fulfill the need to travel and participate in our economy; my (private) gun(s), on the other hand, I will hopefully never actually "use" in my entire life.
No, going to the range for fun doesn't qualify as a legitimate need.
Plenty of other good ones in the thread, and I believe all the ones I'd use are already out there. Just thought I'd quote one that's a personal favorite, though...
Especially true since, continuing from the rebuttal above, backyard swimming pools serve no necessary purpose.
"Gun control?
Ask yourself why - after 40 years of more and more gun-control - why do we have more crime today than we did in the 1960's? Clearly, gun control is not working as a deterrent to violent crime. If it doesn't work, we should stop pretending that it does and get rid of useless laws."
Ask yourself why - after 40 years of more and more gun-control - why do we have more crime today than we did in the 1960's? Clearly, gun control is not working as a deterrent to violent crime. If it doesn't work, we should stop pretending that it does and get rid of useless laws."
A lot of Harry's points get to me, because there's a lot of chestbeating that goes on here, and exaggerating the pro-gun side of things while ignoring other factors.
John Lott isn't the only researcher out there, you know. His data doesn't exactly show the clear cut "guns = good, no guns = bad" relationship a lot of you seem to want to see. At the same time, I am quite pleased to say that it doesn't show a bad relationship between guns and crime. I just wish you guys would quit being like "zomg stfu noobz, Lott sez so!"
As for the non-scientific measures ("Look at how much worse it's gotten since then! Banning guns isn't helping!"): you're making it too easy for them to say either "imagine how worse it would be if criminals could buy all the guns they wanted" or "that's because the gun lobby has kept us from making the bans that really count."
4 specifically: You'll note that DC has a population density of about 9300/square mile while Indianapolis is more like 2200/square mile. Likewise, DC has Virginia for criminals to buy guns in. Banning guns doesn't work as well in an open system.
7 specifically: Too easy for them to say "well that's obviously not our intention" ("that" being what happened in Nazi Germany, Cambodia, etc...) and leave it at that, then attack you for implying that America would ever do that if you push the point.
12 specifically: Actually, it's more like two-thirds as many, not two to three times as many (though I would also point out that private citizens are not handed a gun and instructed to go confront armed criminals). That 2-2.5 million defensive gun usage statistic is likely quite high, though even the DOJ (I believe) puts the figure at hundreds of uses a day when a serious crime has already been initiated.
5 and 6 specifically: Much better luck bringing these points up. It's a good one, and people should be more aware that the law expects them to take responsibility for their safety.
Several of the "what makes them so important?" ones: Some people are more likely targets, and therefore would warrant more protection. Of course you can use 5 and 6 to make the point that since everyone is a potential target and expected to be responsible for themselves, they should have the tools they need to protect themselves.
So yes, if you could please stop the mindless repeating of statistics. You have too many points on your side to make it worth undermining your credibility by mentioning dubious statistics (though I would be perfectly content to cite Lott, I would only use him to say that guns had either a net negligible or slight positive effect). Also, after reading about the defensive gun usage survey's methodology I just shake my head every time I hear the 2-2.5M annual DGU statistic. And then, just think about it: that would mean that a very large percentage of people had to pull their guns each year (if nationwide there proportionally as many people who carried regularly as there are people in Texas with CHLs, and only 20% of DGUs occurred away from the home, you as a CCWer would be pulling, on average, once every eight years with that statistic).
John Lott isn't the only researcher out there, you know. His data doesn't exactly show the clear cut "guns = good, no guns = bad" relationship a lot of you seem to want to see. At the same time, I am quite pleased to say that it doesn't show a bad relationship between guns and crime. I just wish you guys would quit being like "zomg stfu noobz, Lott sez so!"
As for the non-scientific measures ("Look at how much worse it's gotten since then! Banning guns isn't helping!"): you're making it too easy for them to say either "imagine how worse it would be if criminals could buy all the guns they wanted" or "that's because the gun lobby has kept us from making the bans that really count."
4 specifically: You'll note that DC has a population density of about 9300/square mile while Indianapolis is more like 2200/square mile. Likewise, DC has Virginia for criminals to buy guns in. Banning guns doesn't work as well in an open system.
7 specifically: Too easy for them to say "well that's obviously not our intention" ("that" being what happened in Nazi Germany, Cambodia, etc...) and leave it at that, then attack you for implying that America would ever do that if you push the point.
12 specifically: Actually, it's more like two-thirds as many, not two to three times as many (though I would also point out that private citizens are not handed a gun and instructed to go confront armed criminals). That 2-2.5 million defensive gun usage statistic is likely quite high, though even the DOJ (I believe) puts the figure at hundreds of uses a day when a serious crime has already been initiated.
5 and 6 specifically: Much better luck bringing these points up. It's a good one, and people should be more aware that the law expects them to take responsibility for their safety.
Several of the "what makes them so important?" ones: Some people are more likely targets, and therefore would warrant more protection. Of course you can use 5 and 6 to make the point that since everyone is a potential target and expected to be responsible for themselves, they should have the tools they need to protect themselves.
So yes, if you could please stop the mindless repeating of statistics. You have too many points on your side to make it worth undermining your credibility by mentioning dubious statistics (though I would be perfectly content to cite Lott, I would only use him to say that guns had either a net negligible or slight positive effect). Also, after reading about the defensive gun usage survey's methodology I just shake my head every time I hear the 2-2.5M annual DGU statistic. And then, just think about it: that would mean that a very large percentage of people had to pull their guns each year (if nationwide there proportionally as many people who carried regularly as there are people in Texas with CHLs, and only 20% of DGUs occurred away from the home, you as a CCWer would be pulling, on average, once every eight years with that statistic).
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
The OP is making a version of the 'tool' argument. I don't think that is a new idea or particularly useful. We have hashed this out before and I've expressed my opinion.
Guns are different from cars as their primary purpose is as instrument of lethal force. Cars are not such.
Thus if guns are misused, they are being misused in their primary purpose. Sporting, hunting, targets, etc. are secondary uses or practice derived from their primary purpose of being instruments of lethal force.
Now, the reason to own them is protected in the Consitution is not their secondary sporting or tool uses but rather specifically because they are instruments of lethal force to prevent tyranny and protect our butts from various things that may need the application of lethal force.
Arguments against control must focus on the lack of utility of most measures in stopping crime and the positive aspect of their usage as lethal weapons to protect ourselves and act as a bulwark against tyranny.
Cars have no such protection as they have little primary usages as such and the analogy fails.
Guns are different from cars as their primary purpose is as instrument of lethal force. Cars are not such.
Thus if guns are misused, they are being misused in their primary purpose. Sporting, hunting, targets, etc. are secondary uses or practice derived from their primary purpose of being instruments of lethal force.
Now, the reason to own them is protected in the Consitution is not their secondary sporting or tool uses but rather specifically because they are instruments of lethal force to prevent tyranny and protect our butts from various things that may need the application of lethal force.
Arguments against control must focus on the lack of utility of most measures in stopping crime and the positive aspect of their usage as lethal weapons to protect ourselves and act as a bulwark against tyranny.
Cars have no such protection as they have little primary usages as such and the analogy fails.
I would consider myself to be very liberal. I think that the most convincing argument to persuade liberals that gun control is a bad idea is to have them imagine that George Bush uses a terrorist attack or a natural disaster as an excuse to impose martial law and cancel the 2008 election. How would we regain our freedom? Most liberals hate George Bush enough that they believe that this is a horrifying possibility and if they don't think it is a possibility mention the fact that Bush has already issued executive orders that ostensibly give him this power.
Even if they don't think it is a possibility for Bush to do this convince them that it may happen sometime in the future, many liberals like to think that they are educated and smart, so mention to them how tyrannical leaders have popped up time and time again throughout history and name a bunch.
If this doesn't convince them that gun control is a bad idea, then probably nothing will.
There you have it! Some inside information on how to persuade an Eeeevil Liberal.
Even if they don't think it is a possibility for Bush to do this convince them that it may happen sometime in the future, many liberals like to think that they are educated and smart, so mention to them how tyrannical leaders have popped up time and time again throughout history and name a bunch.
If this doesn't convince them that gun control is a bad idea, then probably nothing will.
There you have it! Some inside information on how to persuade an Eeeevil Liberal.
It don't work! How can you take them away from the bad man???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I have a need to shoot back!
I have a need to shoot back!