10.   More Guns Equal More Homicides

First, if you are going to make arguments for gun control (taking away rights), you HAVE to show CAUSAL not COROLLARY links to do it. This argument fails to do so. Second, if you are going to assert that two things are somehow related, your assertion (guns = homicide) must be correct.  It is not.  Here is an article linking to a Harvard case study that demonstrates as much.

9.  More Guns Equal More Suicides

Again, no, you do not get to use corollary data.  Show me something causal (you can not).  The article above debunks this mythology. This assertion would have to be proven by showing the following; the suicides committed are committed with guns, there is no bias toward gender for method of suicide, and that the cases of suicide prove there was no other method available. Also, if this argument is true, we need to disarm police officers for their own safety.

8.  The Public Supports (some) Gun Control

The public supported Prohibition.  The public supported the “War on Drugs.”  Do you really want to use “public support” as an argument?

Next, clearly define what you mean.  The public may support a ban on automatic rifles.  Does this mean that the public supports a ban on mythological labeled “assault” rifles.  No.

Last, by adding the parentheses (some) you clearly show you have no clearly definable position.  The goal here is to include any opinion into the camp of “everyone wants gun control.”  You get to move the goal post everywhere with this one…

7.  Most Massacres Utilize Legal Weapons

So, the only way to prevent most massacres (an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people) is to make weapons illegal.  Knives, vehicles, oh, yeah, and guns…

To make this relevant to a gun control argument you would have to assert (with causal links of course) the most massacres use guns.  Remember in doing this you have to eliminate any time there is only one victim, any defensive use of a gun, AND discriminate use of a gun.  Then you will have created a pool of incidence that you are using a tautology to argue.  Expanded argument: More than 50% of people killed brutally and indiscriminately died because of a gun that existed legally.  This argument may have been  questioning the legal USE of a gun.  If a gun was LEGALLY used to kill more than one person, there is still no argument against it.

6.  Banning guns saves lives

Having guns saves lives too.

“Unlike Congress, the Australian Parliament likes action. In 1996, a mass shooter killed thirty-five people in Port Arthur in a massacre so pointlessly depressing I’m not going to mention a single other detail. Two weeks later, the conservative Prime Minister, John Howard, launched perhaps the most aggressive clamp-down on gun ownership in history. Around 650,000 automatic and semi-automatic weapons were destroyed and a whole raft of checks and controls brought in. The end result? The first decade of the law alone saw a fifty-nine percent drop in Australian gun-homicides, while non-firearm-related homicides stayed level. In other words, people didn’t switch to machetes or poison so much as they stopped killing altogether. As for mass shootings: well, Australia’s gone all the way from eleven a decade (1986-96) to zero.”

Fine let’s look at that.  What do violent crime statistics look like since 1996:

Violent crime went up.

5. The second amendment

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Victim causation nuts like to focus on the militia part of this term even quoting the Supreme court: “The Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with the view of its purpose of rendering effective Militia.”

The definition of militia is “a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.”

If the civil population has no arms, how in the HELL can it supplement anything? “Okay, all you unarmed civilians run that way and draw their fire while those of us with guns shoot back…”  

Next, if it is to supplement an army, how can it do so without at least the same level of armament an army would use?

4.  Assault Weapons Aren’t “Sport”

Clearly define what an assault weapon is.  Do so without using cosmetics in your definition.  Reasoning: a toy that can in no way fire a bullet can look exactly like any gun.  A toy is not meant to be a weapon.

There is no constant definition of “assault weapon.”  The moving goal post prevents a real debate on this.

3.  We Have Too Many Already

As defined by?  Who gets to make the determination?  And what part of “shall not be infringed” are you thinking you should infringe to make this work?

2.  Arming Everyone Won’t Help

Not according to the Supreme Court.  They seem to think that people are responsible for their own protection.

1.  Assault Weapons Won’t Save You

This argument is based on the mistaken belief that, “the Federal Government would have the entire US Army at its disposal.”  Having been in the Army let me help you out with this one.  BULL FUCKING SHIT!  The U.S. Army comprises…. residence of the U.S.  They are not trained to accept any order given.  A soldiers training includes understanding a lawful order.  There is no lawful order to:

Disarm the American public.

Conduct warrantless searches.

Detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants.”

Impose martial law or a “state of emergency.”

Fact:  Each individual in this country is responsible for their own protection.

Fact:  Guns provide protection.