For my side, I'm happy to know that people around me don't have guns. If I beep at a bad driver in front of me, he won't come out with a pistol. I won't be shot at by accident if I'm driving through a bad neighbourhood. If my neighbour gets drink, he might pee in my flowers, but won't come at me with a revolver.
I see it as a type of herd immunity against people who are actually crazy
(i'm pro-gun and open carry in the US, but this argument is poor)
BTW, the best argument for pro-gun, pro-open carry are the Black Panthers, and i think an armed marxist, anarchist or antifa movment that focus on autodefense and street occupation is the best way to fight back.
Both you and the other reply are correct, it’s easier to run from the bat-man. But, as you probably know, most people can’t hit anything with their sidearms beyond 20 feet away. And you may not be able to run away. There could be a baseball bat gang. Or there could be other people who need your protection; or you could be injured or disabled.
But, more generally, I’d like to know why my argument is poor. One of the points in favor of allowing people the use of guns for self defense is that it helps the weak defend against the strong; and it helps anyone to defend against others with deadly weapons, whether firearms, bats, knives, or fists. Isn’t that so?
1. If you are cornered by a gang, you’re probably screwed anyway, no matter the arms involved, so I guess this is a moot point.
2. Baseball bats do not fit into jacket pockets. I can’t walk into a bar with one and no one notices.
3. Destructive power of a bat is so much lower than of a gun. Sure you can kill a person with it, but not a dozen of people on the street (easily).
4. Baseball bats are kind of localised. I can be hit by a stray bullet but unless I’m right in the heat of a fight, I won’t be accidentally killed by a baseball bat.
5. Melee weapons wound first, kill second. It is much harder to shoot to wound. So with a melee weapon you can stop more easily.
6. If I’m heavily intoxicated, I may struggle to wield a bat with any efficiency, but still fire bullets around.
If someone wants to apply direct, criminal level of bodily harm, sure, they can use a knife. Already, this is a higher risk, as they have to stand closer to me etc. But the risk of collateral damage seems so much lower when guns are not involved.
I have a much better chance of running away from the baseball bat wielding gang than the gun wielding gang, and about as much chance of fighting off a baseball bat wielding gang with a bat as I do of winning a shootout with a gun wielding gang (basically zero).
The collateral damage from my conflict with the baseball bat gang will also almost certainly be smaller.
Note: not arguing for gun control in general (though there are certain reforms I'd like to see, and some useless laws I'd like to see rolled back) and I didn't down-vote you. Just pointing out that in virtually all conflicts I'd prefer the baseball bat scenario to the gun scenario.
Fight back against what? I want to fight back against Marxists, not join them, why would you want to fight with Marxists if you're pro-gun?
Can you name a single Marxist movement or revolution that ended in the establishment of a state with gun rights?
Perhaps if you are able bodied and min good health, but not everyone is so fortunate.