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 →
piratse ago
1) Guns are a form of protection.
Protection also states that "to defend" is a definition. To defend is "to drive danger or attack away from " So you are cherry picking the definition that fits your anti gun narative even though there is a suitable definition. You are WRONG here.
2) Guns are a form of self-defense.
Completely factual statement. Wiki is a bad source as it is peer edited and things the admins don't like are removed. But even using that: "Of the 2,596,993 total deaths in the US in 2013, 1.3% were related to firearms." Pretty small number, maybe we should be looking elsewhere if deaths are the concern. OF that 1.3% "In 2012, 64% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides." and there is no proof that if they didn't have a gun they wouldn't have used another way. MAYBE we have a mental health problem?!?!?! Also, that would mean 0.468% of deaths are gun related homicides and accidents. Now prove that those would not have happened with a different weapon (note that is 0.004 of the population killed on average by guns). This doesn't even take into account ILLEGAL guns which are used in almost ALL crimes. Illegal guns don't stop just because you ban guns. Look how that worked out for drugs and alcohol. Did you know knives kill about 40-50% of the people guns do? Guess which weapon will spike if you banned guns? Look at many countries that banned guns for example.
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.)
Tell that to EVERY country we have tried to invade where we were defeated by heavily armed civilians. Your assumption is fucking retarded and not backed up by the massive evidence we have from all around the world when countries tried to take over heavily armed civilians and paramilitaries, and lost.
4) A 100 lb woman shouldn't have to struggle with a 300 lb rapist.
Logical fallacy. You assume because we ban guns, the criminal won't have one or the woman can't see the rape coming and engage early. Also, the person who gets raped at least has a CHANCE to escape if they have a weapon and are aware. Nothing guarantees the rapist wont kill the person afterwards anyways. There is also no hard data on how many rapes were prevented because the woman was armed. Weak argument is weak. You are literally saying, let the women get raped with no way to protect themselves, because guns are bad. We also can't make conclusions if guns hurt because only about 1-2 million women carry guns. What if most of them carried? Bet rapist would think twice.
5) Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
I somewhat agree but the gun can't kill on it's own. If not a gun, then a knife. If not a knife then a machete. If not a machete, then a bomb. If not a bomb then a fire. If not a fire then a savage beating. If not a beating then name any house hold object. Guns are a tool that CAN be used for destruction, but the person that would use a gun to kill someone would also use anything else. The roaming machete gangs in Asia. Knife attacks in almost all countries. Savage gang beatings.
Here's the deal. People who want to kill will kill. Guns give you a fighting chance if you are a normal person. They also have the added advantage of keeping governments in check. Look how many oppressed tribes in Africa took over when they were armed, or in asia, or the middle east. Guns are a double edged sword, but the negatives will be filled by other shit if we remove them, but the positives can't be replaced.