How Would You Answer this Gun Control Argument?

[lostintrainstations]

From: http://www.progressiveu.org/032811-t...ntrol-argument

Whenever the debate about gun control comes up, I always hear the following arguments: "If someone is going to kill another person, they're going to do it whether they have a gun or not, so why put more restriction on guns?" "Even if you make it illegal to own guns, they're going to find one anyway." OK, I'm hearing you. I understand. Do you have any other points?

Of course the second amendment is bound to come up - the right to keep and bare arms. Before I go any deeper into this, I want to clarify: Yes, I do beleive that further gun restrictions are in order. Yes, I do beleive that stronger gun restrictions would bring down the amount of deaths by gun. No, I do not want to take away everyone's hunting rifles. Let me explain...

When the founding forefathers wrote the constitution and put in the right to keep and bare arms, I think it is important to remember that there was no such thing as a glock or semi-automatic rifle. I don't claim to know what they would have thought of our weapons today or if they would changed it if they had known about them, I just want to say that it's something to think about when it comes to the gun control debate. It wasn't so easy back then to walk into a crowded place andk knock off twenty people. Considering the time it would take to load and then reload the rifles they had back then and the accuracy of those guns...I'd say maybe three fatalities or so, but then again I'm no expert. Like I said - just something to consider.

As far as those previously mentioned arguments go: yes, if someone is determined to kill one of their fellow human beings, I'm sure they will find a way. If they can't get a gun, they'll use something else. But bare in mind that a gun makes it much easier to kill someone and more importantly, it makes it possible to kill many, many people in a short amount of time. For me, the argument for more gun control isn't based on preventing murder entirely, rather saving as many lives as is possible. You can't walk into a school caffeteria with a knife and do the amount of damage Kip Kinkle did at Thurston with a gun or the amount of damage the students did at Columbine, not to mention Cho Seung-Hui at Virginia Tech. If the resources for the killers were limited, it is entirely possible that lives could have been saved in each of these situations.

"Even if you make it illegal to own guns, they're going to find one anyway." This is true. It is very possible that killers like Cho Seung-Hui could still have gotten their hands on a glock, could still have killed many other people before going down themselves. But it would have been much, much harder for them to do so. Chances are they would have had to settle with something less powerful and less quick, in which case even just one or two more lives could have been saved. Isn't than better than having lost all the people who were killed?

Lastly, I want to note that I am not talking about rescrticting all guns. While I was raised in a home with firearms, I hate guns - they terrify and sicken me. While I hate guns, I do not think that they should all be completely banned or that they should be confiscated. What I do beleive is that the guns that are currently available to the public are far beyond what any civilian needs, even to defend themselves. What civilian really needs an automatic gun or a glock, or even a semi-automatic? Plenty of people defend themselves daily with little more than pepper spray and a a small defensive knife, so what is wrong with having a nonautomatic gun? I also want to note that most of people I've butted heads with on this topic are hunters. I don't want to take away their hunting rifles. What I'm taking about wouldn't effect the hunting population - guns for that purpose would be still be available. What I'm thinking of is more along the lines of this: semi-automatic and automatic guns are limited to the use of officers and men and women in the service. Nonautomatics are still available to the public with screening like we have today, but perhaps a little more thorough.

In any case, I do believe that this is an argument which could be settled with reasoning and compromise - then again, I feel that way about most arguments...

[ca2pa]

hmm.. its like asking, if we make drugs illegal then people wont use drugs.. well we all know that doesnt work. or better yet, lets make drugs illegal so that there can be MORE violence on the streets due to an unregulated market (wait let me clarify, its regulated alright, but by the drugdealers and their gun-using associates) and therefore massive bloodshed in our own towns.

You can (try) take guns from the people, but you cant take the people from their guns.. if that makes sense.

[ca2pa]

I'll have to be honest with you, i didnt read the whole damn thing at first (kinda long buddy), but now that i have, geeeezz..i have to question if you own guns, considering this forum is Pennsylvania Firearm OWNERS Association. but anyway, what would you rather have if one of those crazy irresponsible waste of sperm (sorry if i sound too harsh, but it is what it is), came up in your proximity and started blazin at you? would you rather have a knife, or a semi-automatic glock that you so addimently "hate?" I hope your answer is the knife, otherwise you shoudlnt express an unrealistic opinion like that. happy shooting.

[lostintrainstations]

Hey, it's not my argument. I am a gun owner. But one point the author made that I thought was interesting was this: The framers of the second amendment never anticipated semi-automatic weapons. In fact, they *might* not have permitted them or written the amendment as they did if they could have foreseen into the future. How do you adress that argument in favor of changing the current laws?

The problem with the self-defense argument is there isn't a logical conclusion to it, and the author of this gun control argument (which is NOT me - I just stumbled across it) exploits that. If criminals begin to concealed-carry full auto Glock 18s or other full auto weapons, shouldn't then the general populace also be allowed to concealed carry them and buy them easily for purposes of self-defense? The self-defense argument would see to suggest so. The problem then becomes, wouldn't the legality of these guns for purposes of self-defense then lead to increased acess to them by other criminals, the net result being more bloodshed and more efficient killing?

I don't agree with the author of that article by a longshot. But I didn't have an immediate response to the point she made about the second amendment not having semi-automatic weapons in mind. I was just interesting in seeing how others would respond.

[ca2pa]

with that being said, im sure that the authors of the constitution didnt perceive the guns of today, but back then not everybody had a gun either, right? so having one person go out and shoot people in public would somewhat be the same.

[RoyJackson]

I'd answer it in two ways:

First, as long as people look at eliminating guns rather then focusing on crime (as a whole) and violence (again, as a whole), the fatalities resulting from crime and violence will not be reduced.
When some brings up the topic of eliminating guns, I always ask them if they can give me one instance of a gun killing someone...the gun, not someone pulling a trigger.
An assailant (or assailants) does not always use, or need, a gun. Physical size and use of a club, fists, or other weapon is just as lethal, especially if the victim is smaller or frailer then the attacker. A gun, in the hands of that victim, can equalize or even give the advantage to a victim.
And, firearms would only be removed from the hands of those who do not have bad intent. If the bad guys can bring in tons of illegal substances, smuggling guns would not be a problem either. So the innocents would be helpless...as it is in the UK today. And the problem of smuggling will only get worse with opening the Mexican border.

Secondly, firearms are to protect us from a government that has become tyrannical. I know most people would never believe this could happen in the US or, if it did, the populace could resist.
I disagree with this 100%. The Vietnamese did a pretty good job kicking our asses (and the French too) with obsolete weapons. Although most people would knuckle under, there would still be a significant minority that would rebel and win. I'm not sure if freedom and democracy would survive though.

[GRoPA]

Just pistol whip him.

[rwilson452]

To make this a short answer. Gun control doesn't work. restricting firearms will only effect the law abiding. If you thinking about rounding up the guns your over 200 years too late. If a criminal wants a gun they will not ask permission. There is no way to effectively eliminate guns of any nature. Gun control doesn't work. Criminal control does work. IF they are off the street they can't do crimes. To get better criminal control all you need to do is get the DA to stop playing "let's make a deal".

[MarcS]

Originally Posted by lostintrainstations

"Even if you make it illegal to own guns, they're going to find one anyway." This is true. It is very possible that killers like Cho Seung-Hui could still have gotten their hands on a glock, could still have killed many other people before going down themselves. But it would have been much, much harder for them to do so. Chances are they would have had to settle with something less powerful and less quick, in which case even just one or two more lives could have been saved. Isn't than better than having lost all the people who were killed?

If i shot that motherfucker with the gun i carry to class on risk of expulsion, better or worse?

[TaePo]

The people, as individuals are to have at a minimum, parity with any government level. By law and by force of arms. What good is a few thousand muskets against a dozen 50 cal. machine guns??

Cost alone is a deterrent from everyone having 50 cals; but assault rifles, whilst semi or full auto must be allowed. The name of the game in any battle is an element of suprise and bringing to bear the most firepower as soon as possible. (Suppressive fires if you will). I think it was a Civil War General that put it succinctly, "Getting the mostest there the fastest".

Parity must be kept. If the government does not wish the people to have certain arms, then the government must destroy theirs first. But what of secret stashes in foreign countries maintained by our government etc.? Well, I guess we should accept the even parity arguement.

Listen, the numbers that are lost now are nothing compared to the bloodshed that will occur if we ever have to fight to gain our freedoms back! Assuming it would even be feasable.