This is a discussion on how to counter this anti-gun argument? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Chris17404 Hi all, As a result of the Virginia Tech shootings, I've been in a discussion with my very anti-gun sister. She ...
Point out that an unarmed elderly man, or weaker individual without a gun would surely be killed by a man with an axe. Point out that with proper training an individual with a gun is MUCH more likely to put down a man with an axe than one without a gun. Finally, point out that it's not hers, yours, or anyone else's choice how another individual chooses to defend himself, thats up to him.
"Life exists at a level of complexity almost beyond our ability to comprehend. It's a well known fact that if you try to take apart a cat to see how it works one of the first things you have on your hands is a non-working cat" - Douglas Adams
"All things are governed by law" - Hippocrates
And if you want to get down to the nitty gritty of it, the purpose of a tool varies by who carries it. The purpose of my gun is not to kill, but to defend by any means necessary. A killing may result (god forbid), but that is not its purpose. To a thug commiting a robbery, the purpose of the gun is to induce submission by any means necessary. A killing may result from this also, but again, that is not the purpose of the gun. In a case such as VT, where an arguably insane individual is trying to murder as many people as possible, then the purpose of his gun is to kill.
Delving a bit deeper, you could argue that the designed purpose of a gun is to act as a weapon (note, not "to kill"). What any one person does with that weapon determines its purpose of the moment. Kind of like how the designed purpose of a car is to provide transportation, but its purpose of the moment can be either to run from the cops or deliver someone to a hospital.
We can not even keep guns out of prisons so how are we going to abolish all guns?
If it is not in the US Constitution then the Federal Government should not be doing it.
"Carrying a gun is a social responsibility."
The premise of her argument is that "all guns" can be removed from society. It is a false premise.
She is sadly mistaken. Criminals will always get guns, just like they get drugs.
Banning guns only disarms the law abiding, which creates more potential victims.
When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow. Semper Fi.
have your sister read this too..here is a prime example of how safe a no gun society can be...read about the great denizens of a socialist western democracy in action, in the gun free worker's paradise:
Ill start by defining "We" as the fine folks on this forum, no sarcasm intended.
We shoot at targets shaped like torsos and aim at center mass, maybe even head shots. We carefully choose our caliber of ammunition designed to inflict the most damage (although some of us may rethink our choice after VT). I havent run across a post where someone plans to "wound" their attacker, use their gun as a club or fire a warning shot for that matter. We dont carry handcuffs or mace do we? Why not?
We carry/train to kill, all be it for the right reasons hopefully.
A cars primary function is to transport although it could be used to run a person down. A guns PRIMARY function is to send a lethal projectile to or through an intended target, although I suppose it could be used for something else.
God bless, HOLYROLLER.
There's one fundamental truth about society. Prohibition of any wanted item will never work.
...He suggested that "every American citizen" should own a rifle and train with it on firing ranges "at every courthouse." -Chesty Puller
Go get a roll of wrapping paper or a stick and tell her to "en guard" if she can't stop the attack, then ask her why she didn't call for banning cars when that muslim ran over those in North Carlonia in a terroist attack,then ask her how she's going to ban rocks. Remind her that only God can do away with rocks and someone that would ban them automatically deams themselves god thus violating the perceived "Separation of Church and State."
Ask her why we must allow criminals to violate our Right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? Why should a monster have more rights than a citizen?
"[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons.
They are left in full possession of them."
Zacharia Johnson (speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention,25 June 1778)"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." ~Alexander Hamilton
I have heard this argument before. One example is a big strong man and a 90 lb woman in a fight. Given a gun she might defend herself. Bullies often use their size and strength to push people around. They don't do this to armed folks. Also, being armed often is enough to stop the situation and no shooting need take place. The old west and Dodge City actually had less senseless killings per capita than Washington, DC.
SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM
Chattel -- as a slave or property (in context, subjugated)
Despot -- any tyrant or oppressor (in context, the strong holding power over the weak)
A firearm allows a person of smaller stature or less personal strength to overcome the physical advantage of a larger or stronger person. A knife, an axe, a spear, a sword, even a bow and arrow, all are much more dependent upon the physical strength of the individual than are firearms.
Any weapon is designed to inflict damage. And yes, in training, we seek to maximize the damage. The intent, however, is to defend; to stop an imminent attack or threat. The threat of deadly force may be sufficient in many circumstances.
Most law (Texas included) considers force (or threat of force), justified in order to stop an attack, or threat. When the imminent threat does not exist, the application of force is no longer justified. It's this great distinction that must be grasped by any who choose to take on the responsibility of wielding deadly force.
"We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters
Ask if she would have even the LEO's stripped of their guns. We walk the same streets they do, so why is it ok for them to have guns for self defense, but I can't?
Tell her to look at what happened when alcohol was abolished in the US. That didn't work did it?She wants all guns abolished in the US
I really appreciate all of your thoughts on this. I'm going to take some time to digest all of it, and come up with a well thought out and honest response to her.
Thanks again. I really love this forum. Long live the Second Amendment.
She might subconciously think about that having a gun is not fair as in "fair fight". I have seen this used before by others. I quote an armored officer during Gulf War One who was asked if the massive amount of M1 tanks and Bradleys against a seemingly smaller Iraqi force was fair. He responded (I parapharse): "In my book, fair fight means me and all my people go home alive."
You have to make the shot when fire is smoking, people are screaming, dogs are barking, kids are crying and sirens are coming.
Ego will kill you. Leave it at home.