it took a long time for the issue of gun control to come up on this blog. i guess i just think that the argument is so dead among true intellectuals that there was no need to beat a dead horse. for the most part, i still think it is. i don't know any gun control advocates, or at least i don't know any who are shameless enough to advocate such dangerous and ignorant ideas in public. so, i'll lay out some arguments against those ideas just for the record, since public disarmament has resulted in some predictable public massacres lately.
as with most issues there are the two major angles to cover: the moral and the practical. i'll start with the moral angle, since it's the easiest to lay out.
as with all issues of coercive control of one group of people by another group, gun control begins with the violation of property. the simple possession of a gun by anyone does not hurt anyone. because all people have the same rights, no one has the right to stop anyone else from simply owning anything, assuming they didn't steal it or use aggression to come into such possession. can guns be used to commit crimes (violations of person or property)? of course, but so can virtually anything else, from knives, rocks, handbags, cars or bombs. like the issue of drug use, it isn't the possession or use of guns that is criminal, but the committing of aggression against the person or property of others. people are always going to do bad things and you can ban all the possible implements of aggression in the world and, short of binding or removing even our limbs, there will still be acts of aggression in the world.
this idea leads us to the practical aspect of gun control. the less able people are to defend themselves against aggression, the more vulnerable they will be to such aggression. the idea that such a criminal element as the government can simply ban gun ownership and all the bad stuff in the world will go away is completely irrational and absurdly naive. the classic pro-gun one-liners are still enough to defeat the gun control advocates:
1) if you think guns should be banned, would you be willing to put a sign in your front yard proclaiming, "this is a gun free home!"? why not?
2) outlawing guns insures that only outlaws have guns.
these two age-old cliches are so good. because the second one is true, the first one is legitimized. no law is ever going to make criminals give up guns. they're criminals, for goodness sake! laws are the least of their concern, as they have no respect even for person or property. all these laws do is disarm those who are prone to obey laws, like the general public. as the general public is increasingly disarmed, they will be increasingly vulnerable to criminal attacks. who will be there to protect them? the police? where were the police at columbine? where were they at virginia tech? where were they this week at binghamton? it is readily apparent what happens to those who trust their lives to the cold hands of the state - they die. this is another contradiction in the gun control argument - that the police are something other than people themselves. if people shouldn't own guns, then the police shouldn't either. i'd argue, considering the lessons of the past that if anyone shouldn't be allowed to have guns, it should be any government employee.
what would have happened if, in any of the situations above, a couple of the victims had been armed? unfortunately, that's a question that those people will never get a chance to answer.
support for gun control is the support for disarming the peaceful and arming the criminal. this can only lead to disaster. if you support gun control, you support murder.