When I say "anti-gun" in these posts I mean the people who would call themselves "pro-child safety" or "peace loving people" or some such thing, but who are in fact hoplophobic and would like to see everyone disarmed (except the government, because you know we can trust them).
I am not trying to disparage people by this. I don't think anti-gun people want us all to live in concentration camps and more than I think pro-gun people want to see blood running in the streets. Both sides would like a peaceful. polite, moral world, but see different ways to get there.
I even agree that if there were no guns nobody would be shot by guns. But would this make the world a safer place? Remember that with each advance in weapons it was thought that war would end because of the terrible carnage that could now be unleashed, but it didn't change anything. This is the same principle in reverse - if we couldn't kill people as easily, we wouldn't do it. Sadly, the world before guns were invented was no safer than the one we have today.
You might think "oh, but if the government has guns they will keep the peace and so it will be safer than the world before guns were invented." Or maybe "oh, but we are so much more enlightened today it will be safer than before guns were invented." However, governments are no more moral than individuals (less, I would argue) and despite advances in technology I think the world of today is actually less enlightened than it was 600 years ago.
But back to my topic. The claims are as follows:
- The US is a death trap due to permissive gun laws and high gun ownership per capita.
- Legal concealed weapon holders are a danger to society/toddlers are dying at more than one per week due to "legal" gun owners.
- Self defense is a natural right, but it is not unlimited.
- The second amendment doesn't guarantee individual rights to self defense only those in military service.