"I also think that the reiterration of how he could not fight his biology and that the slaughter would occur with or without him makes a point that with or without weapons there will always be men ready to do evil. But, JMO."
To me, the problem with that is many antis expand upon that with the idea 'we are all prone to violence due to our biology...because maybe you will succumb to rage and gun down your wife, you should NOT be allowed to have a gun!'
I personally disagree, but that is where the idea of 'cannot fight our basic violent nature' can be turned against gun owners.
Personally, i argue that 'No, I will not shoot my wife, (even though i am not currently married) any more than I would pick up a knife and stab her! Or hit her with a golf club. Are you saying that in addtion to removing guns,we need to remove knives and objects that can bluedgone someone? I know i will never do any of those things 'in a fit of rage'. However, because i cannot be sure that every person will be equally able to control his basic violent nature, i choose to be armed.
What is funny is sometimes the antis making this arguement of 'gun in home + angry spouse = tragic situation that could have been avoided' will say that they themselves have been so angry that if they had a gun they woudl have done X (shot my husband, or whatnot) and I always ask
me : 'so because you had no gun you went to the kitchen drawer, got a knife, and stabbed him?'
Anti: 'of course not!'
me: 'so why is going to the den and getting a gun from the cabnet and going back in to shoot him different from going to get the knife from the kitchen'
Anti: 'but a gun would kill a person for sure!'
me: 'well, that just means you would be MORE inclined to stab him because you know it is less lethal. So you stabbed him just once?'
this is when we normally move to
Anti: 'but what if your kids find it'
me: 'what? the spouse you stabbed with the kitchen knife?'
