[Drjones]

Please read further before you start making wisecracks. :)

I am taking a critical thinking/writing summer school class. For our next essay, we have to write on both sides of an issue.

I would very much like to write on firearms and victim disarmament laws, since I always do better on an assignment when I care about and know a lot about the issue. (Kinda goes without saying, I know...)

Of course we all know that the only logically sound argument for gun control is "I am a dictator and I need to disarm the populace in order to gain full and total control over them."

However, I don't want to seem like a one-sided individual; my last essay (the one I got 97/100 on) was on guns too. Also, I think that one sole argument for the anti-gun side will be tough to work with as far as development. I have a feeling that many people including my professor, would see that argument as a joke intended to further my pro-gun agenda/opinion, though it is true. :rolleyes:

I have a feeling this may not work out, and I'll just pick a different issue like race.


Thanks!
Drjones

[tiberius]

Need serious anti-gun arguments...

Ho 'bout

"it's for the children...."


:rolleyes:

[bogie]

1. They are tools which can be dangerous if abused or used in the wrong fashion.

2. Criminals sometimes use them.

[BrokenPaw]

The problem, DrJones, is that there are no serious anti-gun arguments.ar·gu·ment (ärgy-mnt) n. A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood(highlight is mine)The anti-gun movement is not following a course of reasoning. They are following a course of feelings and what-ifs.

There is no articulable, logical, cogent, supportable, internally consistent line of reasoning from which a pro-gun-control conclusion can be reached.

Best to pick a subject with some grey areas in it, I should think. :D

-BP, a white-hat in black clothes.

[Boats]

I think their "strongest" argument is actually the utilitarian one. Of course to do this requires a cost/benefit analysis and the antis always skip the benefits half.:rolleyes:

However, when one examines the arguments they present that seem to gain the most traction with the uninitiated, invariably the hardest ones to dismiss are the ones that go on about the social/societal costs of guns and how the reduction of available legal guns would mitigate alot of the "spur of the moment" killings found in domestic violence and suicide shootings. They then extend this to say that also since most illegal guns started out legal, perhaps no one should have them, especially handguns, the chosen weapon of hardcore criminals. It's a "twofer."

Of course there are enormous holes in this "logic." Have fun plugging them.

[HBK]

Dr Jones, that's a tough one. As others have stated, there are no good gun control arguments. You could always check the Brady site. Maybe you could do a compare and contrast paper, like .45 vs 9mm. Good luck with the assignment.

[Nathaniel Firethorn]

A good argument for gun control would be an instance of a country, city, etc. that put gun control into place and saw a decrease in the rate of violent crime. Anyone know of any?

- pdmoderator

[Skunkabilly]

I disagree.

There are plenty of anti-gun arguments, but only if you don't mind going around the constitution.

There are 'good' (i.e. logical, if not moral or Constitutional) arguments for lowering standards required for no-knock raids, implanting tracking devices in children and people convicted with felonies, sterilization of sex offenders, even if the Constutitionality of such are debatable.

It's not hard to go anti-gun if you believe that individuals may be oppressed for the better of the state, and the Constitution is a relic and a 'living breathing' :rolleyes: document. Of course socialists neglect that society is made up of individuals and go around the individual for what's 'better' for 'society', but maybe it'll help you for at least this paper.

Just take the statist socialist role in the 'other side' of your paper and say that times have changed and people must be oppressed (ok well not like that) for their safety.

Feinstien's advocate mode off. Where's my P7?

If you want me to proofread your paper later, you have my e-mail.

[geekWithA.45]

And we have yet to find one that holds water.

I haven't met one yet that isn't dependent on one fantasy or another such as:

-Actual reductions in crime
-Benevolence/omnipotence/omnipresence of government
-Virtue of victimhood
-Or the magical "all nasty guns disappear" fantasy.

The ONLY one that seems to have even the slightest validity is child safety, but every case that I've heard of is the result of ignorant kids and sloppy storage.

[Nightfall]

I've been sitting here thinking on this one, and every time I come up with some possible ‘anti-gun upside'... I keep refuting it a second later. Good luck trying to find anti arguments that can't be shot down by a quick dose of logic...

I guess that's why I'm on this side of the issue. :D

[RandyB]

I'd suggest you look at the counter arguments to your own "+" statements.

i.e. "Guns protect citizens from crime." What arguements/research goes against that statement? What about countries with tough gun laws and low crime (UK, Japan, etc.) Of course you can provide a counter point to that arguement with factors of culture, employment rates, etc.

i.e. Look at the ease of access from theft (after all if the govt' stole all our guns then who could take them)

The loss of life due to gun related accidents.

Develop the arguement how guns have shaped our society in a negative way. such as the recent sniper shooting, school shootings, etc.

[Molon Labe]

As others have mentioned, there is no reasonable argument for gun control. So I wouldn’t even make a serious attempt at it. Instead, I would write a tongue-in-cheek article explaining why gun control is “good.” Your prof might even take it seriously, but the joke will be on him/her.

As an example you could say, “no one needs a gun for self protection,” and explain how it is the duty of the police to protect us at all times. Also make the argument that "if a person gets mugged in a dark alley, he has every right to sue the police for not being there to protect him." You could also say that the War of Independence could have been avoided if the British had only been more serious about gun control. Think of all the lives it would have saved. :rolleyes:

[Drjones]

Good point, molon.

I was thinking I could simply go to anti sites and put down all the lies I could find and then neatly destroy each and every one with a modicum of fact and logic.

But that would be too much fun...:D

Seriously....I do suppose I could do that! Cool! :D :cool:

[T.Stahl]

I think the only realistic anti-gun argument is that "they can be dangerous if used improperly or by untrained persons."

But exactly that argument could be used for very strict laws regarding the mere ownership of an automobile or motorbike (let alone the permission to drive one in public!)

And see who's allowed to drive cars. :what:

Or has anyone heard of background checks for car buyers? :confused:

[BogBabe]

drjones, why don't you try narrowing your topic down to one specific segment -- maybe the whole "for the children" thing. You could throw in all the lies the anti's use in their rhetoric -- and that rhetoric is compelling, to the uninformed. Then in your counter-essay you could refute them.

Or go with a mouse-gun vs real gun debate. That could be fun!

[DRC]

The arguements you seek are as follows:

(Let me preface this with I am pro-gun. Own several. enjoy shooting and am damn good at it pistol or rifle ;)

1) Gun related crime would be reduced if gun manufacturers stopped producing guns.

2) Even good people without criminal backgrounds can end up in situations that they never expected when guns are involved. Ever heard of accidents?

3) Guns were designed for killing even historically speaking.

4) Handguns have little or no use other than concealment for purposes of bodily injury to another.

5) Lead is poisonous and has been restricted from everything except bullet production, so if lead is deadly without being in bullet form then what is it IN bullet form?

6) Gunpowder is an explosive and explosives are used to demolish things not to build things so how can you argue that by it's very components a gun and the ammunition thereof are designed to build and not destroy?

7) Guns are loud and disturb the peace.

8) Guns are only necessary for hunting and in this day and time hunting is completely unnecessary since you can get anything you need or want at the store, just like fishing.

9) Guns are too expensive to be called recreational.

I've run out of ideas after 9 and I realize that a couple have little weight behind them but you have to think in terms of what these people are really about. They don't like or want guns so there is no reason feasible enough to make them understand the pro aspects of gun ownership until they need your protection. Best rule of thumb is to take all your pro points and make your con arguements accordingly, think in reverse so to speak.

Example:

Pro- guns guarantee our right to freedom that may be threatened by our governing bodies as is spelled out in the Constitution under the second amendment.

Con- our governing bodies can and will be voted out of office or impeached (as granted by the Constitution) if they do anything to take away our rights given by the Constitution of the United States of America. Laws guarantee this in the first place so guns mean little to this arguement.

Do it like that and you can second guess yourself all day long :) Regardless of how week the anti-gun arguements are remember that those espousing them believe them just as much as you or I believe that our pro-gun arguements are indisputable.

Take care and enjoy the temporary schizophrenia ;)

DRC

[Molon Labe]

I was thinking I could simply go to anti sites and put down all the lies I could find and then neatly destroy each and every one with a modicum of fact and logic.
Nah. I think it would be a lot more fun to explain why gun control is “good” and highlighting the inevitable and preposterous results.

Here’s are a few more tongue-in-cheek arguments you can use:

The Second Amendment says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Thus only the militia can bear arms, and (as we all know) “Militia” refers to the National Guard. Therefore, the phrase “the people” must also refer to the people serving in the National Guard. The Supreme Court has stated that "the people" in the Second Amendment has the same meaning in the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments (United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265. 1990). Therefore, only people serving in the National Guard have a right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, etc. Because of this, we should start arresting all non-National Guard people who freely speak, worship, etc., which will make us a more orderly and peaceful nation.

In the 1780’s, “arms” referred to muzzleloader rifles. Therefore, all rim-fire and center-fire rifles simply do not fall under the Second Amendment. Likewise, a “press” in the 1780’s referred to a hand-operated/manual press. Therefore, all modern presses and forms of communication (e.g. the internet) do not fall under the First Amendment.

[Jeeper]

Countires with less guns are safer. Of course you must ignore places like switzerland.

[Waitone]

Ballistic fingerprinting as an issue has taken a snooze but it will not go away.

It ought to be pretty easy to rehearse the pro-BF side and it ought to be a hoot to dismantle the pro sides argumentation.

BF is one of those issues that on the surface sounds appealing but just minor scratching shows its fallacies.

[Standing Wolf]

You could try the bliss ninny approach: "I'm scared of guns, so they should be banned."

[vmi93]

1. If we ban guns, only the bourgeous will obey the law. Once the revolutionary elite have armed themselves though underground channels, they will be able to overthrow the evil capitalist state and hasten the introduction of the worker's paradise that will arise when the party owns the means of production. (This argument works best with a post-modernist professor)

2. If we ban guns to all but government officials, it will be easier for them to round up and re-educate society's undesirables.

3. If we ban guns, them uppety Jews, Blacks and Mexicans, won't be able to stop the Night Riders coming for them.

4. Only government employees should have guns because their lives of service and sacrifice are more valuable than anyone else's.

[Mil Novecientos Once]

This site has some of anti's statements and a response from pro gunners (http://www.guntruths.com/Myths/truth_about_myths.htm)

Gun Control Myths

Click on the hyperlinks below to read short, concise answers to these commonly heard myths about gun control.

Myth No. 1: Gun Control Saves Lives

Myth No. 2: Handguns should be illegal because studies have shown they are 43 times more likely to be used against your own family than a criminal.

Myth No. 3: The family gun is more likely to kill you or someone you know than to kill in self-defense.

Myth No. 4: President Clinton Said "13 kids a day are killed by guns."

Myth No. 5: Wouldn't We All Be Safer If There Were Fewer Guns?

Myth No. 6: Friends or relatives are the most likely killers

Myth No. 7: We live in a civilized society--we don't need guns

Myth No. 8: Guns should be banned because they kill thousands of people each year.

Myth No. 9: We need to do something about the increasing access to firearms

Myth No. 10: When One Is Attacked, Passive Behavior Is the Safest Approach

Myth No. 11: If our representatives are passing gun control laws it must be because a majority of citizens is demanding that. So, if a majority of the people decides owning a gun is no longer a right, maybe it's time to change the Constitution.

Myth No. 12: Individual citizens do not have the right to keep and bear arms because the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the Second Amendment.

Myth No. 13: Doesn't the Second Amendment only guarantee the right of the states to maintain militias?

Myth No. 14: The Militia Mentioned in the Second Amendment Has Been Replaced by the National Guard

Myth No. 15: This is America. The government is never going to turn into a tyranny.

Myth No. 16: If the government uses the military and police to confiscate our guns, we can't fight them and win.

Myth No. 17: The United States Has Such a High Murder Rate Because Americans Own So Many Guns

Myth No. 18: In countries like Japan and England, where handguns are banned or heavily regulated, the murder rate is a fraction of what it is in the U.S.

Myth No. 19: Only the police are trained enough and responsible enough to carry guns.

Myth No. 20: The police do a fine job of protecting us.

Myth No. 21: Most police personnel favor gun control and they know more about crime control...

Myth No. 22: It’s too dangerous for the average citizen to try to apprehend criminals and the police are there to protect us.

Myth No. 23: Allowing people to carry concealed weapons in public will mean automobile accidents turn into shootouts.

Myth No. 24: Realistically, if you are robbed, carjacked, or attacked, you won’t have enough time to pull your gun out, anyway.

Myth No. 25: The average citizen with a gun is a bigger threat to himself and others than the criminal is.

Myth No. 26: No One Really Needs an Assault Weapon

Myth No. 27: Innocent People Are Killed by Stray Bullets

Myth No. 28: Guns Will Make My Kids Glorify Violence

Myth No. 29: Guns Are Inherently Unsafe and Should Be Made to Conform to Product Liability Laws

Myth No. 30: Guns cause so many injuries every year that cities were forced to sue gun manufacturers to get back emergency room and medical costs.

Myth No. 31: Firearms Aren't Worth It Because of the Medical Costs They Cause

Myth No. 32: What’s wrong with limiting purchases to one gun a month? Why would you need to buy more than 12 guns a year, anyway?

Myth No. 33: What’s wrong with a short 5-day waiting period so the authorities can conduct a background check?

Myth No. 34: I’m not saying they should be banned, but what’s wrong with registering handguns?

Myth No. 35: We license cars, marriages, attorneys, doctors, dentists, even hairstylists; why not license people who want to own handguns?

Myth No. 36: There's no harm in requiring a license before a person can buy a firearm.

Myth No. 37: Handgun Control, the Violence Policy Center, and the major news media say they don't want to ban all guns, just the bad ones that criminals use. What's wrong with that?

Myth No. 38: The fact so many prominent people are against citizens owning guns must mean they're right and I'm wrong.

[Atticus]

I've always thought this to be a bit of a double edged sword.

"The AR15, AK47, whatever, are not Assault weapons - Assault weapons are machine guns, and they are highly regulated and are almost never used in crimes."

So does heavy regulation, that drives up the price of weapons (and puts them only of the hands of those wealthy), a gun crime stopper?

Obviously no, but it still takes some splainin.

[Orthonym]

Look in Jeff Snyder, "Nation of Cowards-Essays on the Ethics of Gun Control", Accurate Press, St.Louis, 2001. On page 11 of the paperback edition you'll find what I think is the closest thing to a good argument for gun control. Alas, it only works (somewhat) if one is a much better Christian than most people seem to be. The last paragraph has a good argument to refute even the "pro-anti" argument in the first.:)

[Orthonym]

This is the one used by Feindstein and the smarter of her ilk.

A gun works much better if I have one and you don't!

[Meowhead]

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 :D ...)

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]

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.:p

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

[T.Stahl]

Wouldn't Feindschwein be more fitting then? :evil:

[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]

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. http://www.angelfire.com/journal/slingshot70/images/liberalcrap.jpg

[BTR]

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.