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 →
TAThatBoomerang ago
I am not downvoating because I disagree with you, but rather because these arguments are so weak. If you or anyone else wants to listen as to why, I'll explain.
If one only has tools that mitigate attacks, violent criminals will face almost no danger when attacking you. However if you're armed with a weapon, for example a firearm, a violent criminal will be facing a much greater risk in attacking you. More importantly, an offensive tool (such as a firearm) can actually stop a criminal mid-attack. Whilst a helmet will do nothing in actually stopping the attack.
Criminals who are in the market of using a firearm in a crime will prefer to not legally purchase a firearm. A legally purchased firearm will be much easier to trace back to them when used in a crime. Take Sweden for example: We have very strict anti-firearm laws. What's happening in the Muslim ghettos? The police stations near these areas have literally run out of storage space to hold all the confiscated illegal firearms. We live in a world where firearms exist, and unless one has some sort of magical plan to stop all smuggling and producing of illegal firearms, one has to adjust to the fact that criminals will obtain their firearms regardless of how easily they're obtained legally.
Look back at point 2.
This is the most convincing point, however it's not completely waterproof. I've held this belief many years, until I looked deeper into who the people committing crimes are. Take a look at Switzerland for example. Their gun ownership is roughly equal to USA, yet their crime rate is not even comparable to USA. Even in USA, there are ridiculously vast differences between different types of people using firearms to commit crimes. Once again, look back at point 2.
PS: I think the most important factor is that people who are anti-gun, feel that guns make a person bad. If you have a gun, or if you're pro-gun, you're a bad person. This must be a main reason why people are anti-gun, because their logical arguments are so weak. Similar to other issues, where they take a stance based on emotion rather than logic.
PPS: If these are the reasons people are anti-gun, then I can only imagine that they're maintaining their position either because they're simply unwilling to even listen and consider the possibility that they may be wrong, or they're not even allowed to be exposed to any form of rhetoric that counters their (weak) points.