1) Guns are a form of protection.
Shields, armour and helmets protect you. Guns shoot toxic pieces of lead into other people.
2) Guns are a form of self-defence.
They can be, sure. However, statistically speaking, more guns are used in crimes than are used in self-defence.
A study of gun use in the 1990s, by David Hemenway at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, found that criminal use of guns is far more common than self-defense use of guns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Obviously, potential criminals are going to purchase guns if they are legal. Therefore, you make a useless trade: increased personal protection for increased need for it. The only logical outcome of that trade is more people will die.
3) I don't trust the government.
If the government wants to get you, then your Dirty Harry handgun is not going to stop them. End of story.
4) A 100 lb woman shouldn't have to struggle with a 300 lb rapist.
But you can't arm the victim without simultaneously arming the rapist. So, instead of a rape occurring, which is consequently then investigated by the people whose job it is to investigate rapes, you have a bloodbath. Maybe the rapist gets killed, maybe the victim gets killed, maybe they both get killed, or maybe innocent bystanders get killed.
There are alternative ways to deal with rapists which are final, much safer, and do not end in loss of life.
5) Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
Then it is a stupid idea to give them guns then, isn't it? Unless you are trying to make fucking sure.
Any thoughts?
view the rest of the comments →
Fuzzycrumpkin ago
Unless you own a aegis shield, that protects you against all damage, you still need a good offensive means to protect you where your defense fails. You could wear a full suit of medieval armor and are just a victim in a steal can basically because you don't have a deterrent to ward off the violence, only a way to take the blows. At some point violence must be met with violence, even Gandhi knew that.
You admit that they actually are a form of self defense. But your complaint is that they are used in crimes... You believe that people that break the law will not break the law to acquire a gun? Youve never heard of the black market? You can even 3d print the damn thing now...
Your point on 3) is nonsense. At the very least the arms act as a deterrent from government turning into a dictatorship. And yes even with as much of technology as the US military has, a few rifles can and some explosives can do wonders in waging war against our military. most revolutions throughout history take place where the populace has little more than pitchforks and takeover forts to acquire the advanced technology of the military. If I wanted I could take a small man team and go capture a tank. Do not conflate your own cowardice with proof that we cannot win if we chose to revolt.
4) so rather than them being on equal footing armed with guns, you would give the 300 lbs man the advantage... What?! The whole point is that it is a deterrent. Meaning you only use it as a last resort. If he was gonna kill you with the gun he was highly likely to kill you without the gun, so you still didn't save the victim of rape, and you took away her chance to defend herself.
5) the difference is the people make the decision to commit a crime. Guns don't increase crime rates, without guns the violence simply turns into different forms such as bombs or stabbings. You believe gun violence is the worst kinds crime there is? Your pretty niave if that's what you believe. Taking the tools for violence away solves nothing, it simply changes the method, hell you could always just toss Molotov cocktails at people, and get way more destruction then a gun. Plus they are easier to get. That saying is meant to say, don't blame the tool, blame the person. You want to stop the violence? Then you have to take away the need for people to commit violence. Meaning you have to call war on all organized crime, such as gangs. If an area has a abnormal amount of crime you have to increase police presence not make it less like those idiot BLM protestors advocated for. And you would need to increase the fathers presence in families, mainly through getting rid of welfare that includes it...
And I would like to point out that if Democrats were the answer for solving violence, Baltimore wouldn't be the shit hole it is, for that matter most, extremely violent places are Democrat controlled and have been for years.