3 Bad Anti-Gun Control Arguments

Updated on April 20, 2018

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 a 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 | Source

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 | Source

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 often times, 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.

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.

This content reflects the personal opinions of the author. It is accurate and true to the best of the author’s knowledge and should not be substituted for impartial fact or advice in legal, political, or personal matters.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment
    • My Esoteric profile image

      Scott Belford 

      2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      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)

    • jlherrera profile imageAUTHOR

      Bazooka Teaches 

      2 years ago from Los Angeles

      +bradmasterOCcal Maybe you should take some reading comprehension classes.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image


      2 years ago


      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.


    • jlherrera profile imageAUTHOR

      Bazooka Teaches 

      2 years ago from Los Angeles

      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.

    • jlherrera profile imageAUTHOR

      Bazooka Teaches 

      2 years ago from Los Angeles

      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.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image


      2 years ago

      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?


    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, soapboxie.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://maven.io/company/pages/privacy

    Show Details
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)