Defending the "Guns do not equal more deaths" arguement

[ArcadiaGP]

I'm involved in a debate with a group of people that say there is "undeniable fact that proves guns mean more deaths" in a society.

How can I counter-argue? I know their links/graphs are completely baseless, but I'm in the minority in this arguement, and I need some strong points and facts. What can I say? What do you typically say?

Help me out here

 

[esrice]

Ask them if there were fewer deaths in the middle ages.

 

[CarmelHP]

More Guns, Less Crime

 

[Archbishop]

Lets make up a few numbers for the sake of this discussion.
Lets say 50 people were killed by guns last week. (Justifiable or not.) A pacifist argument might be those 50 people would still be alive today if guns didn't exist. OK you got me there they would be.

But the other side to this argument would be two fold. First, at least some of the 50 peoples lives were traded so that innocent people could still be alive. (Robber gets shot before killing three people in gas station.) Second, How many times do we see where lives were saved because there was a gun present? what number would this be? (BG comes up to to do whatever gun is produced and the crime is ended.)

As an add on to this argument lets add some follow up questions. Assuming that all guns are evil how do you propose to get rid of them? You'll go door to door collecting them? What about the guns that aren't turned in? (Hidden in attics or where ever.) How would you keep people from manufacturing new guns in their garages? So then you magically figure out how to make all guns vanish forever. What will you do when Bad guys start using knifes? Bow and arrows? bricks? Or simply use brute force to commit crime. How will good people then defend themselves when all means defense have been stripped away from them?


Guns can be used in evil acts that occasionally take innocent life, but to get rid of them is first of all impossible and second of all the evil doer will simply use a different tool to accomplish evil. (knives, stones, etc.) Also, you take away an otherwise defenseless person means to protect themselves from harm.

 

[LuckyBrush]

A few responses to them

*Firearms are the very reason we even have a country with freedom to even debate the issue.

*Without firearms, our founding fathers would've succumbed to the tyrants and we would all be british.

*Look at the crime/death rate of other countries that have banned guns, they are much higher.

*Yes, we can do away with guns. And we can pray for people to not rape and murder our family and friends with their bare hands. Personally, I will ENSURE mine and my family's safety.

*Tell that to the police all accross the country who rely on them to serve and protect us.

 

[5.56'aholic]

nazi germany- hitler

cambodia- khmer rouge

russia-post stalin of course

Ask them if any of those ring a bell.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Or gun ownership in this country has been going up for 20 years, and there has been a downward trend in violent crime over the same period.

 

[hookedonjeep]

or better yet..... perform a simple exercise. Hand half of them each a water pistol. Tell the half that has the pistols to have fun with them - to enjoy them. When the other half resorts to different tactics to acquire pistols of their own, be it by reason or force; point out those methods to them to educate them. Then, take the pistols away from the first group, telling them they have been outlawed, and if they don't want to be a criminal, they need to surrender them. See what happens when the second group finds out they are criminals for keeping their pistols. If the second group turns them in, they are all a bunch of sissies that you probably don't want to be hanging with anyway. Leave that group immediately, so that they can go on being sheeple; sniffing merlot and hugging trees while eating granola - all while discussing the potential health benefits of drinking their own urine. Face it, if the SHTF, there will be absolutely NO backup from any one of those limp wristed pansies. SO, go to the range, and burn off some rounds while meeting new friends!

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm involved in a debate with a group of people that say there is "undeniable fact that proves guns mean more deaths" in a society.

How can I counter-argue? I know their links/graphs are completely baseless, but I'm in the minority in this arguement, and I need some strong points and facts. What can I say? What do you typically say?

Help me out here

Undeniable fact that proves guns mean more deaths? What "fact" would that be? I'd like to see their "evidence", but I'll bet in advance that it's fallacious. The simple fact is that those guns do not load and fire themselves; they require a person with ill intent and a black heart to do harm to anyone.

Proof: Hand one of them a pistol and a box of ammo that will fit it. Tell them just to hang on to it, that you'll get it back from them tomorrow. When you do, make a show of counting the rounds and show that they did no harm with it. If the gun is deserving of fault, there should be some crime that was committed.

You have the other option of asking if any of them shoot, and each one who says no needs to make a trip with you to the range and learn of what they speak. To do otherwise is like a priest or a nun giving prohibitions of one sexual position as compared to another: "You no play the game, you no make the rules."

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jontheturboguy]

Ask them then, why did the murder rate and crime rate go up in Australia when they banned firearms down there?

 

[Jay]

All the facts, sources and myths you need are right here.....

Gun Facts - Your guide for debunking gun control myth

I keep a copy at work, in my truck, and at home. I really enjoy discussing gun control while armed with all this info........


Example re the issue you stated........

"Though the number of firearms owned by private citizens has been increasing steadily since the 1970's the overall rate of homicides, and suicides has not risen"......

source... "supporting data from the FBI uniform crime statistics".

(Gun Facts V5.0 page 29)

 

[jeremy]

Firearms are just tools. You might as well ban screwdrivers and ice picks as well then to.

 

[Hoosier8]

Yes, guns means more gun deaths due to availability, particularly suicides, but it does not mean more violence. It turns out the suicide rates stay the same but the suicide victim just finds other means of taking their own lives.

Here is a great study from the Harvard Law Review where the writers set out to prove that more guns means more murders and suicides and found something else altogether.

Harvard - Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murders and Suicide

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

A gun is a machine , pure and simple . It's no different than a car or lawn mower , it WILL NOT do what you don't make it do .

Doctors kill people , cars kill people to , do we ban them also ?

The problem isn't the method , it's the mindset of the people wielding the weapon . Sure you can kill Ten people quicker with a gun then you can with a sword , but if the BG is determined enough it will happen .

 

[rambone]

Try taking them to the shooting range. Shoot pistols, rifles, shotguns. After this debate and your shooting trip, whomever still thinks you should be disarmed is not worth your time.

Leave that group immediately, so that they can go on being sheeple; sniffing merlot and hugging trees while eating granola - all while discussing the potential health benefits of drinking their own urine. Face it, if the SHTF, there will be absolutely NO backup from any one of those limp wristed pansies. SO, go to the range, and burn off some rounds while meeting new friends!

 

[chraland51]

Gun/Crime Statistics

There is very little that you can do with people like you are debating with. They will have their own sources of twisted and biased statistics, but will not likely beleive anything that you might present no matter the source. I know this for a fact and just gave up trying to discuss certain topics with an IU department head who was anti-gun. My NRA and FBI sources of material did no good in my efforts. I might have as well have been talking to the wall or the mailbox.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Yeah that's how it's turning out. For example, here's one directed at me:

Penny Arcade Forums - View Single Post - Vote to expand gun-rights is defeated in Senate

I feel like the only one in the thread against' everyone -_-
A few brave people stood up and made great comments, so that's reassuring.
But yeah, with every link I give, it's always "too biased", but I'm choosing to not say the same about what they say... I want to be better than that

 

[MinuteManMike]

My favorite way to cut this type of moronic argument down is to ask them if they would call for police assistance in the face of violence. If so, they are moral cowards.

Why? Because the cops will gun down an attacker no question about it.

So then they're pathetic cowards for contracting-out their violent response. And the cowards are probably going to suffer the violence anyway since the cops have those pesky response times. So they're doubly encouraging violent crime by not providing for their own protection.

If enough of the general population is perceived as being armed and the crooks know the population also has a legal right to self-defense (see Florida's "no retreat" laws), the scumbags will probably go looking for a better way to make a criminal living then being a probable bullet sponge.

 

[hookedonjeep]

My favorite way to cut this type of moronic argument down is to ask them if they would call for police assistance in the face of violence. If so, they are moral cowards.

Why? Because the cops will gun down an attacker no question about it.

So then they're pathetic cowards for contracting-out their violent response. And the cowards are probably going to suffer the violence anyway since the cops have those pesky response times. So they're doubly encouraging violent crime by not providing for their own protection.

If enough of the general population is perceived as being armed and the crooks know the population also has a legal right to self-defense (see Florida's "no retreat" laws), the scumbags will probably go looking for a better way to make a criminal living then being a probable bullet sponge.

On the other hand..... since they would most certainly die - and therefore not be able to procreate..... would that make them contraceptive sponges????

 

[MinuteManMike]

Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!