What kind of argument do you give to an anti-gunner who says this...?

[Jokerman]

Wouldn't it be easier for a criminal to get a gun--like, say, a Tech-9--if it were made legal? To say they would get it anyway is not a valid point. If they become legal, there will be more of them available to be gotten illegally by criminals, no? Just because some teens will drink liquor at an early age, does that mean we should lift the controls on it?

I haven't heard this kind of argument countered much. What say you?

 

[Oleg Volk]

Collective reposibility -- restricting freedoms of lawful people because of bad actions of others -- is a totalitarian concept...entirely un-American.

 

[SDC]

Can "gun X" kill you any "deader" than "gun Y"? If not, it's a bogus argument from the word go.

 

[GigaBuist]

If we gave a labotomy to all the "serfs" at birth we'd have a more peaceful population too.

There's no valid reason for turning me into a defenseless sub-human being and I won't tolerate it.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Collective reposibility -- restricting freedoms of lawful people because of bad actions of others -- is a totalitarian concept...entirely un-American.

The concept of 'prior restraint' IS entirely un-American, (and doesn't exist anywhere in our society that comes to mind) but it may not be enough to counter the argument that SOME firearms should be banned because 'bad guys might get a hold of them'.

The fallacy in the thinking is that a Tec-9 or an AK-47 is somehow more dangerous or lethal to society than a 30-30 or a bird shotgun, or a vehicle or a baseball bat, screwdriver, or even a brick, for that matter.

We can't let ourselves get sucked into the demonization of certain types of firearms just because the antigunners don't like them. The term "hoplophobia" comes to mind. Thank you Jeff Cooper.

 

[Thumper]

Are you familiar with the tec-9?

If anything, because of reliability issues, it's LESS potent than most firearms.

Your point would be better made if you said that you'd like to see all firearms made illegal. You'd still be on the shaky ground of collective responsibility, though.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I assume your hypothetical anti-gunner is talking about so-called "assault" weapons, not all firearms.

The best argument I can think of is that they are currently illegal for anyone other than military and law enforcement personnel to possess, yet the crooks seem to have no trouble getting them even though you and I can't walk into a gun store and find one on the shelf, or buy one through any legal channel.

If the bad guys can get them pretty much at will even when the good guys can't get them at all ... what, precisely, is the "ban" accomplishing?

 

[SAG0282]

Like Thumper said, the Tech 9 is only scary to the sheeple because they don't know anything about guns. I'd rather an adversary have TWO of those then a SIG or HK pistol, because my experience (albeit relatively limited, fortunately) with the Tech 9 has shown that particular weapon to be an incredible piece of crap. But the moronic media has imbued this gun with an ill-deserved legend for incredible, deadly firepower. In reality a few morons have been lucky enough to get it to function adequately enough to kill a few people famously......and here we are today.

 

[No4Mk1*]

A "criminal" still would have to use illegal means to obtain a gun because of background checks. If you are going to illegally obtain a gun why not get a real submachinegun instead of a semiauto which is available legally? If the govenrment cannot stop a multi-billion dollar illegal drug trade across our borders they sure cannot prevent criminals from learning how to manufacture submachineguns like the Sten and Uzi and distributing them. There is no market for illegal SMG's yet because our gun control laws are not that bad yet.

 

[gunsmith]

If I had a choice

between using a tech 9 or a ruger single action .357 I would use the ruger.
I think banning cheapo tech nines is stupid,but so is thinking that they are somehow more deadly then a good cowboy gun.

 

[Baba Louie]

Wouldn't it be easier for a criminal to get a gun--like, say, a Tech-9--if it were made legal? To say they would get it anyway is not a valid point.

My Response?: "A criminal you say? Why, that'd be breaking the law wouldn't it? Since said criminal probably drives an automobile on his way to and fro his life of crime, we should probably then make all cars illegal as well, right? And since this criminal gains sustenance by eating food, drinking water and breathing air... well, the answer is as obvious as the nose on your face kind sir. Once everyone is dead, then there will be no crime, right? That IS the (il)logic you wanted to hear, right? That we should all suffer due to the inappropriate and illegal actions of a few? It certainly worked well during Prohibition, didn't it?"
Then let him counter that while you walk away shaking your head, muttering, "Some People's Kids."

My older sister and I recently had almost this very conversation. She doesn't get it and never will. I, on the other hand, will never even try to understand why I should begin to give her thought process one iota of credence. She feels compelled to control everyone around her, for their own good, based on her standards.

 

[Jokerman]

Some great replies, thanks. Yes, I did mean this is coming from an anti-assault weapons (or "nasty" weapons) person, not someone totally anti-gun.

"Can "gun X" kill you any "deader" than "gun Y"? If not, it's a bogus argument from the word go."

Ok, forget the Tech-9 if it's unreliable. Can't a reliable machine gun kill more people at one time then a handgun, in anyone's hand, except, of course, in the hand's of an expert shot? Bad guys spraying into a crowd with a MG is gonna do more damage than with handguns, before anyone can take cover or fire back.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Wouldn't it be easier for a criminal to get a gun--like, say, a Tech-9--if it were made legal?

It's already illegal for criminals to possess firearms. Making it more illegal and/or more difficult and/or more socially unacceptable would be utterly ludicrous, if it weren't anti-American.

 

[buy guns]

the only additional way for a criminal to get a tec 9 if it was made legal would be to either buy it yourself or buy one from someone who bought it legally. both of those ways wont be used by criminals because it costs a hell of a let more than if they were to buy one that was stolen or smuggled into the country. criminals arent criminals because they are rich. they will get whatever is cheapest.

 

[Jokerman]

^Organized criminals could set up some kind of legal gun-buying entity ring and then use them for illegal purposes.

 

[ducktapehero]

Most criminals would prefer to use firearms that can't be traced to them. If they bought it legally and then used it in a crime it wouldn't be hard to connect the gun to the shooter. Unless they threw it away. That can be expensive so it's better(and cheaper) to just buy them off the street and throw them away if they use them.

 

[kbarrett]

Gun laws don't make it any easier or harder for a criminal to get ANY firearm.

Australia has banned semi-auto handguns ... yet criminals smuggle in thousands of chinese glock copies into the country.

Laws that create black markets make it easier for criminals to get contraband items, and more profitable to sell them.


Such laws miss one very important point ... they do nothing to make firearms less available to anyone. They only criminalize self-defense.

 

[Jokerman]

kbarrett, that makes sense from what i know.

 

[Baba Louie]

...yet criminals smuggle in thousands of chinese glock copies into the country.

I'm biting my tongue here... Makes me wonder if the Chinese have gotten the whole ceramic Glock (7 wasn't it?) thing down pat yet.
I think I've gotta have a chinese glock copy and I think I gotta have one now! Just... because.
Sorry for the OT drift there. Carry on.

 

[SDC]

Ok, forget the Tech-9 if it's unreliable. Can't a reliable machine gun kill more people at one time then a handgun, in anyone's hand, except, of course, in the hand's of an expert shot? Bad guys spraying into a crowd with a MG is gonna do more damage than with handguns, before anyone can take cover or fire back.

It seems to me that all of the really "successful" mass murders in recent history have been accomplished with something OTHER than a firearm; unless you want to believe that being killed with a gun somehow kills you "more dead" than any other method, you're also going to have to ban gasoline, fertilizer, matches, batteries, airplanes, box cutters, automobiles, flammable gases, etc., etc., any books that may tell you how to construct any of these things, and require mandatory lobotomization for anyone that might somehow figure out how to do any of these things.

 

[kbarrett]

I'm biting my tongue here... Makes me wonder if the Chinese have gotten the whole ceramic Glock (7 wasn't it?) thing down pat yet.
I think I've gotta have a chinese glock copy and I think I gotta have one now! Just... because.

Not sure what your point here was .... Norinco make copies of damned near anything ... they were showing off a Sig 226(?) knock-off at the last shot show.

As soon as some basic patents expire, expect them to start selling Glock knockoffs abroad. Currently, if you want one, you need to buy a container full from them and export it ..... or travel to Australia and buy one under the table

 

[biere]

From your posts I would say the entire concept is this: If more honest folks can once again own a tec 9, there are more tec 9s in honest folks homes for a criminal to find when he goes there to steal stuff.

You need to find why this person feels your rights should be limited because of someone else breaking the law.

I have run into this argument once, the person liked fast cars and I used the speed limiter concept to get my point across.

Overall it comes down to some folks who feel it is ok to limit the rights of many because of what a few may do.

I feel it is sad to even run into these folks and it often takes a lot of time to show them the real facts about gun crime and where the tv folks get their statistics from.

There are lots of good points above. Overall I tend to consider it false logic since the laws on the books make it illegal for a criminal to get his hands on the gun in the first place.

If the laws don't work, why do we still have them?

 

[Foreign Devil]

Tell them that we shouldn't enforce 4th amendment restrictions against unreasonable search and seizure because that will allow some criminals to get away their crimes.

"But that would violate our rights!" they'll say.

Exactly you respond. So will gun prohibition.

 

[Jokerman]

biere: "You need to find why this person feels your rights should be limited because of someone else breaking the law."

I think that a person like this feels that the lives of those who will be taken by criminals without a ban in place are more important than the right of gun enthusiasts to have some fun on the range with automatic weapons. In other words, they don't feel we have a reasonable need to own these weapons. So, in their minds, it's people's lives over your right to have some extra gun fun. With that way of thinking, how would they choose our rights here?

Is that a valid way of looking at it? If so, then the question is do we have a valid self defense need for them? Of course, some of you are simply pushing the idea that "It's Our Right!" and that's all there is to it. Need or no need. But that argument will never hold water for liberals when lives are at stake.

 

[Molon Labe]

Here’s my response:

I don’t care if making Tec-9’s legal will make them more accessible to criminals. Given a choice, I would rather have a high crime rate and preserve the people’s right to keep and bear arms, than a low crime rate and infringe upon the people’s right to keep and bear arms...