Skip to main content

3 Bad Anti-Gun Control Arguments

Bazooka Teaches used to be an educator at the secondary level in Los Angeles, but he decided to follow his dreams and fight evil with words.

Gun control is a huge issue in the U.S. because of the frequent mass shootings that occur around the nation, and the issue is driving many people crazy. The main reason why everyone is losing their minds over gun control is because everyone has an opinion about it. However, the opinions of an individual do not matter in a democratic country. What matters most are the needs of society as a whole.

People love to express themselves and state their opinions about gun control on social media. Many people have good ideas, and many don't. Also, many people tend to use analogies to make points about gun control.

However, some of these analogies are just horrible. They typically don't accurately convey whatever point a person is trying to make. Also, many people try to convince others that if there was a gun ban, people would find other ways to commit acts of mass violence. Yes, that is true. People will find other ways, but all the typically used analogies are still not good enough. Here are three commonly used analogies and why they aren't effective arguments against gun control.

1. Comparing Knives to Guns

It's been posited over and over again via social media that people could simply use knives instead of guns when going on a killing spree. So why not ban knives in the same way that anti-gun activists want to ban guns?

Yes, it is true that knives can be very dangerous, and they can be used in a killing spree. However, knives have a different purpose. They are tools that are used to complete simple tasks in the everyday life of a person. It just so happens that knives can actually be used to kill.

Photo by WLU

Photo by WLU

Yes, there are knives that are specifically made for hunting and killing, but those knives cannot be carried around freely. Hunting knives, throwing knives, and others that are used for killing or hunting, are regulated by their length and size in many states.

Anyway, the analogy of comparing knives to guns makes no sense. Guns, unlike most knives, are strictly used to kill! Whether it is used for hunting an animal or used to defend oneself, a gun is designed to kill or injure a living being. Even though a knife can be used as a weapon, a knife's other purpose is to serve as a cutting and slicing tool.

2. Terrorists Have Used Planes to Commit Acts of Violence

This is one of the most outrageous points to make when arguing that gun control is not needed. It's hard to believe that this point has been seriously used in many social media debates about gun control. Many people dismiss discussions of gun control by pointing out that the most devastating terrorist attack to occur on U.S. soil utilized airplanes.

When people state that planes are dangerous, they are insinuating that airplanes should be banned because they can be used to kill people. Arguing this point is ridiculous, and people who do so rarely address the fact that safety measures have been implemented to prevent airplane hijackings and terrorist attacks. Nobody can deny that airplanes can be very dangerous, but air travel and planes are regulated and closely monitored to prevent acts of mass violence. Therefore, using airplanes to dismiss gun control is not a good strategy.

Even though airplanes can be used as weapons, that is not their intended purpose. Airplanes, especially commercial ones like those used during the 9/11 terrorist attacks, are used for transporting people.

The terrorists that weaponized commercial airliners to attack the people of the United States used planes in a manner that deviated from their intended purpose, and it took those criminals years to develop and enact their plans. They didn't just decide to hijack planes and crash them into the World Trade Center all in one day.

Plotting to highjack a plane is not the same as buying an AR-15 and walking into an establishment to go on a killing spree. Sorry, but comparing guns to airplanes is not a strong argument to make when defending the right to own guns.

3. Banning Cars Because Drunk Drivers Have Killed People

Banning cars is another common argument that is used in debates about gun control. Many gun activists will point out how car ownership is not illegal even though cars can be used as dangerous weapons.

Cars can be used as weapons and many cars have been used to cause fatalities. So, the argument is that cars are not the problem, the person who uses them violently is the problem. This is a good point, but a car is not really the same as a gun.

Photo by Chris Yarzab

Photo by Chris Yarzab

Cars were invented to be a means of transportation. They were not created to be used as weapons. Cars can be used to kill and oftentimes, they cause fatalities by accident. Guns, however, are strictly made to kill. So, the analogy of potentially banning cars is flawed. Vehicle use and ownership are also regulated and monitored to prevent vehicular fatalities.

Scroll to Continue

If argued responsibly, this point could actually support a need for gun control because it clearly demonstrates how people are the true problem and not the gun, vehicle, or device being used for violence. In the end, the analogy suggests that gun control could be managed in a manner that is similar to the response to drunk driving.

Is Gun Control Really Needed?

For the most part, having the right to bear arms is a beautiful thing. It is a right that many countries do not offer their citizens. However, times change and laws can get a bit outdated. This, of course, is another point in favor of gun control.

It is necessary to examine the reasons why America continues to experience mass shootings. Perhaps aspects of American society have created social problems that cause people to go nuts and go on killing sprees. Nowadays, many seemingly normal people choose to buy assault rifles and use them to kill others. As a result, gun control has become a major issue in the U.S. What is the answer to this problem? Who knows? But while Americans attempt to solve this problem, they should stop using bad analogies to argue against and undermine gun control efforts.

Maybe our society needs to think outside of the box and look into mental health issues or other potential threats to societal well-being. Until we figure out the actual root of the issue, people should stop using sorry-ass analogies to defend the right to bear assault rifles.


Scott Belford from Keystone Heights, FL on April 19, 2018:

I see you met Brad, lol. The way to win an unwinnable position is to deflect, create a problem where none exists, outright lie and make up things, and to talk/write about everything but the real issue. The REAL issue, of course, is will reasonable regulation cut down on the number of people killed by guns. The answer, obviously (and statistically, Yes.

Reasonable gun control has Always been found constitutional. Granted, occasionally jurisdictions go too far, such as Washington D.C. which led to the Heller decision.

And that is the alpha and omega of it.

Knives kill people - Red Herring

Cars kill people - Red Herring

They want to take your guns away - Red Herring and a big fat lie

The only two issues that matter are:

1. - Will the regulation save lives? If so, implement it

2. - Is the regulation so onerous that it violates the 2nd Amendment (in Heller, the answer was that they were)? If not, implement it.

It is as simple as that


* Around 2015 German law enforced killed a total of 8 people

* Around the same time, English police killed no one.

* Through May 2015, police in the US shot and killed 365

* In 2012, there were 259 Justifiable Homicides (mostly law enforcement)

Bazooka Teaches (author) from Los Angeles on February 26, 2018:

+bradmasterOCcal Maybe you should take some reading comprehension classes.

Brad on February 24, 2018:


I am willing to argue my points, but you just want people to suck it down like it was the real thing.

I am moving on because you have nothing to support your article. An article where you can't even articulate you point, if there even was one.


Bazooka Teaches (author) from Los Angeles on February 23, 2018:

Yes, it has a point. However, I'm not going to write a giant essay like you. If you can't see the point, then move on. Still, you write as if you think you are smarter than most.

Bazooka Teaches (author) from Los Angeles on February 19, 2018:

All the points you made are not being argued in the article. It simple cars, knives, or anything that can be used as weapon that is not supposed to be a weapon cannot be compared to guns. That's all. Simple! Your response was also a waste of time as well.

Brad on February 19, 2018:

Sorry, but this article is just a waste of time.

While Alcohol, Tobacco, knives, planes and other devices that don't have killing as their primary use, that doesn't mean that when they are used to kill, that they are not on par with guns.

The big difference is that gun ownership has a constitutional protection. None of these others is mentioned in the constitution. The purpose of that amendment has to do with protecting the country from foreign as well as domestic threats.

The constitution never mentioned a standing military, because the framers of the constitution wanted a limited government. And that is why they would count on the militia for protecting the country. In addition, the framers feared that a standing military would be a reason to keep going to war. And for the last 100 years that is what the US has been doing. And they have not won a war in that time.

There have been over 2 million instances of gun owners defending themselves and their homes before the police could get there. And in only half of them did they have to fire them.

Why doesn't the same analogy work when alcohol is the cause of death and injury with a vehicle. Without the vehicle these incidents wouldn't happen. And while a vehicles main use is transportation, when it kills people or injures them, there is no difference to the result of a gun death or injury.

Gun banning and gun control don't make any sense because 99 percent of the gun owners are law abiding citizens. Half of the gun deaths in the US are from suicide, and the use of guns to commit suicide is only one method. The issue there is suicide, and not the gun that was the mechanism. Yet, no one brings suicide as the problem.

Alcohol, and tobacco are no less addicting drugs than any other drugs legal or illegal. And we have lost the war against drugs. Over $20 billion of illegal drugs come into the country through our open southern border. And yet, a wall could make it more difficult. Yet, they want gun control, but not control of our borders.

Coming thru those borders are gangs like MS13 that use guns to kill and they have a record of doing that. And there are hundreds of thousands of them in the country. That is a problem that could be worked on to reduce gun deaths. With the illegal drugs coming into the open border are also the criminals that distribute them, and protect their territory using guns, and they have even killed armed US Border Agents. Another issue that goes unaddressed.

We don't even enforce the gun control laws we already have, and putting more restrictive ones into law won't make them being enforced any better.

If you try to take guns away from the law abiding citizens that own them, then they have easy means to get illegal ones. Just like when we tried to abolish alcohol, the Mafia supplied it. With the Drug Cartel already doing gun running, it would just make it more profitable for them.

Even without guns, deaths can occur with other devices like knives, hatchets, bow and arrow, and while not as much of a mass killing device, it has caused many deaths. The terrorists like IUD and explosives. Anyone using easily available components can also make their own bombs, thanks to the Internet.

When people are killed and injured by a drunk driver, you don't take away the drinking privileges of all the people that drink, do you?

Related Articles