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 →
Bing11 ago
Sure, you wear body armor against someone with a gun. See who lasts longer. The saying "the best defense is a good offense" certainly holds true here.
You didn't even refute this point, just pulled a red herring and discussed statistics. Guns ARE useful for self defense. To address your red herring anyway: yes, they are useful for crime, too, but the places with the strictest gun control laws also have the highest crime rates, so this doesn't seem to be a problem of access for criminals. Perhaps the adage "an armed society is a polite society" has some truth to it, as people are less likely to carjack someone knowing there's a good chance that person is also armed.
You're right, a big hand gun wouldn't be enough to stop a tank. But you're making a case FOR bigger weapons, not AGAINST smaller ones here, even if you don't realize it.
See point #2. You're making the same red herring and again ignoring that guns are useful for self defense. Assuming no guns, how would you propose this potential rapist situation play out? It sure doesn't look good for an unarmed petite woman.
You're missing the point of this quote: it's meant to highlight that a gun ALONE does not fire a bullet, someone has to pull the trigger. Perhaps this is a better example to illustrate the point: cars don't kill people, people kill people. Should we ban cars, then?
Fagtardicus ago
hurr durr i use tras can lid nobody ned gun