I've encountered this argument a few times in the past; I give an example of how proper use of a firearm saved a person's life, and the anti gives an example of how a firearm was used to murder someone, then acts as if their example negates mine.
I'm not sure how to respond to it other than stating that infringing upon the rights of the law-abiding for the sake of the criminal's actions doesn't make any sense. I've heard the "84 million firearm owners killed no one" cliche, but is there any meat to that argument? It would seem to me that the overwhelming number of firearms in this country are owned and used for legitimate and legal purposes (not just self defense), but I'm not sure as to how I should go about presenting the purported statistics.
Any help is appreciated!
I'm not sure how to respond to it other than stating that infringing upon the rights of the law-abiding for the sake of the criminal's actions doesn't make any sense. I've heard the "84 million firearm owners killed no one" cliche, but is there any meat to that argument? It would seem to me that the overwhelming number of firearms in this country are owned and used for legitimate and legal purposes (not just self defense), but I'm not sure as to how I should go about presenting the purported statistics.
Any help is appreciated!
Last edited: