Self Contradictory and Otherwise Flawed Gun Control Arguments

Published by the Author on November 19, 2008 at 12:50 am > Pro Gun Rights Articles > Self Contradictory and Otherwise Flawed Gun Control Arguments

I’ve heard quite a few gun control arguments that conflict with themselves and each other.  A few of these arguments, and their flaws, are discussed below:

“Guns should be banned because they allow criminals to commit crimes.” and “Ordinary citizens can’t defend themselves effectively with guns.”

The problem with these arguments is that they assume a criminal will be able to effectively make use of a gun, but that a law abiding citizen will be unable to do so.  That is simply ridiculous.  Criminals such as armed robbers tend to be less educated, less skillful, and less disciplined than the people that they rob.  Law abiding citizens who have the discipline to maintain steady employment and/or spend years in school can certainly learn to handle a gun at least as well as a criminal, who was likely taught to shoot by some other criminal.  Using myself as an example, I can say with certainly that learning to competently handle my pistol was easier than any job/school I’ve had.

“Criminals are breaking the law more and  more these days, by committing murder/rape/robbery/etc.” and “We need stronger gun control laws to stop these criminals.”

These arguments fail because they assume that criminals who will break the laws against murder/rape/robbery will for some reason obey a law that bans guns.  The fact is that criminals disobey laws, and this unwillingness to obey society’s laws is what makes them criminals in the first place.  Gun control laws won’t deter crime until criminals start obeying the law – which isn’t going to happen any time soon.  One need only look at the crime reported in cities such as Chicago and Oak Park to see that handgun bans don’t work.  If handgun bans worked, Chicago (with its handgun ban) wouldn’t be the murder capitol of the United States, in a time when cities like New York and L.A. (which don’t have handgun bans) are enjoying a reduction in crime.

“We need to ban .50 caliber rifles and assault weapons because they are so powerful” and “We need to ban handguns because they can be easily concealed” and “We need to ban low priced, low powered ‘junk guns'”

First, I’ll say that that there are some factual inaccuracies in these arguments.  So-called “assault weapons” are no more dangerous than other guns, and such firearms are rarely used by criminals.
Moving on to the actual arguments, it would seem that gun control advocates can find (contradictory) reasons to ban any gun.  A 3 foot long .50 caliber rifle rifle is found to be too powerful and expensive, while a small handgun is too inexpensive and easily concealed.  Given the broad and vague definitions of “Assault Weapons” a great many ordinary guns are outlawed by such bans – often without their owners even knowing that fact.  That leaves me wondering which guns, in the eyes of gun control advocates, are just the right price, just the right size, and shoot a cartridge of just the right strength.  I’m left with the conclusion that almost no gun suitable for self defense will meet their tests.

ALSO READ:  Robber Shot in Self Defense by his Would-Be Victim

But I guess those opposed to gun rights will always find some reason to support gun control.

Tags for this article: , , , , , ,