There often seems to be gun control threads going on in this forum. But when you look at the pro-gun arguments, they don’t stand up to scrutiny. The best pro-gun arguments you generally see are:
-
Legally, if your life is threatened then you are allowed to use lethal force in your defence. Self-defence is one of the allowable defences to a murder charge. So, since you’re legally allowed to kill someone anyway (in certain circumstances) why not let you use the most efficient means of doing it - a gun?
-
A gun evens the playing field, it could be the biggest guy in the world against a tiny girl but if the girl is the one with the gun - she wins.
-
Gun crime has risen in countries like the UK where there are tight gun control laws. So therefore there is no evidence that restricting gun ownership will have any effect on the amount of guns in criminal hands.
-
Hi Opal! (I understand that is the convention here).
-
An armed civilian population is ultimately the only effective defence against an evil government. This could be your own government or a foreign one - maybe part of the reason Hitler was happy to leave Switzerland neutral was because he didn’t fancy trying to take over a mountainous country in which almost everyone has a gun.
However all these arguments are ultimately flawed (except number 4 of course).
i.e.
-
The fact you are allowed to use lethal force doesn’t mean you should. If every Joe has a gun then everyday drunken bar-room arguments and long-running meaningless feuds become potentially fatal. Rather than being punched, you stand a chance of getting shot.
-
The answer to the problem of crime is to try and reduce it by a combination of solving the conditions which breed crime and, of course, catching the criminals. The aim is to reduce the crime level to such a low point that it’s not considered necessary for every Joe to own a gun. The solution would be out of proportion to the problem.
-
Gun crime has risen in the UK it’s true but then that would be expected because
-
guns are more readily available these days generally. The point is that gun crime would have risen even more sharply if the UK hadn’t put it’s gun laws into place 6 years ago.
-
as populations increase so does general crime, like everything else.
And, although the UK crime rate has risen, it’s still remarkably low for a densely populated (60 million), highly urban, modern wealthy society. People in the UK can afford guns but neither the criminals nor the good guys seem to want them (as a general rule).
- If your government turned bad they would presumably have the support of the army. Do you really think that a scattered frightened population would be able to defeat the highly trained armed forces with all their weaponry?
It would be a longer, fiercer battle, I admit, but the army would win in the end even if all the population were armed. The army are better equipped, better trained, better organised and more experienced.
The idea that having guns would somehow protect you from the government and it’s army is just an illusion. A fair proportion of the Palestinians seem to be armed but what good does it do them against the Israeli army?
Sorry for the rant, I just wanted to get that off my chest, carry on.