OK, Biggles I'd like to here your detailed rationale as to why the arguments do not make sense.
1. How would bans or restrictions keep firearms or certain classes of firearms out of criminal hands? Do bans work with drugs, which are illegal in all 50 states and every bordering country, and in the case of heroin and cocaine cannot even be produced domestically? If a criminal wants a gun to have an advantage in an unarmed society, can you even remotely state that criminal would not be able to get one even with a far more restrictive marketplace. And if not, then why should the criminals be the only ones allowed to be armed?
2. "What we need is vastly improved law-enforcement..."
I would imagine, if improved with superpowers such as ESP they could arrive on the scene of a crime before it is committed. Otherwise, we are talking about a police state with an even greater erosion on the rest of the Bill of Rights to make this happen, and still I don't think you could even remotely attain the goal of the police preventing crime -- do the math.
3. Since when have we latched on to the opposite of the oft-promoted idea that we shouldn't "take the law into our own hands"?
You're describing vigilante justice -- going out and looking for someone who has already committed a crime or for potential criminals without contacting law enforcement. It's not "taking the law into your own hands" to defend yourself or your family from violence. Would you suggest telling the criminal breaking in the door to please wait while I call the police and for the 5-30 minutes before they arrive before you continue so we can do this the official way? If somebody took a swing at you, would you let him pummel you or swing back?
4.I mean, in a strictly hypothetical sense, if there was absolutely no need for guns to exist (no crime, no war, and an unlimited food supply not dependent on hunting) would it really be necessary for guns to even exist?
Not if you could completely change ingrained human nature over night. Could you stop a 230 lb (all muscle) vicious prison-hardened predator with your bare hands from doing whatever he wanted to you and anyone one else you care about? What about two or three of these predators? Let's say you were wrongly accused of a crime and ended up in a "gun free" prison with hardened criminals. Would you feel safe bending over to pick up the soap in a shower? No guns after all.
A firearm allows the aged, infirm, women or even average folk to level the playing field with these predators. And if they have a gun at least it's a draw, and likely a win for the good guys if they actually know how to use the weapon. In fact, a range of violent criminal behavior tends to evaporate if criminals feel that there is a likelihood of meeting resistance -- home invasion while the occupants are inside, for example.
Would you feel safe walking alone down the streets of the worst urban crime areas if guns were removed from the equation? Would you want a gun for protection if you had to live or work in these neighborhoods? I know when I lived in Chicago, in a "middle ground" neighborhood and occasionally entered in and out of far worse neighborhoods I had little actual fear of "firearm violence" per se. I had little fear of violence in general, frankly, but when I was worried I usually projected being surrounded and beaten to death for robbery and amusement. No real need to use a gun if I couldn't really pose a serious threat.
4. I would gladly turn in my over-under 12-gauge, 20-gauge and 410 if a better world would result.
The primary argument for the Second Amendment has nothing to do with "hunting" or "sporting purposes." Any hunting or sporting rights you may appreciate are not in fact covered under the Constitution at all. It's not even primarily about personal self defense, though that is certainly covered in the Constitution.
Ultimately, the final line of defense for our republic is in our hands. We are not subjects, we are citizens who do not need to rely on the kindness of our leaders since we, ourselves, lead this country. The founders fully knew this since an armed population was what enabled our freedom in the first place. One could argue that we "are beyond all that" but frankly I don't quite see it just yet. I believe we are perhaps one nuclear terrorist attack away from having a government quite different from the one now, perhaps one "only for the duration of the emergency" but that may not want to turn back the clock once that emergency has passed. It was within living generations that we saw the Holocaust, Pol Pot, Rawanda (mostly killed with machetes) , the Yugoslavian break up and mass killings, the civil rights killings in the south, the detention of the Japaneses American -- really a long list beyond these examples. Are we as humans, and even as "civilized" Americans, past the point where we can ignore the potential for tyranny?
5. As pointed out, in the case of nutjobs like the latests guy, gasoline and match are the deadliest weapon of mass destruction, and one that is easily substituted for a firearm.
6. The hypocrisy test. Since firearm violence is directly comparable to alcohol from an impact on society standpoint, and since most non-gangbangers are at far greater risk from alcohol than firearms statistically, would you be in favor of bringing back prohibition for the good of society?
Charon
