Need serious anti-gun arguments...

[Meowhead]

Uh, Philosophy 101 to the rescue!

Killing people is a Bad Thing.
Any method or tool made to facilitate killing people is a Bad Thing.
Guns are tools created specifically to aid people in killing people.
Therefore, guns are a Bad Thing.

The third premise might use some defending, so here goes: IMHO the very first firearms ever devised were designed for use in armed conflict. Mortars to breach castle walls, cannon stuffed with grapeshot..even the first shoulder-fired proto-muskets were carried by soldiers in plate armor. Uses such as hunting or target shooting only came later, and were incidental to the primary function of a firearm, which was to put holes in some unlucky person. Advances in technology only served to make weapons more accurate, faster to reload and fire, more powerful...more effective, in a word.

Sure, today we're seeing guns designed specifically for competition or whatever. All of their designs, however, are based on the technology of guns made specifically for killing. This is true for the scoped hunting muzzleloader (I never saw much sense in those, but that's beside the point), for the bolt-action .308 with an Enfield action, for the 1860 Army replica..the list goes on and on.

 

[MrAcheson]

I have to agree with Boats here. The most powerful arguments for gun control are the cost analyses presented by the left. If you leave out the benefit side and include suicides guns look really bad. Likewise in the short term, gun control legislation appears to work. Just present the right spin on the data and you can show anything.

The most beneficial pro-gun arguments are checks and balance on the government and the fundamental right of self-defense.

 

[Baba Louie]

Just like the old High School Debate team, you must look at both Pro and Con and be prepared to argue both sides.

Forget the constitution for a moment...

Forge ahead using emotion and statistics.

Write to VPC and HCI/Brady Bunch and ask them for facts and figures (it might help if you send them a five dollar bill in way of contributing to their expensive endeavor and get on their mailing list ...)

Here is the only logic I can come up with:

Power.

Guns, in the hands of evil minded people/gov'ts can and do kill and injure millions with ease (and at a distance), thus they are impersonal and effective for use in that role.

Mao Tse Tzung's quote, "...All power flows from the barrel of a gun". Thus, the ownership of a firearm "empowers" some people to do bad things... conversely, the only implement to counter said ner-do-well (with a gun) is... you know the rest.

So you can take a stance from a position of power and argue to limit and/or ban ownership, or you can study the position from a "commoner's POV".

Then, there's always dealing with wildlife; sometimes mean, nasty sharp toothed things that would eat you if given a chance, varmint control, etc.

To my simple-minded self, I've been taught that the first "gun" was a boy (OK maybe a girl) throwing a rock. A device which put some distance between the "thrower" and the "throwee".

Look up the Shogun's edict in Japan... I believe that firearms were outlawed because they weren't sporting or some such nonsense... I mean a sword is much more personal, doncha think? Ultimately, they too were outlawed.

I'd start with "gunpowder" and trace that evolution to discover what arguments "ye olde authorities" had layed down concerning its use and care.

But basically, my take, its about power.

I'd like to read/hear your final discourse and the comments given by those "in Power".

Good hunting.

Adios

 

[Orthonym]

Baba Louie:

Thanks for the discursive and erudite elaboration there, but I think I said the same in one sentence. (See my second post to this thread) That said, yours may be more likely to impress a schoolteacher; just by virtue of being longer.

Oh, I can spell. There is a "d" in Feindstein, if man spricht Deutsch.

 

[T.Stahl]

Wouldn't Feindschwein be more fitting then?

 

[themic]

try this one: we have a moral obligation to reduce/eliminate the tools of violence in a free civilizaed society. it's the next evolutionary step of social order.

 

[hoppinglark]

Go Specific

I would focus on one issue like lead exposure, or the Eddie Eagle Program. I did a Term Paper on The Eddie Eagle Program and used the VPC's "report" Here is one page from it. Does it prove anything? No ofcoarse not. but hey that's the VPC.

 

[femoralis]

An argument a smart anti would use...

According to the official gov crime surveys (DOJ uniform crime survey?), guns are used for crime much more often than self-defense. I disremember the exact numbers, but it is something like 80K yearly for selfdefense and 800 to 900 K times for crimes. Obviously, the argument against this would be surveys that indicate higher numbers of self-defense incidents, though these are kind of controversial, as it is claimed this is influenced by false positives.

 

[Troy Spiral]

If you could vaporize all firearms with some sort of alien super-ray , all at once, globally and then prevent all future manufacture, then the world would be a safer place? This one has no historical equivlent and as such a "look at the data" argument would be pointless. Neither would reverting the world to a pre-gunpowder age, as the social / economic factors would be so drasticlaly different than what we have today.

Given this belief of "guns do more harm than they are worth", then from a sort of pie-in-the-sky philsopical standpoint "gun removal would save lives". But given we live in a world where the alien-super-ray doesnt exist, and some will have firearms and some wont, how to support the anti-gun movement in risk/reward way im at a loss.

What i'd call "severe gun control" seems to have far more cons that pros.

Although taken to its other extreeme, that is, NO gun control at all, i mean none, as in my crazy uncle joe with a crew-serviced belt fed uber gun scares me pretty bad too.

 

[Black Snowman]

How about, instead of address gun control addressing the shortcomings of news media. Media bias as a result of the 1st amendment "not keeping up with the times" and being a "living breathing document".

Use all of the gun control arguments for squashing the 1st amendment. Use the actions of the anti-gunners as a model for regulating the media "for the good of the public". You can point out how all of these measure are considered "reasonable" in regards to controling the possession of weapons but "evil" when applied to the 1st amedment.

Show how the media supported the 1st ammendment violations in the "Campaign Finance Reform" even though it could lead to a loss of their rights because it supported their ends. Show that human rights are a package deal. You have them or you don't. Make it about rights, not about gun rights. I'll leave it to you to work out the details. It is your paper

 

[The Rabbi]

Having actually read through maybe one third of "Looking for a few good moms" by the head of the so-called MMM I can summarize what their argument is:
People use guns to commit crimes of violence. If you take away guns you take away the means of committing crimes of violence. Fewer guns would equal fewer crimes.

It sounds good anyway. The fact that you could never target the "fewer guns" side of the equation to have any effect on criminals is besides the point. In the book I think the author (whose name I have fortunately forgotten) never goes much beyond this simple equation. Oh yeah, also "police organizations consistently support gun control." There you have it: people who are experts in crime tell us that fewer guns on the street will mean less crime. What more could you ask for?
You can slo throw in lots of anecdotal evidence that if this person or that person hadnt had a gun then the incident would never have happened.