Reply to anonymous

Over at my Why own guns? post, a comment was left that I started replying to. Well, I ran out of space, so I'm just posting it.

The comment:

You don't think violence increases violence and guns increases guns? If you buy a big gun the criminal or the bad guy will only buy a bigger gun, no? This is a big debate in Europe where many countries police don't carry guns and they usually have fewer crimes/death by guns. I think your post is a bit one sided, the dangers with guns is not only that it get in the wrong hand, but also that you'll get a society with more guns and increase risk of it being used badly.

My post is a bit one-sided, but so is your comment. You're not taking into account the positive ways guns are used to protect otherwise defenseless people.

Your argument that guns escalate the situation does not advocate pacifism, it simply argues that if we keep guns out of the mix, victims will be bruised instead of dead. How does this stop the criminal? Arguing that we should lie back and give the criminal what he wants is a foolish and dangerous prospect. Arguing that we should remain unarmed and engage the criminal to defend ourselves pits a citizen against a vicious, experienced criminal. That's a fight the criminal will likely win. The simple fact is that criminals don't prey on their equals, they prey on easy targets. The idea that criminals won't take the upper hand if they can have it is just silly. Bats, knives, and legs still kill people, and WILL be used by criminals to get the upper hand. Banning all objects capable of killing is impossible.

It is true that if we were able to totally stop the flow of illegal guns, and keep the police force unarmed, there would be no gun deaths. But to argue that no guns means no murder is just wrong.

The issue I think you have with guns is that guns make killing easy for criminals. What you're not taking into account, is that guns also make defending yourself easy. If a 90 pound criminal with a knife squares off with a pro wrestler, the criminal is going to get trounced. If the criminal has a gun, he would have an unfair advantage. But criminals prey on the weak, not the wrestlers. Grandma vs a 300 pound criminal is not going to end well for grandma. Give grandma a gun, and suddenly the tables turn. You could argue that grandma with a gun is only going to bring about criminals with guns, but criminals don't like going to jail or dying, and if their choices are to murder grandma, get in a shootout with grandma, or retreat and pick another target, 90% of the time they'll simply retreat. Criminals aren't that complicated, they work the same way any predator does. They only understand strength.

A 100 pound woman versus a 300 pound rapist is no contest. Is that fair?

As the saying goes; "God didn't make all men equal, Sammuel Colt did." Who won in a fight used to be based on who was the most skilled with weapons, and anyone who wasn't was virtually defenseless. Guns made all men, women, and (yes, even) children equal. While I have no proof to back it up, I think that an armed society is a polite one. Anti-gunners like to hearken back to the days of the OK corral, arguing that if everyone was armed, we'd all be shooting each other. But the "wild" west was actually quite lawful. Because when criminals shot other people, they were hung. They were not given 5-10 and released 7 years later to continue their work. They were hung. They were dead.

You said that a society with more guns has an increased risk of them being used badly, that's not entirely correct. A society with more guns in the hands of criminals increases the chances of them being used badly. A society with more guns in the hands of citizens has an increased chance of them being used correctly.

At the end of the day, the simple fact remains: If all the guns suddenly disappear, we still have a crime problem. If all the crime suddenly disappears, we don't have a gun problem.