One of my main arguments against gun control is one I don't often hear, well, I can't say I have ever heard it used in any kind of big debate.

    Criminals will always find a way, if you could take away all the guns, literally, then there would be drive by molotov cocktail attacks. With that in mind, murders most popular weapon seems to be a knife, now, imagine your wife, a friend who just broke his leg and is in a wheel chair, or your grandfather are the victim of a home invasion, wouldn't anyone rather imagine they have a gun to protect themselves, rather then getting into a scuffle with the guy, say knife vs. knife, bat vs. knife, bat vs.crowbar, or would it be more comforting to think....gun vs. gun, or better yet, your loved one has a gun and the intruder has is just a strong armed looney trying to throw punches.

    My point being, gun level the playing field, you take an average build female and the average recently release pumped up con, give each of them club and the con is probably at an advantage, if each has a firearms, theres equal, if not the average female being at the advantage by being a smaller target. I would assume that the average citizen who opts to own a firearm trains more than the average criminal who cant afford training ammo after maxing out his crack budget.

     Any day of the week I would rather my girlfriend have a firearms with her than have to wrestle a guy who clearly has no fear breaking into someones house. It's the great equalizer, and I think that is one of the most comforting aspects of the second amendment in so many ways, it brings the underdog to the same, if not sometimes a better position, in what other reality could a 13 year old girl deter three intruders from kidnapping her, not an unarmed one.

    Maybe this is a common argument, but I haven't really heard it, also, so as not to upset anyone, don't think I mean to say no girl, or elderly, or handicapped person could defend themselves well without a firearm, in my martial arts practice I have been pretty roughed up by one of each at least, and I am a 6'9" 260lbs man lol), I just mean to say that there are plenty of in people who would be even more justly served by firearms ownership.

   well, pardon my boredom. haha, I suppose if your reading this perhaps you are equally as bored, and sorry if this is in the wrong place.

England is trying for "knife control" and remember over here regular citizens kill more "bad guys" in this country then police do...people will always find a way to kill each other whether with guns/knives/hammers or rocks it doesn't matter..good citizens should never be deprived of a way of defending themselves against scum  hell bent on robbery/rape and murder.

Darn Skippy

It's a good argument and is brought up more than you've apparently noticed.

That said, I am 100% in favor of proliferating this argument even more than it already is.

Guns truly are the great equalizer.  That's why the Intelligent Libs want them controlled.

Aren't they the little guys who get beat up lol they should get it....

and ya know I figured it has been said, but I would have thought I would have seen it on like peirs morgan or something, but wheres our nra commercial showing the same girl in a situation wear she is knife fighting some guy and losing, then flashing over to her gun fighting the guy and winning lol. I have heard girls are naturally more inclined to be proficient with a firearm, better natural trigger control.

I don't know about that, but they do follow instructions better than men.

This is an argument that also could stand to be proliferated more.

Yep.

"God made man - but Sam Colt made them equal."

The libs want only the thugs and the government to be armed. Each with their weapons pointed squarely at the middle class. All part of the plan.

They

Dont

Care

I agree. One item that I point out in these conversations, is that 2 or 3 assailants, with nothing more than a baseball bat, could overpower virtually any of us, no matter how well trained we are in martial arts or whatever. Only a firearm could equalize such a situation. And unlike law abiding people, the "bad guys" will do everything they can to gain an "unfair advantage".

Honest people sometimes foolishly think that their adversaries will fight fair. By definition, they will not. If they were honorable, they would not assault you in the first place. Respond accordingly.

My latest argument is similar but in far less words.




It's a statement on the fact that crime can happen anywhere.  Good neighborhoods, bad ones... there's no place where crime cannot happen.  And it's also a statement on the fact that you can make a "gun free zone" but that won't guarantee that it will be a safe zone.

Do you have any actual real life stats for the fact that gun guys kill more bad guys than the cops do? I would very much be interested in those stats as I am involved in a running battle on another forum I frequent where that would come in handy

I think you mean against gun control, right?

gun-as-equalizer is one of my standard arguments, especially with women.  in a world without guns, women have no way to enforce their rights--they can only beg other men to secure rights for them.

Most of those leading the charge on gun control, and many following them, are not acting in good faith.  They simply want to disarm people.  No amount of arguing is going to sway them.

They specifically want to remove firearms BECAUSE they're an equalizer.   They'll always be able to hire muscle.

yes I meant against, haha, corrected, thank you.
I take martial arts, but not so that I dont need to carry a gun, but rather because I do carry one, so that I know if it comes to that, I had already tried everything else.

as for gun free zones not guaranteeing, safe zones, I think they nearly guarantee the opposite, I truly believe "an armed society is a polite society" crime is lower in places with less gun control, places that mandate gun ownership have the lowest home invasion rates.

and I knew there was no logical battle to be won the fist time I watched peirs morgan, that guy even being on their team makes that statement loud and clear lol, but seriously facts are ignored, common sense is ignored, morals are ignored....its sad that so many people are willing to give up their rights just to have less responsibility.

Not a new argument at all.  The idea that removal of guns from a society surrenders all fighting potential of the few, small, weak, or frail, leaving it to the brutes and mobs has been around for some time.

Oh, and this thread needs some Marty Robbins.

This is what I peddle.

 

Liberals hate that fact that in the real world the equality that the are always going on about does not exist, and that the only thing puts people on a level field is firearms. And even then, someone trained with a firearm is superior to someone untrained.
"God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal"

 

It's a good argument.  For rational people.





I've had mixed results, given the lack of rational people out there.





Lately, I've been going with the futility angle.  There are more guns in circulation in the US than there are people at the lowest of estimates.  The high end estimates of the number of guns in the US is almost mind boggling even for me.  Given the historical failures, even recent ones, of various registration schemes, and the utter failure of our current background check system, there's really just no point in attempting to control guns in a nation where they've been freely available in such numbers for so long.
I also like the ridicule.  Turn Alinsky's work against them.