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

[armoredman]

I asked an inmate, who is doing life, if he were to get out tomorrow, how hard would it be to get an illegal firearm. He said it would be in his hand before he was out of sight of the prison. I believe him. Banning any legal product for illegal use does nothing, or else Prohibition and the War On Drugs would have worked - remember, almost ALL illegal drugs were LEGAL at one point in US history!

 

[jimbo]

Your premise that illegal guns are more difficult for criminals to obtain has at least 4 flaws in it.

#1 It presumes the criminal will not obtain one merely because it is difficult to get. This is patently false.

#2 Illegal guns are usually more expensive, so criminals now have to commit even more crimes to afford the illegal guns they desire and will obtain. Crime rate goes up.

#3 Now you can add gun-trafficking to the list of other dangerous, illegal, illicit activity because it is profitable for the criminal to cheaply obtain illegal guns through theft and to sell them on the black market. Crime rate goes up.

#4 Your premise presumes that a criminal who cannot obtain a gun easily or at all because it is illegal, will not obtain a similar one legally. A criminal can kill you just as dead with a legally obtained M1 Carbine as an illegal UZI.

LSD is completely illegal, yet anyone anywhere can obtain it anytime they want. Prohibition never works. Gun prohibition never, ever works. The criminals know it and laugh every time a gun is banned.

 

[jimbo]

quote: "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? "

I hear a machine gun can't kill as many as fast as an airliner can.

So what's your point? Because if I drove my truck at high speed into a kindergarden lunch line, I'm betting I could kill a lot more kids than if I had to shoot them one at a time with a machine gun.

There are a lot of dangerous weapons out there. Let's get rid of those who abuse inanimate objects, not the objects that might be abused.

 

[N3rday]

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?

Well, what's the difference between a 30 shot Tec-9 and a Glock with a 30 round magazine? Glocks are legal. Same ammo, same lethality. And the Glock is more concealable. And, oh yeah, used by just about half of the Police departments in the united states. In fact, they are significantly more readily available than a Tec-9.

Besides, criminals don't readily use Tec-9s. The guns that they use reflect the guns the population uses, per availability. This is why revolvers are so commonly used in crime.

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

So true. I'd rather have an idiot with a tec-9 spraying from the hip than a criminal that takes careful aim with his bolt-action rifle. Remember, most people who are shot with handguns survive (2/3 IIRC).

Also the most deadly close quarters gun on earth, the shotgun, is used so much for law-abiding purposes it would be political suicide to try to ban them.

 

[MeekandMild]

It would appear that making guns illegal automatically makes them easier to obtain by criminals. The reason? It becomes more profitable to import or make guns to sell to the criminals than it would be if they were legal. I'll bet there are more illegal pistols imported into Australia on a given day now than legal ones were imported in a month before the ban.

This is the same principle that explains why there are more people selling crack cocaine in the cities than selling turnip greens on the side of the road. Selling crack is illegal so the demand is greater the competition small and unorganized so a thug can make a tidy profit. Selling turnip greens is legal, however the taxes, inspections, food stamp requests and bookkeeping requirements make it unprofitable compared to Wally World turnip greens.

He said it would be in his hand before he was out of sight of the prison.

I would be entirely unsurprised if he could obtain one IN the prison, given enough folding money or enough packs of cigarettes.

 

[Don Gwinn]

First of all, IF we accept that my rights are dependent on your Violent Crime Story Problems, we should do the whole problem. You're not acknowledging that all those legal guns in civilian hands have a purpose--they make people better able to defend themselves from crime and, in the extreme, from a tyrannical government. Defensive uses far outnumber crimes committed with firearms, so judged by your own criteria, your argument fails.

But, second of all, I do not accept your utilitarian argument. There are lots and lots of things we ought to do if the absolute most efficiency for the most people--as determined by some elite decision maker--is the goal. For one thing, we KNOW that there are more white people than there are black people in America. We also know that more black people commit crime against white people than the other way around. From a utilitarian point of view, then, it's in the best interest of the collective (or the "majority" if you prefer) that start sterilizing black people today so all those white folks can be left in peace to enjoy their suburbs.
But you don't REALLY believe that would be a good idea, do you? Of course you don't, because you realize that individuals have inherent value that ought not be subordinated to the collective good without their consent.


And if that doesn't work, you can always ask to hear their plan for collecting your firearms. I've only done that once. It's an interesting thing to see.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Aren't drugs like cocaine and heroin completely illegal in the U.S.? How do they get into criminal's hands?

Oh yeah -- they're criminals. And every country has borders and coasts over which goods can be smuggled. It all depends how lucrative it is to smuggle.

When you make things illegal, the more powerful version of that banned substance is what becomes popular. Outlaw booze, people switch from beer to gin to get drunk faster and smuggle smaller quantities. Crack down on cocaine, crack cocaine becomes popular. Outlaw guns in the U.K., the criminals smuggle in full auto assault rifles and machine guns.

Also -- Outlawing an item based on the fact that a bad guy might steal it is just ridiculous.

 

[Dex Sinister]

This is how I'd answer:

Question:
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 them anyway is not a valid point. If they become legal, there will be more of them available to be gotten illegally by criminals, no?

Answer:
"Well, it is absolutely true that legal things are generally easier to get than illegal things are -- at least by the law abiding. 'Course, we might want to remember that illicit drugs have illegal for over 70 years, and it is not the least bit difficult for anyone who doesn't mind breaking the law to obtain illicit drugs.

However, if you'll permit me, I don't think that you are asking quite the question that you mean to ask. What I hear you saying - and correct me if I'm wrong - is 'If a specific gun (such as a Tech-9) is legal for law-abiding citizens to buy, won't criminals be more dangerous because they could get that gun too?'

That might or might not be true: It simply depends on whether there are alternatives that a criminal could choose that would accomplish the same thing that any particular gun would accomplish.

Let me ask you a question: There are about 280 million guns in America today. If there was a criminal who wanted to rob you personally, and came up and pointed a gun directly at you, would you be particular about what brand of gun it was? Do you know enough about guns to recognize one from another? Assuming that you were able to recognize that a criminal wasn't holding a Tech-9 -- would you feel a lot safer, perhaps emboldened to take the not-a-Tech-9 gun away and beat him up?

If you'd be equally scared no matter what sort of gun a criminal chose to point at you, do you think it really matters very much to the criminal whether he can obtain a Tech-9, versus any other gun? After all, a gun is a very powerful and threatening symbol.

One of the usual reasons that criminals choose to carry guns rather than some other weapon is that chances are that merely showing a gun to someone will be enough to ensure compliance; criminals who carry knives or clubs quite often actually attack and injure their prey to show that they are serious, while criminals with guns generally do not. Incidentally, that's also why law-abiding citizens who carry guns for protection rarely have to actually fire them - usually just displaying them to a criminal is enough."

[Question: "But what about scary feature X??"]

Conclusion: 'Ya know, I agree with you that there are serious issues with violence in society, that I'm just as concerned about as you are. But I really hate when politicians deliberately misinform folks just to trick them into feeling insecure. I think it was HL Mencken who said, 'The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.'

Most people, if politicians made the same silly claims about cars that they made about guns would laugh them out of office. Can you imagine how you would laugh if a politician claimed that ordinary, law-abiding people couldn't buy certain cars, because they were actually evil "assault cars" that only criminals used, and that if we just made it impossible for criminals to buy these particular cars, then we'd all be lots safer because the criminals wouldn't be able to find other transportation alternatives that would work for them?

'Course they'd never be that silly, because people would laugh at them. But fewer people know much about guns, so when they make the same kinds of arguments about guns, somehow it seems kinda' plausible. Sure, different guns have lots of different features, just like different cars, and trucks, and SUV's have lots of different features. And you know, autos in general are powerful tools that are just as dangerous as guns if one wished to kill someone, and are certainly worthy of being treated with respect.

But you know, no one tries to tell you, a law-abiding citizen, that you can't own a Ford SUV, or a truck with a V10 engine just because some criminal robbed a while store driving one, or because some psychopath ran over some pedestrians with one. Cause they know that you know that it's the driver, not the car that determines whether the tool is used for good or for evil.

Dex

 

[artherd]

"Easier to get" falls apart because of the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of police officers (now with AR-15 'assault rifles' littered around the state.

If I were a criminal, I could get an AR, for free, in about 45seconds.

 

[fallingblock]

I'd say, MeekandMild.......

"I'll bet there are more illegal pistols imported into Australia on a given day now than legal ones were imported in a month before the ban."
************************************************************

You'd be ahead with that bet, but no one in government here would take it.



ReadyontheRight:
************************************************************
"Outlawing an item based on the fact that a bad guy might steal it is just ridiculous."
************************************************************

And yet this is exactly where the anti-gun lobby in Australia is focused.


Jokerman:

I'd focus on the common theme that runs throughout this thread.

How can you suggest that it is possible to make something that is already illegal (Criminals possessing a firearm) MORE illegal?

And what on earth makes you think so?

 

[dischord]

The anti has played 2 tricks (perhaps unwittingly) to get you to into a corner.

1) Burden of Proof – Ethical Response

Anti position: Prove that your liberty will not hurt society or you cannot have it.

My response: In a society based on liberty and freedom, the burden of proof always is on the one who wants restrictions. We have no obligation to "prove" that relaxing a law will not harm society.

Rather, the anti must:
A) Prove that the law will help society.
B) Sufficiently address the question of violating rights, including how the benefit rises to a level that allows us to even consider the violation (this requires proof of a major benefit in response to a major danger -- but with the AWB, there is no major danger using crime figures).


2 Burden of Proof – Logical Response

Anti position: Prove that your liberty will not hurt society or you cannot have it.

My response: This position demands proof of a negative, which is not logically acceptable.

Rather, the anti must positively prove either:
A) That the law helps society.
B) That the removal of the law harms society.


3) Burden of Proof – Possible Anti Response to 2)

If the anti then tries to rephrase the demand in the positive (prove that relaxing the law will help society), refer him to 1) the ethical response: In a society based on liberty and freedom, the burden of proof always is on the one who wants restrictions.

If the anti pushes the matter, concede that greater access to TEC-9s probably will not help society, but so what? Liberty ought not be dependent on proof that it helps. Rather, "In a society based on liberty..."

 

[USAFNoDAk]

Use the Black Market and Prohibition arguments:

" If we made all alcohol totally illegal, wouldn't that stop not only teens but alcoholics from getting in trouble? What? We tried that before? It didn't work? Crime shot up as a result of prohibition because the black market took over for the "legal' market? The black market attracts criminals? No. Your kidding right? "

You need to get the point across that if there is a demand, and you choke off the "legal" supply (ie prohibition or gun bans), the black market will immediately take over the supply issue and there will be all sorts of seedy characters now making gobs of money, fighting over this money and their market "turf", and trying to eliminate their competitors. We have already seen this with alcohol, what makes anyone think it wouldn't happen for firearms? You can also use illegal drugs and the crime they spawn. There is an argument for making drugs legal. I can't say that I am on that platform at this time, but from a pure crime standpoint, the people who are for legalizing drugs have some valid arguments. They forget that alcohol is legal, but still leads to crimes in and of itself when it is abused and when people become too dependant upon it. That's a whole 'nother arguement, though.

 

[Mikul]

If you are correct, that making certain guns illegal will reduce violent crime then why is England's violent crime rate at an all time high AFTER they made it illegal to own practically ANY type of gun?

 

[Gordon Fink]

Would you support a ban on private automobiles, if it would appear to save over 40,000 lives every year? Or would you recognize it as an unjust, unconstitutional, and immoral restriction on your freedom of movement, regardless of any potential public-safety benefits?

What if you did your own research and discovered that a ban on private cars wouldn’t reduce transportation-related fatalities? What if fewer but more spectacular accidents involving public mass-transit systems would actually take more lives than would thousands of individual car crashes?

Yes, of course, guns are designed to “kill people,†but in 21st-century America, cars do a hell of a lot better job of it.

~G. Fink

 

[WingZero]

The vast majority of illegal guns in this country come from foreign countries like south america and eastern europe. These guns make it to this country through organized crime, terrorist (extremest) groups, and the drug trade.
The only effective way to stop crime is to fight crime, not to restrict the rights of the law abiding public. The '94 AW ban did nothing in deminishing crime.... case in point.

 

[Augustwest]

I've often, sometimes with some success, pointed out that since Amendment II was added to the Constitution in order to protect us from tyranny, military-pattern firearms are the most Constitutional ones we could own.

Then I usually mumble something about John Ashcroft, and they begin to see the light.

 

[boyd425]

Jokerman said in part:

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.

No, machine guns (I am told) don't recoil but climb. Fired on full auto they move point of aim into the sky. Most of the shootings blamed on machine guns (like the stockton shooting that started LCAV) happen over a great deal of time. The police arrive, and carefully set a perimeter so the murderer has time to wander around killing. At that point it's not the type of gun but merely the determination to be murderous that's the problem.

 

[biere]

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?

Above by jokerman.

I think you could use the example someone already gave of what gun is more dangerous when it is pointed at you. You can also play some of the logic games already mentioned.

I tend to ask "where does it stop?"

If the tec 9 gets banned and folks are still being shot by criminals with guns, what is next? Use current problems in england and australia as examples of why gun bans don't work. Use current ccw data to show why ccw lowers crime rates in most cases. I know of no case where it raised crime rates.

I also tend to wander into what the police use and what the military uses, and why honest citizens can't have the same. Basically, do those limitations make criminals less of a threat?

Overall, people die from the criminal. It does not matter if the criminal used a shovel to smack someone in the head or a car to run the person down. The criminal operated a tool and in doing so hurt or killed someone.

At this point I make them explain why someone who can't be trusted to walk the streets is free and walking the streets.

You have to figure out why someone thinks limiting your rights is going to stop a criminal from doing what a criminal does.

 

[Jokerman]

Ok, I came back to this anti-assault-gun guy with the argument that making them illegal makes them more available, and I used some of the points you guys made, and he had no rebuttal to it. So he took a different tack and came back with: "Other, smaller guns are used to kill deer or hunt, which is what justifies making them legal. A tech-9, semi-automatic weapons? Are you nuts? In what POSSIBLE circumstance would you ever need a rapid fire automatic uzi? Do you plan to fight a small army anytime soon? Weapons like that have no useful existence in every day life, and no "defense" doesnt cut it. It wont provide anymore safety than say a 9mm, unless of course you plan on fighting 100 men."

I came back with, "But it should still be my right to own it if I want. And I don't plan on fighting 100 men, but you never know. I can imagine all kinds of scenarios where such a thing can happen. Let's say terrorists set off nukes in the country and chaos follows. You might have roving bands of guys with guns stealing and doing anything they want. I would then need all the firepower I could get."

How would you answer him? Give me more arguments about our "rights" or our need.

 

[WingZero]

In what POSSIBLE circumstance would you ever need a rapid fire automatic uzi? Do you plan to fight a small army anytime soon?

Well, with the current war against terrorism, and terrorists hiding among us in the U.S., who knows if you (as a everyday American) might be put in a situation like that.

 

[capt_happypants]

If it's good enough for law-enforcement, then it's good enough for me.

Now, where's my select-fire M4 and Sig 550?

 

[Geech]

Tec-9s and Uzis are 9mm firearms.

By the way, the most appropriate response would be to shift the burden of proof back to him, as indicated by an earlier post.

"Why should I have to show need? Americans enjoy a lot of excesses in life. If you can't show that they're especially harmful, than there are no grounds for a ban."

 

[biere]

You need to cream the "which is what justifies making them legal."

And besides that his hunting statements are way off, at least for ohio.

Have him research in the papers that were used to help found this country where citizens were limited to owning hunting arms.

If you wish to be mean you might mention that you agree with the hunting concept since during the revolution the guns that filled a family's pot also hunted redcoats. Yeah I mean it in jest, sorta. It does make people realize a gun can have several purposes.

A gun can protect me from someone breaking into my home.
A gun can provide food for the table.
A gun can be used to defend my land and country. That one might need to be said a bit better but I can't do it.

And most importantly, a gun can provide a way to shoot holes in pop cans.

Overall, make him explain the current crime statistics for england and austraila where guns are banned except for the police and government.

You might also let him explain why a police state is good since that seems to be where he is heading.

Overall I still think finding out an example of something he enjoys in excess would get the point across better. Someone else limiting your lifestyle because they see no need for it is not what this country was created for.

 

[Jokerman]

biere: "Overall I still think finding out an example of something he enjoys in excess would get the point across better. Someone else limiting your lifestyle because they see no need for it is not what this country was created for."

Does this premise mean drugs shouldn't be restricted either?

 

[biere]

The problem with the drug argument is that they are already illegal or a controlled substance. This will more than likely overshadow your original argument.

I know folks who feel everyone should own an econo car. Of course they call me when they need a truck for moving big stuff that won't fit in their car. During one argument about why everyone should own an econo car I asked if they could do everything with an econo car. It never made it home until that point that at least once a year they call me or rent a u-haul for handling big stuff.

I know folks who think a car able to do 160 from the factory should not be allowed into the public's hands. Of course the hobby of drag racing or auto crossing or whatever else that car might get used for did help them to see the light. In this case they liked the ability to reach the speed limit fast, but since they never had a use for a car that fast they did not see why anyone else would "need" such a thing.

One of the biggest problems with the above arguments is you are still trying to show a need to some degree.

In this country my options are not set by what others need. You can play with trying to find something where he uses an excess that you do not, or you can figure out why he feels guns are only for hunting.

And one thing to consider, some folks can not be reasoned with. I have run into them and I usually end the discussion with something like "then we will always disagree since you want to limit my rights."