Reasons against gun control

[DRMMR02]

In another non-firearm forum, I seem to have started a discussion about gun control. I know there are people a lot more knowledgable about this than I, so I am asking for an essay of sorts against gun control. Something I can post that will make sense to the average non-firearms person. I have already said that gun-control laws only hamper law abiding citizens, not criminals, but have gotten more than a few "we just need better laws and more of them" replies.

Also, I know someone is going to say "the Constitution says so" or "it's our natural righ", and that's all the reason you need". I know that, and you know that, but others don't seem to be able to accept that. So I am looking for a list of reasons and arguments that will make sense to people who really don't know anything about guns other than that their congressperson told them they are bad and need to be keep out of our hands.

In short, what would your "perfect 2 or 3 paragraphs" be giving multiple and sound reasons against the flurry of gun controls laws that politicians are forcing on us.

Any takers?

Also, I'm asking ahead of time if I can use any responses on another forum.

 

[DerringerUser]

I posted a thread like this awhile ago in Legal & Political. I think you'd get some better answers there.

 

[wuchak]

These might help.

Great list of arguments and their counters. http://www.gunfacts.info/

I also recommend reading the article GUNS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: EPIDEMIC OF
VIOLENCE OR PANDEMIC OF PROPAGANDA? because the bogus stats from these articles turn up frequently. http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html

There's also the US DOJ study,http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm ,that found the Second Amendment does, without question protect an individual right to own firearms.
The conclusion from that study, " For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms. Current case law leaves open and unsettled the question of whose right is secured by the Amendment. Although we do not address the scope of the right, our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views. The text of the Amendment's operative clause, setting out a "right of the people to keep and bear Arms," is clear and is reinforced by the Constitution's structure. The Amendment's prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully consistent with this interpretation. The broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and use arms, from England's Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion. Finally, the first hundred years of interpretations of the Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law in the pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment's ratification, confirm what the text and history of the Second Amendment require."