Remember that the purpose of an emotional argument here is to make clear emotionally that which is already clear rationally: that the right to life of necessity
means having the right to immediate access to potent and effective arms that make defense of life likely to succeed. In the real world, that means the right to carry a loaded firearm in public, for the need for self-defense is most acute wherever you happen to be, not just in the home.
The antis will bicker and argue about whether any given person needs
a firearm, whether they need
the characteristics it brings, etc., but at the end of the day, their words ring hollow in the face of the need of an innocent woman who is, thanks to the very laws the antis support
, at the mercy of a criminal who intends to do her grievous harm.
It needs to be made clear to everyone that there are only two possible
- Armed criminals versus armed law-abiding people
- Armed criminals versus unarmed law-abiding people
That's it. The scenario of a society of unarmed criminals up against unarmed law-abiding people is a fantasy
that has never happened in the entire history of the world.
So between the two possible scenarios, which one is it going to be? Are the antis really
going to argue that they prefer armed criminals against unarmed
law-abiding citizens? That they prefer
the citizenry to have no effective means of defense against armed criminals (for an unarmed
criminal basically doesn't exist, since such a criminal has no power over his victims)?
The case needs to be made in the strongest possible terms that the position the antis take is inherently bankrupt at all levels: logically, ethically, and emotionally. They may have good intentions
, but good intentions have never saved anyone from becoming a victim of the machinations of criminals. Firearms have.