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 →
Echo_of_Savages ago
Here's my thought on number 3.
If the government wants to get me, my handgun won't protect me. But we have strength in numbers. If the government wanted to get me and the 20 million other guys like me, well they are going up against an army. thats where the second amendment is important. Its to stop them from busting down doors like the Gestapo. It means the government has a fear of civil war built into the system, they cannot pass overtly aggressive legislation, or rather, they have to dupe the american public in order to pass this legislation. It is the ultimate check on their power.
Edit: also, banning guns isnt going to do shit. We already know the technology. I can walk into a hardware store and make a gun if I had to. Its not hard, just some basic chemistry and physics.
Techius ago
20,000,000 guys with guns vs. 2 million dudes with tanks, helicopters, fighter jets, more powerful weaponry in general, nukes, etc.
Echo_of_Savages ago
20 million Americans vs 2 million Americans. I bet 1.9 million of those military men switch sides within weeks of that war.
Also, keep in mind the escalation of force. A civil war does not go straight to using tanks and drones, it escalates through first using police and infantry. Within those first months are when the second amendment is most effective.
And then on top of that, Russia and China would both loooove to support an american rebellion. It wouldn't be long until the US government is pressured into giving in.
2 million guys with tanks, helis, and drones vs 20 million armed militia plus the rest of the world.