The next time someone wants to talk about gun control use this logic from a writer on Lew Rockwell.com For the whole article and discussion on other logic topics go to:
If owning guns is bad, then it is bad for everyone. Guns, then, should be banned. Thus policemen and soldiers must give up their weapons. If policemen and soldiers need guns to protect themselves from dangerous criminals, why not ordinary citizens?
Does that mean that possessing guns is sometimes good and sometimes bad? What is the difference? Remember � there is no such thing as "a policeman" or "a soldier" � those are mere concepts.
Only people exist, and if gun ownership is a good idea for a soldier, but a bad idea for a private citizen, what happens to the soldier when he goes on leave? Does his nature change somehow, so that now he no longer has the right to own a gun?
What about when a policeman changes out of his uniform? Does he change in some fundamental manner, and so loses the right to be armed? Is it only his uniform that has the right to carry a gun? What if someone else puts on that uniform?
Of course, these questions cannot be answered, and so the whole argument for gun control becomes logically foolish. People will then turn to the argument from effect � i.e. general gun ownership leads to increased violence � which can also be easily countered.
If gun ownership leads to increased violence, then surely the cops and soldiers will become increasingly violent if they alone have guns. Since dictatorships and war are worse than crime (because you can defend yourself against criminals, but not governments), then surely that is an argument against only allowing people who work for the state to carry guns.
Thus a person can only argue against gun ownership from a subjective "me no like" perspective � which is a perfect time to explain how the stateless free market can grant him his wish!