• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What are the best arguments against gun control?

JC Axe

New member
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I've been looking to make my analysis of the most common / most convincing arguments against gun control in order to write a follow up to an article I wrote recently (available here: 19 Years on From the Columbine School Massacre, What Has Changed? | The Urban Twist).

So far, I've been presented with the following arguments which stand in favour of the second amendment:

• Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
• If guns are banned, it will push guns into the hands of criminals.
• Japan didn’t invade America because it knew the population was armed.
• Responsible gun owners shouldn’t have their guns taken away.
• An armed civilian population prevents dictatorships from forming.
• Gun crime prevents domestic violence.
• Guns save more people than they kill.
• The only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.
• Switzerland has lots of guns and very little crime.
• More people die from opiates than gun crime.
• Most of the mass killings by gun in the United States in recent years — Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Newtown, Charleston, San Bernardino and Orlando — took place in venues where local or state law prohibited carrying guns, even by those lawfully licensed to do so.
• The NRA says that from 1991 to 2012, the murder fell by half while the number of semi-automatic guns rose by 50 million

Does anyone have any stronger arguments than these? Or can anybody expand on them, or argue against them?
 
What is the topic of your follow up piece? You seem in favor of a more restrictive or gun controlled approach based on the attached opinion piece.
 
I've been looking to make my analysis of the most common / most convincing arguments against gun control in order to write a follow up to an article I wrote recently (available here: 19 Years on From the Columbine School Massacre, What Has Changed? | The Urban Twist).

So far, I've been presented with the following arguments which stand in favour of the second amendment:

• Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
• If guns are banned, it will push guns into the hands of criminals.
• Japan didn’t invade America because it knew the population was armed.
• Responsible gun owners shouldn’t have their guns taken away.
• An armed civilian population prevents dictatorships from forming.
• Gun crime prevents domestic violence.
• Guns save more people than they kill.
• The only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.
• Switzerland has lots of guns and very little crime.
• More people die from opiates than gun crime.
• Most of the mass killings by gun in the United States in recent years — Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Newtown, Charleston, San Bernardino and Orlando — took place in venues where local or state law prohibited carrying guns, even by those lawfully licensed to do so.
• The NRA says that from 1991 to 2012, the murder fell by half while the number of semi-automatic guns rose by 50 million

Does anyone have any stronger arguments than these? Or can anybody expand on them, or argue against them?

The Second Amendment protects "bearable arms" "in common use for lawful purposes" or "having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well-regulate militia".
 
I've been looking to make my analysis of the most common / most convincing arguments against gun control in order to write a follow up to an article I wrote recently (available here: 19 Years on From the Columbine School Massacre, What Has Changed? | The Urban Twist).

So far, I've been presented with the following arguments which stand in favour of the second amendment:

• Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
• If guns are banned, it will push guns into the hands of criminals.
• Japan didn’t invade America because it knew the population was armed.
• Responsible gun owners shouldn’t have their guns taken away.
• An armed civilian population prevents dictatorships from forming.
• Gun crime prevents domestic violence.
• Guns save more people than they kill.
• The only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.
• Switzerland has lots of guns and very little crime.
• More people die from opiates than gun crime.
• Most of the mass killings by gun in the United States in recent years — Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Newtown, Charleston, San Bernardino and Orlando — took place in venues where local or state law prohibited carrying guns, even by those lawfully licensed to do so.
• The NRA says that from 1991 to 2012, the murder fell by half while the number of semi-automatic guns rose by 50 million

Does anyone have any stronger arguments than these? Or can anybody expand on them, or argue against them?

Every single one of those points can be easily defeated. Where would you like to start?
 
I have heard of gun-grabbers say that guns are "dangerous" and should be banned because they can kill a lot of people at once. So essentially, they want to ban something because that something is very good at doing what it's designed to do. Doesnt make much sense.
 
I have heard of gun-grabbers say that guns are "dangerous" and should be banned because they can kill a lot of people at once. So essentially, they want to ban something because that something is very good at doing what it's designed to do. Doesnt make much sense.

Weaponized anthrax is very good at what it is designed to do
 
Weaponized anthrax is very good at what it is designed to do

But guns are not equivalent to a form of mass destruction. When guns are used correctly, they can save (good people's) lives. Weaponized anthrax just kills large swathes of people indiscriminately.
 
But guns are not equivalent to a form of mass destruction. When guns are used correctly, they can save (good people's) lives. Weaponized anthrax just kills large swathes of people indiscriminately.

That was not your point. Each can be used to save lives if used in a war. The point is both require regulation to ensure they are only used correctly
 
That was not your point. Each can be used to save lives if used in a war. The point is both require regulation to ensure they are only used correctly

How could weaponized anthrax be used to save lives?

Also, I am actually not completely against regulation. I believe some people (the genuinely un-hinged ones) should not have guns. However, I am afraid that if we allow the government to make this decision, they can abuse this new-found power. For example, they can ban racists from owning guns, or maybe political dissidents. I am sure you have heard of oppositional defiant disorder, which I think is BS. I am afraid that the government would cite this as grounds for denying weapons to people who do not agree with the government.
 
How could weaponized anthrax be used to save lives?

Also, I am actually not completely against regulation. I believe some people (the genuinely un-hinged ones) should not have guns. However, I am afraid that if we allow the government to make this decision, they can abuse this new-found power. For example, they can ban racists from owning guns, or maybe political dissidents. I am sure you have heard of oppositional defiant disorder, which I think is BS. I am afraid that the government would cite this as grounds for denying weapons to people who do not agree with the government.
I don't want to derail the thread but lets just say if it is in the US arsenal it is intended to be used to help end a war and save lives ultimately.

ODD is only diagnosed in children by the way
 
I don't want to derail the thread but lets just say if it is in the US arsenal it is intended to be used to help end a war and save lives ultimately.

ODD is only diagnosed in children by the way

But you see my point, dont you? Regulation of guns means giving more power to the government and they could abuse it.

Just out of curiosity, do you think the government should deny guns to racists?
 
But you see my point, dont you? Regulation of guns means giving more power to the government and they could abuse it.

Just out of curiosity, do you think the government should deny guns to racists?

Regulation of anything gives more power to the government. They could deny anything to anyone. Of course a racist should be able to own a gun. As many as they want
 
Every single one of those points can be easily defeated. Where would you like to start?

Lets start with the first one, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Defeat that.
 
Gun control laws do not put guns in jail. They put people in jail. Lol

And they sometimes put people in jail who don't deserve to go to jail. People who aren't out to kill other people should not be banned from owning guns.

Now, lets go to the second argument, "If guns are banned, it will push guns into the hands of criminals."
 
And they sometimes put people in jail who don't deserve to go to jail. People who aren't out to kill other people should not be banned from owning guns.

Now, lets go to the second argument, "If guns are banned, it will push guns into the hands of criminals."

Guns are already in the hands of criminals. I can buy a gun today in my state with no background check.
 
Guns are already in the hands of criminals. I can buy a gun today in my state with no background check.

Exactly, and that just goes to back up the point that if guns are banned only criminals will have guns. Yes you can buy a gun in all 50 states without a background check by buying it illegally. The illegal market for guns is obviously not going to do background checks so the thing to do is to crack down on the illegal market and put a stop to it, not give people who want to legally buy and sell guns a hard time.
 
Exactly, and that just goes to back up the point that if guns are banned only criminals will have guns. Yes you can buy a gun in all 50 states without a background check by buying it illegally. The illegal market for guns is obviously not going to do background checks so the thing to do is to crack down on the illegal market and put a stop to it, not give people who want to legally buy and sell guns a hard time.

No need to ban them. Just control them. You are making the argument that nothing should ever be banned. And we know that is just silly
 
Would you rather everyone have them in their hands, or just criminals and "elites"? (If there's even a difference between the two)...


Legally? I very highly doubt that...

I would like less criminals to have them and more law abiding americans to have them.

You have never heard of a private sale? I can shop on Armslist today and get one with no BC. You are uninformed
 
I would like less criminals to have them and more law abiding americans to have them.

You have never heard of a private sale? I can shop on Armslist today and get one with no BC. You are uninformed
I agree.
 
Back
Top Bottom