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 scenarios:
- 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.