A statement like "the government shouldn't" is a value-laden one that the recipient needs to be talked into through a good case being made for it; it's not a universally obvious truth. The person you're replying to obviously doesn't think so, at least.
Regarding your second point: yes, some criminals will still get some guns no matter how many laws are passed banning them or how much money is spent on enforcing those laws. But that doesn't mean they're wholly ineffectual. Criminality is not some binary state where either you're an innocent meek upright citizen or you're a hardened criminal with trivial access to any amounts of every sort of weaponry that has ever been devised regardless of legal status.
[Edit: I want to note that I personally feel ignorant enough on the topic to not take a strong stance for or against gun control — what has seemed to work for many countries to curtail violence would not necessarily work for the United States for a number of reasons including culture, guns already in the country, etc. But that's no reason to make bad arguments either way.]
The biggest problem is the absence of actual risk reporting in our society. For instance, if you are only concerned about your child's safety and your child has two friends: A has a swimming pool, B's parents' own a gun; which house is safer for your child to play at? The answer is B by a wide margin(1).
Looking at the link I posted before, does the news you see on TV match the risks? Does the funding? We get influenced by the emotional and don't do risks very well.
1) "Pools more dangerous than guns." Chicago Sun-Times on July 28, 2001
A statement like "the government shouldn't" is a value-laden one that the recipient needs to be talked into through a good case being made for it
That's not how the government in the U.S. is supposed to operate. You're supposed to have to make a strong case for "the government should..."
The benefit is that gun possession by criminals might be reduced eventually? That's speculative, depends on enforcement tactics, and ignores that violent crime rates are not a simple function of criminal gun possession; it is a complicated function including culture, criminal gun possession, deterrent effect of non-criminal gun possession, police presence, specific factors inducing gun crime (including gangs and drug turf wars, or drug addiction), and the environment of the local neighborhood.
The cost of a gun ban in the U.S. is that it would require tens of millions of citizens to forfeit property, and it removes one option they have for defending themselves. Even if you successfully make a case that guns should be banned, there's a nearly insurmountable obstacle: that a gun ban would be unconstitutional.
The whole country started when common people picked up weapons and forcefully overthrew an occupying government they no longer wanted around. Self-defense against criminals is very nice to have, but it's not the reason it was written into the constitution as a civil right. The reason is that legitimate government exists only at the consent of the governed, and so the people deserve the power to revoke that consent by any means necessary, or at least to defend themselves against government oppression.
When you talk about self-defense, even here in India one is allowed to own a gun if he gets a license. It's not impossible to own a gun here, it is just more regulated. That way not every Tom, Dick and Harry can own a gun.
Criminals can get hands on weapons in one or the other way. But giving every one a gun because they have to defend themselves from some criminals is not a good solution. It's better to work towards a better Law and order system.
And, don't make statements like 'You are wrong'. These are issues our and your forefathers have been trying to solve, there is still no absolute right/wrong yet.
> But giving every one a gun because they have to defend themselves from some criminals is not a good solution.
Actually, it's an excellent one. It creates a disincentive to committing crimes. If there's a higher chance of getting your head blown off while robbing someone, you're less likely to rob someone. It's that simple.
In fact, that's how things have worked for thousands of years up until guns show up. Who ever heard of sword control? For some reason, governments all around the world are now busy trying to restrict your property rights. A truly sad state of affairs.
Sword control and gun control is a terrible comparison.
Replace the guns with swords in crime, do you think equal numbers of people would die? Obviously not, guns are far more easy to kill with, less physically demanding and ranged.
With a sword pretty much everyone has a good chance of running away, a massacre isn't really possible.
If you want to carry a gun in the US, you need to go through a background check and there is often a training requirement as well (regulations vary by state, with AK and VT requiring no permit to carry a concealed handgun).
One problem with "regulations" is that they become very restrictive and then only the elite are able to obtain them. NYC is a great example. If you have a lot of money or sway with the mayor's office, no problem, here is your CCW. If you're just a regular joe? Sorry, not gonna happen.
The criminals in, for instance, the UK aren't really getting them anyway. At least not to the extent that someone in the US could obtain a gun illegally. The reason that criminals in the US would be able to get them tomorrow if guns were outlawed today is because there are so many guns. And there are so many guns because production and sale has been legal and easy for so long. So while it's true that the short-term result of outlawing guns means that only criminals can get them (which is kind of a tautology), eventually, the ability to illegally acquire a firearm would get much more difficult, like it is in, for instance, the UK.
That said, I do not support all firearms being outlawed. I think they should be heavily regulated and some should be entirely illegal, but mainly I'm disagreeing with the argument that I tend to hear so often.
While the rate of crimes committed with a gun may be lower in the UK, violent crime as a whole is much higher. Five times higher than my home of NYC. You can easily attribute this to a lack of guns. If there's less of a chance being shot, you have a higher incentive to commit crime.
> Gun control laws in Canada are similar to those in the US
Not true. It is illegal to use a firearm for self-defence in Canada -- pointing a firearm at another person is an offence under the Criminal Code.
Except in the sketchiest of gang-infested neighbourhoods, one would not assume that urban home-owners would have guns, so there's no psychological deterrent there.
Even the idea of using possibly lethal force to defend property is not really mainstream here.
Protect you from what exactly? A crazed lunatic coming to hurt your family? How realistic is this situation exactly?
I imagine the most likely situation they would be used in defence is for home robberies. The safest thing to do when being robbed is let them have whatever they want. You would be an idiot if you added a gun into the equation and blood started being shed.
