How To Argue With Anti-Gun Folks.

12/14/12 was a dark day for everyone in the United States.  As further details emerge on the horrific shooting which took place at an elementary school in CT, the demands and cries for heightened gun control are growing louder and louder.  The purpose of this article is to present you with the proper factual statistics and logical lines of argumentation you should utilize in order to effectively convey a logical and accurate picture of what affect gun control has on society if you are presented the opportunity to do so.  It's a shame that the anti-gun crowd is so quick to turn a tragedy into a political discussion, but alas, we live in the United States and they have the right to do so.

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO REMEMBER:
The burden of proof remains on the "Anti-gun" or "pro-gun legislation" individuals!  Whatever they might like to think, they are the one's who are trying to overturn hundreds of years of tradition, law, and court interpretation.  DO NOT EVER respond with an argument to someone who says "explain why you should be allowed to have a gun" or anything to the effect....always respond with "explain to me why I shouldn't...the burden of proof remains on you to showcase otherwise."  Don't let anyone sway you to the contrary or bait you into making statements which they can twist.  After they make an argument, you can then formulate your response based on their accusations.  This puts you in a massively advantageous position in any debate.  They must prove beyond a doubt, that their position is correct. 

PLEASE:
Read up on Professor John Lott.  Professor Lott is an economist who has done extensive studies on statistics related to gun crime and his findings are quite revealing.  Even if you don't agree with Lott's opinions, you can find some extremely valuable information in his statistical data.

ALSO:
Prepare yourself for the inevitable emotionally charged questions regarding the latest shooting itself.  While the event is difficult to fathom, emotion cannot outlast logic.  Providing factual data will always get you further than speaking out of emotion.  The most important thing you can do if posed with the question of "what about the kids in CT," is to suggest that in any specific case, we cannot gain by analyzing the method for the killing (as that can always change), but rather the reasons behind the killing which is what we can actively use to prevent further crime.  Try to steer the conversation away from the emotional and toward the factual.

SOME COMMON ARGUMENTS YOU WILL HEAR AND YOUR BEST POSSIBLE RESPONSES (some of the favorites I've heard in the past):

1. Assault Rifles Need To Be Banned, They Are Designed For Combat: 
1. Assault Rifles are already banned, you must be referring to "Assault Weapons" which is a government classification that describes a large group of guns on the market.  Assault weapons are nothing more than a certain class of "hunting/sporting" rifles which have had external modifications made to them.  Imagine an "Assault Weapon" like a Honda Civic which has had a Nascar body kit put on it, that doesn't make it ready for the Nascar track despite the fact that it may look like a race car and gain some slight aerodynamic advantages, just like adding external changes to regular stock sporting firearms doesn't make them "designed for combat" although they may have some slight ergonomic performance gains.
2. Britain/Australia Banned Guns And Their Gun Murder Rate Is A Fraction Of That Of The US:
1. Your absolutely right.  Britain only experiences approximately 50 gun related homicides per year to the US' 12,000.  However, there are some distinct differences between the US and Britain/Australia which need to be taken into account when analyzing this statistic.  First, while "gun related homicides" have decreased, the overall violent crime rate in Britain/Australia has risen to levels FAR above that of the United States.  For example, in Britain, 4100 of 100,000 are expected to be the victim of a violent crime whereas in the US, only 475 of 100,000 are victims each year.  (Statistics citations are available through the England Home Office and the FBI).  This showcases that while gun deaths may be decreased, overall people effected by violent crime increases as a correlated statistic to gun bans. Second, make sure to take into account that England and Australia are islands.  This means that when a ban goes into effect, the black market is limited in these countries...conversely, the United States has neighbors to both the north and the south...Mexico of course exports massive amount of illegal material (drugs and weapons) to the US on a daily basis already and has a network in place to smuggle even more weapons for a criminal black market in the US should it decide to expand and do so.
2. Do Note that the Assault Weapons are ALREADY BANNED BY CT LAW!!!  A ban does not work when the criminal has the ability to obtain arms illegally - not easy on an island, very easy when a country has borders with other countries.  Connecticut General Statute Sec. 53-202c.  
3. You Don't Need An AR15:
1. This is exceptionally subjective line of argument.  Although you may not feel like you need an AR15, you can only suggest an opinion as to whether or not I need mine.  For example, if 3-5 men attacked my home in an attempted robbery/home invasion, I believe I would NEED my AR15 or equivalent weapon to exercise my right to self preservation.  Although this scenario might not be probable, there is a perfect example right here of such an event transpiring:   Armed Men Assault House  
2. Further, an entirely separate line of rational thought would be the reasoning which the founders originally intended for the 2nd Amendment.  Of course the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect the rights of the populous against a tyrannical government.  Reading any of the founders memorandums or letters reveals this fact.  With this in mind, my AR15 or other "Assault Weapon" is one of the more modern weapons which would best allow me to best do this.  (While this line of logic is factually correct and still exists as a rationale line of logic today, many are far less receptive of this type of thinking and deem it archaic.  I always suggest utilizing answer 1 first, and using answer 2 if pressed on the issue).
4. The Founders Didn't Intend For The 2nd Amendment To Allow You To Own Semi-auto Weapons:
1. This is purely subjective.  You can't suggest that the founders suggested one thing or another unless you can produce a specific piece of factual evidence to back it up.  This of course is also not probable because in 1776, the founders suggested that private citizens owning cannons was perfectly legal!  Of course cannons were the most powerful means of weaponry at the time.
2. Further, an entirely separate line of rational thought would be the reasoning which the founders originally intended for the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.  Of course the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect the rights of the populous against a tyrannical government and this would mean the populous would be legally allowed to posses weapons at least semi-comparable to those the government has access to.  Reading any of the founders memorandums or letters reveals this fact.  (While this is factually correct and still exists as a rationale line of logic today, many are far less receptive to this line of thinking).
5. There Is Never Going To Be A Revolution In The US Again
1. Libya, Egypt, Syria, etc.  While it certainly isn't probable, it can be argued that it doesn't seem probable simply because the people still control the power of the government...thanks in large part to the ownership of firearms.
6. Did You Forget About The First Part Of The Second Amendment:
1. Conveniently, the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to form a militia and the right to bear arms are not the same thing but rather two independent clauses of a law.  DC v. Heller specifically showcases this.  So, to answer your question, no I haven't forgotten about it, our highest form of court has simply ruled that the two aspects of the law are not dependent on one anther.
7. Assault Weapons Kill The Most People:
1. This is actually an extremely inaccurate statement.  Only 2-4% of firearm homicides are committed using assault weapons.  This number is repeated in various studies by law enforcement agencies across the country.  Further, regarding the 94-04 Assault Weapons Ban, statistics show NO meaningful effect on overall gun violence...again, because only 2-4% of homicides are committed using these guns to begin with.  So, NO, assault weapons kill barely any people in terms of percentage.
8. The Danger of Gun-Free Zones Is A Pro-Gun Myth:
1. This is certainly difficult to support based on the statistics.  ALL multi-victim shootings in the US, 3 victims or more, (in the past 50 years) with the exception of approx. 1 odd circumstance, have taken place in gun free zones...VA Tech, Newton, and CO (the worst shootings in US history)  all come to mind.  Of course the Oregon Mall case was in a CHL friendly zone.....and a CHL holder stopped the crisis with minimal loss of life PREVENTING a multi-victim shooting. 
2. Note that regarding the shooting in CO, the shooter had the choice of going to any of 7 theaters showing the batman movie within a 20 minute driving radius, and chose the 1 which did not permit legal concealed carry (this was also not the closest theater).
9. Self Defense With Firearms Is A Myth:
1. This is flat-out false.  Although some statistics in given data sets can appear to support this statement, Dr. Kleck of FL conducted a huge survey on this topic and concluded that 2.5 million self defense gun uses occur per year in the US.  EVEN IF THIS IS AN OVERESTIMATE (which I'm inclined to believe it is) even if just a fraction of this number used firearms defensively, then the fact remains that self-defense with a firearm is indeed a real part of societal life with weapons.  Further, as shown in the violent crime statistics, the mere presence of firearms in the possession of law abiding citizens directly correlates to far less violent crime.
10. You Don't Need "High Capacity" Magazines:
1. Just like the "You Don't Need An AR15" comment, this comment is completely subjective...medical statistics show that the 9mm round usually takes between 3-5 impacts to a vital area (minimum) to actually kill an individual; if 3 guys jump me in an ally, that means I need 15 rounds assuming I don't miss to assure that I can protect myself.  If I want to own STANDARD CAPACITY magazines, I need to be able to do so as they are an integral part of firearm ownership.  (Citation - Former SWAT officer and current LEO instructor Steve Fisher)
2. Further, lets not kid ourselves...reloading a firearm takes approximately 1 second if someone knows what they're doing.  So to suggest that by limiting a criminals access to these items we will save lives is purely wishful thinking...the only thing such a law would accomplish would be to make law abiding citizens less able to defend themselves.
11. Red Gun Friendly States Have The Highest Gun Murder Rates:
1. This is half-true and a half-accurate statistic.  It's half-true in that California and Illinois are mixed atop the list of states with the highest gun homicide rates...both of course being extremely anti-gun.  It's half-accurate because the statistic doesn't account for city breakdowns on gun violence, just state population.  The most violent cities in the US are New Orleans, Detroit, Baltimore, and DC, none of which are red areas other than NO (which accounts for why Louisiana is #1 on the list of violent states per population (due to population concentration).
12. The NRA Formulates A False Representation Of The Public Opinion On Guns:
1. Again, a completely false statement.  While the NRA is a lobbyist group which caters to a special interest, overall national poles showcase that people in favor of gun rights v. gun bans is right about 50/50 in America at this point in time.  Further, regardless of where that line is drawn, until you can PROVE that the Constitution doesn't guarantee my right to ownership, then it doesn't matter if 75% of Americans want guns banned...the US is a Constitutional Republic AND NOT A DEMOCRACY because it is designed so that the will of the majority shall not infringe upon the rights of the minority.  

THE HEAVY HITTING/CORE VALUE QUESTION:

1. Do you believe in a a fundamental right to self-preservation? 
1. If anyone answers "No", then the best thing to do is to understand that you have a fundamental value set disagreement that runs much deeper than the issue of guns.  Unless you can change this persons belief on self-preservation, you will never change their belief on gun ownership.

SOME DON'TS - avoid making these arguments, they are not the most effective way of conversanting on the subject and some lead to false comparisons which your opposition will jump all over:

1. If you want to ban guns you might as well ban cars, people kill people with cars  
1. This is a Straw Man argument, don't make it.  Use knives as an example if you really want to use this line of argumentation.
2. Abortion kills more children than guns
1. For the love of all things holy, NEVER SAY THIS.  This is like putting your head into the noose.  You cannot argue legality of gun ownership and then say abortion kills...both have been ruled on by the same court...you delegitamize your entire argument by saying this.
3. If you ban guns you have to eliminate every other amendment
1. Although this might sound correct on the surface, most amendments do indeed have some form of limitation.  Prohibiting the ownership of Assault Weapons is no different than saying that you can't scream fire in a movie theater in the minds of anti-gun activists.
4. Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People
1. Although it's true, please don't say it, it's very cheesy and doesn't showcase much thought.  Your far better off with a statement such as "guns make it easy for bad things to happen when in the wrong hands, but equally easy to prevent those bad things when in the right hands".

All in all, don't make extreme comparisons or talk in absolutes, it won't win you any rational debates.   Remember that having the discussion is what is important.  Our country is so polarized on issues because we don't know how to civilly discuss anymore.  Learn to civilly discuss and debate and you will be a select breed of people in this country.