The fundamental arguments I make can be boiled down pretty sharply to the following;
1. Individual human rights should be protected against violation by both authority and the masses.
2. Any onerous restriction on either the exercise of a human right, or access to the means to exercise that human right, are themselves a violation of that human right.
3. There is minimal historical or contemporary evidence to suggest that the government, or any body of authority, should be trusted, either to do what they say honestly, or that they will deal honestly with any person or group.
4. Individual self defense is a human right; if you have no right to defend yourself, then your life is reliant on the actions of, and thereby exists at the discretion of, another.
5. It is clear that the US has an issue with violence, and that we are aware of some of the likely risk factors of that violence. If we consider the violence to be a significant worry, we should take individual actions to not put ourselves or others we have any sway over, into those situations, and generally speak against them.
6. Any energy expended on causes which have less of an effect on that violence compared to those root risk factors are energy wasted, either for vanity, social status, personal preference, or a multitude of other possible factors.
7. The actions of or the risk of actions of individual evil people who abuse a right, does not make that right invalid, nor does it justify curtailing the right in question. Abuse of a right or an object does not invalidate it’s legitimate use, or give any justification for it’s prohibition.
8. Necessity is also not a delimiter of a human right. Merely the lack of a biological or immediate need for something does not invalidate it’s acquisition. The future exists, and it is uncertain, and if a person’s experience suggests they may require something in the future, that is their choice, and as long as they have made that choice free of serious misconception or deception, or without willful intent to do harm to nonviolent people.
9. Making yourself vulnerable is not a noble or moral act.
With those basic arguments in mind, we can looks at some common arguments for gun control.
1. You do not need an AR-15/magazines above a certain capacity/certain forms of firearm or body armor based on name, type, feature, or set of features.
See arguments 1, 2, 4, 8. No person has any right to determine what others may possibly need, and all people’s situations vary. Equally, no person has the right to lay blame or assume motive of another save where it’s explicitly stated.
2. The government is too strong, it could kill you at a whim (drones, tanks, bombers, etc).
Agreed, and this is a situation which is not preferable, considering argument 3. This clearly shows a necessity for civil defense forces which can prevent or preclude that abuse of force. See argument 9.
3. If we banned firearms, or made them harder to get, then violence would go down.
See arguments 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. This also applies for argument related to the accusation that if you are a good person, you could pass the checks, pay the fees, etc; the issue is that these restrictions are onerous, especially to low income people, and they place greater power into the hands of the government to determine, at their whim, who has the right to defend themselves, per argument 2.
4. It’s just asking for a compromise.
A compromise between a violation of rights and non-violation is not half a violation. A violation of a right is a violation, no matter how small, and it should be resisted, see arguments 1 and 2.
The list goes on, but in general these arguments are the basis for most of what I say about firearms.
I could go on for hours and pages about stuff, but this should at least lay out the basic logic.
If you have more specific questions, please, don’t hesitate to ask.
