The internet is littered with vast numbers of articles, both against and for, Gun Control. So, what can it hurt to add one more? I like to think this is a practical argument. It’s practical because it does not deal with the dream of Gun Control. Guns are there, here, and everywhere. They helped build a country. They helped a colony get its freedom. And they were deemed so important that the founders of the country wrote them in to the Constitution. These FACTS cannot be disputed because they’re facts. And yet, some people believe they know better because they’ve lived in the country for the last few decades.
There are certain arguments that people use to explain their anti-gun beliefs. Let’s look at some of the most common arguments regarding whether we, as Americans, should ban (control/confiscate/whatever) guns.
ARGUMENT #1 — If You Ban Guns, There Will Be Less Gun Violence…
Now you would think that argument makes sense, right? That if you ban guns, there will be less gun violence. OK, that seems logical until you accept that just because you ban guns now… does not mean there will be no guns. This is America… and the guns have had centuries of a head-start. There are numerous estimates floating around, however, a long-standing estimate (that I have no idea where it has actually come from) is that there are 300 Million guns in the population currently.
I will stipulate right now that if there were no such device called a “gun” invented, no one would be killed with that device. However…. That is a fantasy because in the real-world, there IS such a device. And with up to (or perhaps more than) 300 million of them out there, NO ONE can collect them all! So by applying some kind of ban or confiscation, you would only serve to create a thriving black market. That black market for firearms could include “hundreds of Millions” of illegal firearms — and that’s a conservative “guesstimate” that presumes the government could even collect 100 Million Guns, or that 100 Million guns would be turned over from owners to government. Many, many, perhaps most, currently law-abiding people would NEVER turn their firearms over – regardless of what the government said (or proclaimed).
If you would’ve banned guns prior to their invention, this would’ve worked like a charm. So… From this point, we will disregard “Bans”. You will have to either Register them or Confiscate them.
ARGUMENT #2 — The Second Amendment Is Out-Dated…
Many Gun Control advocates are quick to state that when the founders wrote the Second Amendment, they did not foresee “assault rifles” that can shoot hundreds of rounds in mere seconds (…they actually say that). Many of these people follow-up by suggesting that the Second Amendment should only include muskets because those were the only guns invented when the Constitution was written. The argument is so ridiculous when you consider that those same people would suggest that the First Amendment obviously and most definitely applies to the Telephone, Internet, Television, Cable, even though those medium weren’t around when the First Amendment was written.
What they are doing is… Suggesting That Technology Determines Rights. Basically, Anti-Second Amendment types believe that the people who wrote the Constitution were idiots who had no vision that things would ever change. Obviously, that is not the case and, as a matter of fact, the founders, specifically, wrote the means of “Amending the Constitution” for those areas that they couldn’t foresee. The Constitution has been amended regarding Slavery, Voting and other areas BUT the problem arises when the Constitution is not followed and people do not attempt to Amend the Constitution because they know they cannot win their argument — where instead of Amending, they attempt to corrupt the Constitution because they believe that they are more likely to get the outcome they desire [The Ends Justify The Means].
The Constitution has been amended 33 Times (by Congress). One of these was regarding alcohol, and it was a monumental failure. Prohibition didn’t/doesn’t work! But why would it be logical to think prohibition on firearms will work when it didn’t even work with alcohol? Is it because people recognize that the citizens who own MOST firearms might listen and accept such laws even if that means they will have to give up their own firearms? Well, that does not appear to be the case in Connecticut since they have attempted to control (through registration) “Assault Rifles” owned by people. Connecticut is finding that Americans will not register their weapons voluntarily despite being threatened with felony charges. If this happens in a liberal/Democrat state, imagine what would occur in a state like Arizona? New Mexico? Idaho? Utah? Alaska? Arkansas? Florida? North (or South) Dakota? Don’t even think about it occurring in TEXAS???
The other problem is that Drinking Alcohol was not in the Bill Of Rights and is thus, not an “Inalienable” Right codified in the Constitution (Damn I use this word alot), while, the Second Amendment is. People may not kill other humans to drink alcohol — even though Prohibition shows otherwise, but Americans WILL kill to defend their Rights.
If you believe the Second Amendment is “Out-Dated”, just Amend it already.. Good Luck, even if you do manage to get that done politically! Again, refer to Argument #1.
ARGUMENT #3 — The Bazooka and Tank Argument.
Inevitably, when you begin speaking to someone who does NOT believe in the Second Amendment, they will eventually say something to the effect of; “…what? So you think someone should be able to own a Tank?“. Even Joe Biden has used that argument. ‘But what he seems ignorant of… is that you CAN own a tank if you can afford it (There’s a couple on Ebay right now). You can also own military Fighter aircraft, Bomber aircraft, Field Artillery, Machine Guns; and yet, you’ve never heard of anyone using them in crimes.
But regarding firearms, Anti-Second Amendment people will keep increasing the size of weapons in order to explain their position of “gun control” and concurrently, make themselves sound evermore idiotic. Given enough time, these people (whom consider themselves enlightened) will ask you, “if people should be able to own Bazooka’s or Flamethrowers“; again, even though there’s never been a crime committed with a Bazooka or Flamethrower and you CAN own them. What’s even more funny is that if you give them too much of a logical argument, they’ll eventually get to the absurd and ask you… “Do you think a person should be able to own a nuclear bomb“? [Which is a ridiculously stupid and desperate attempt to win an argument they’ve already lost…]
If you’re gonna be reasonable… NEVER bring up Bazookas, Tanks, or Nukes.
ARGUMENT #4 — That Confiscation Would Work
But does gun control even work? There’s not really any evidence to support it. The examples of Gun Control are pretty crappy actually. Let’s skip locales that have substantive bans on firearms such as Venezuela, Brazil and other countries that include registration and laws against private ownership, yet still have large amounts of gun violence. Let’s look at countries where Gun Control advocates like to point to as positive examples of effective Gun Control. Britain and Australia!
In Britain – Handguns and other classes of small arms were banned. They made gun ownership so restrictive, that even British Olympic marksmen have to live in other countries because they can’t own firearms in their own country. So this solved the problems right? Wrong! Unfortunately, crime with firearms has gone “up” steadily since the ban. As the people with legal guns declined, those with illegal guns increased. Britain got to a point where, believe it or not, “only the outlaws have guns”. Police have increased the number of officers who carry firearms to respond to those increasing numbers of criminals with firearms.
In Australia – Handguns and semi-auto rifles were banned. Did this solve their problem? uhh, No! Unfortunately, crime with firearms has also gone up there. Armed Robbery has increased. Home invasion has increased… They got to the point where, believe it or not, “only the outlaws have guns”. Same as Britain.
So it would appear, that Stopping Crime, is not actually the goal of Gun-Control. If it were, we would go with statistics and actual science and recognize that in US States where it became easier for Americans to be armed (such Florida, Texas), gun crimes have actually gone down. Let’s disregard cities like Chicago or New York where they have extremely strict firearms laws. So do you want to ban guns? Or do you want to lower crime?
In The End
In the end, There will be no “gun control” – as defined by liberals and Democrats. There will ALWAYS be gun owners in American whether they are legal or not. ‘And there will be no confiscation. Why? Because Government (or someone) will have to go get guns from people who will not turn them in voluntarily!!! Accepting that there will be no turn-ins, it should also be obvious that voluntary registration will not be enough to make a dent.
Some (anti-Second Amendment) people are picking a fight… Because they know that they will not be required to actually “fight” themselves. They fail to see the irony that they are willing to direct people who have guns, against other people who have guns. They do not recognize that eventually, the fight arrives at the doorstep of those who start the fights. It follows that people who are opposed to the Second Amendment… ‘will eventually have to be protected from those who support the Second Amendment.
The fact is that 99.9998% of firearms in America have never, nor will-likely ever, be used in actual violence. Even the naive people amongst us surely realize that it does not solve any actual societal problems to take firearms away from the average citizen owner who owns one of that 99.9998%. Why? Because the people who would commit crimes with firearms, do so even though there are laws against committing crimes (100% of the time). Ironically, the people who will disregard laws and use firearms while committing a crime… are the very same people who would disregard laws regarding using and owning illegal firearms. If you think banning guns will lead to less murder, you don’t seem to reasonably tie together the concept that murders are committed even though “Murder Is Already Illegal”.
The very things (murder, gun crime) some proclaim they want to minimize with “gun control” and/or “sensible firearms laws”, is already illegal. Suggesting new gun laws will make Americans safer is a faulty and lazy logic at best.