If you are a conservative who is against gun control laws, then these are 4 arguments you should NOT use when trying to argue your case. They will backfire and make you look like a stupid idiot.
1) Criminals will still have guns and murder people even if guns are illegal
This is a terrible argument, because it can be used against any laws of any kind.
If that is too abstract for you, think about this: it can be used against laws that you like.
For example, liberals can use this argument to say this:
“We should not have voter ID laws, because people who are determined to vote illegally will just get fake identification anyway. Therefore, having voter ID laws will not make any difference.”
Or, they will say this:
“We should not have any border fence at our national border, because criminals who want to get across the border will still find a way to cross the border if they really want to. Therefore, having a border fence will make no difference.”
Or, they will say this:
“We should make abortions available in every doctor’s office on demand, because people who really want to get abortions will find a way to get an abortion anyway, regardless of what the law is or how difficult it is. Therefore, making it difficult to get an abortion makes no difference.”
Hopefully you can see the problem with this dangerous line of reasoning.
2) I need a gun to protect myself and my family
Never, ever talk about need. This is a trap that liberals want you to fall in to. They will simply come back and start bickering about whether you need a specific type of gun, or why you would need one type of ammunition rather than another type of ammunition, and the entire argument goes down hill after that.
What you should be saying, as a conservative, is that “need” makes absolutely no difference when we are talking about rights. You have a right to a gun, whether you need it or not. End of story. Claiming that you “need” a gun is just walking right into the devil’s playground.
3) If citizens don’t have guns, how can they rise up against tyranny?
If the government is really out to get you, your assault rifle isn’t going to help defend you against a drone strike.
This argument just makes you seem like you are out of touch with reality. Stick to what you know is real. Stick to the constitution, or what the government really has done or is doing. Once you spread your wings and fly into hypothetical future-land, you start to sound as koo-koo as those libertarians whom you keep trying to distance yourself from.
4) Hitler tried to take away people’s guns, too!
This is simply wrong. When Hitler came to power, the gun laws in place were the 1919 Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which declared that “all firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately.” The regulation was in response to the Treaty of Versailles, and the German Weimar government passed the legislation (not the Nazis).
After coming to power, Hitler actually loosened these laws (which seem like they would be Gun Enthusiast’s worst nightmare), to make Germany’s gun regulations much more lenient: according to the 1938 German Weapons Act, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. The law restricted ownership of firearms to “…persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit.” However, these gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. According to Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition.” (more info here: PolicyMic.com)
Remember how obsessed liberals are with getting facts right. You don’t want to get dragged into that historical morass. Your argument really shouldn’t be based on whether or not someone else did or did not do something in the past. Your argument should be based on your morals, your rights as a citizen, and what you know to be facts about guns and crime. Leave history to the historians.
The worst thing you can do, if you truly believe in a cause, is to rely on stupid and misinformed arguments when trying to defend your cause. In the end, you’re really harming yourself.
If you are against gun control legislation, I can respect that. But use logical arguments. Use argument that make sense, and that are rooted in fact. The above four arguments might be nice, easy sound-bites to deliver at the dinner table or on twitter, but they are deeply, deeply stupid.
When you use these arguments, you embarrass the entire gun-enthusiast movement.
I have 2 problems here.
1.) I have a ligitimate argument about why laws about murder and owning a sporting rifle, assault rifle, etc are different. Lets start with gun laws. Who’s rights are infringed here, the law abiding citizens or the criminals, who will get the guns anyways. The criminals will get the guns, the people will suffer. Lets look at murder. Who’s rights are infringed. Well, you could make an outlandish claim that your right to kill is being infringed, but I doubt people are that stupid. So no ones rights are infringed. So the murderer will just go around it. But we can then punish them for what they have done. What did the gun owner do, own a scary looking armalite 15? Now lets say that we legalize sporting rifles(I know, they are not banned), who has them? The people, the government, and the criminals. Who’s rights are infringed? No ones. We legalize murder, who’s killing? Everyone. Law abiding citizens dont want to get in trouble, criminals are willing to risk it. But because of laws, we can punish them. Sorry if this isnt very clear.
2.) Just because you dont have the best weapons doesn’t mean you cant win. Hell, we won the revolutionary war. Sure we might be fighting upstream, but at least we might have a chance. Better to die for freedom than to live a slave.
Thanks for your comment!
I do have to apologize, because although I tried reading through it several times, I wasn’t able to understand your first point.
Your second point is correct, though: it’s possible to win a war without the best weapons. I wouldn’t cite the Revolutionary War as a good example of this, though, since all of the technology was primitive enough that it was all about the same. The gap between what the Americans had and what the British had was NOTHING like the gap between what our current government military has and what is available to people in gun shops today.
A better example would be the Vietnam war… which we lost, despite having vastly superior military technology.
Good article very informative, but I have an issue with number 3. While very true about the done strikes keep in mind that the u.s. Government did not dominate in vietnam, Iraq or even in Afghanistan. The Russians also did not fair will in Afghanistan. So while semi automatic rifles do not beat a drone, tank, helicopter,or even a jet fighter, the people can still win. History has shown many times that the little guy can win, just ask our founding fathers.
Agreed with your assessment of number 3. The hand waving around this argument makes it a hard case to make because it’s so easily mocked even without justification. People in the US are insulated against the entire concept of an armed insurrection, so appealing to it means you would have to dumb down the conversation for the average listener. There is robust reasoning available for why this point should be taken seriously but in day to day conversations we’re best leaving it alone.