Where's the rest?? This article is incomplete!
You (yes, you!) can help Gunsopedia provide more comprehensive information to our users by using your own knowledge to add to it.
- This article deals with the term "gun grabber" and its implications. For details on individual gun grabbers or organizations, see the gun grabbers category for more information.
While comprehensively covering such a wide topic in a single web page is clearly a fool's errand, this article will attempt to broadly cover the subject by touching on the major aspects of it and providing the reader with an overview of the gun-grabber mentality. General arguments and counterarguments will also be presented, to provide assistance in the event of an encounter with a gun grabber.
 GOR policy
A moment should be taken at this point to clarify (as if it were needed) the official position taken by Gun Owners' Resource Ltd. and its staff, administrators and management, regarding our neutrality towards this particular subject:
- We don't have any neutrality.
Both as an organization and as individuals, all partners in Gun Owners' Resource are solidly and uncompromisingly on the side of upholding the individual RIGHTS -- which are NOT PRIVILEGES to be granted or withdrawn by any agency of any state -- of law-abiding gun owners.
In other words, we just plain don't like gun-grabbers.
But that's okay ... because they don't much like us, either.
The policies endorsed by gun grabbers are often put forward under the pretense of a wide array of seemingly laudable motives, which often include -- but are by no means limited to -- some of the following:
- Reducing so-called "gun crime" rates.
- Prevention of firearm-related accidents.
- Protecting women from abusive partners.
- "Saving the children."
- "If it saves one life, it's worth it."
The problem -- for the gun grabbers, at least -- is that their methods do not accomplish the goals which they claim to be aiming for. In fact, they often have the opposite effect.
- see also: Raging Against Self Defense
The first group is malevolent and there simply isn't much that can be constructively done with them. No amount of reason, persuasion, or mountains of facts are going to change their minds. They are, for whatever reason, simply determined to impose their will and views on society as a whole and (to be blunt about the matter) they simply don't care what anyone else has to say. Their minds are closed and, barring some life-altering traumatic experience, will likely stay that way.
The second group is not malevolent, merely misinformed. They are, for the most part, just as reasonable and intelligent as the next person; which means that their minds can be, and usually are, changed if their questions are answered in a clear and honest manner, with solid facts to back those answers up.
It is the second group upon which gun owners should focus their educational efforts. The first reason is simply because they can be convinced. If provided with solid facts and a reasonable argument, they will come to the in evadable conclusion that gun control is not only an abysmal failure, but also contrary to the wellbeing of a healthy society. Secondly, they vastly outnumber the malevolent hardcore types.
 Hoplophobiaclinical hoplophobia. While the term "hoplophobe" has, perhaps inevitably, come to be commonly used as a synonym for "gun-grabber," it is important to remember that beyond its politicized usage, hoplophobia is a very real, sometimes even debilitating, clinical condition and should not be derided as otherwise.
If you are dealing with someone who is genuinely hoplophobic, arguing with or otherwise browbeating them over the issue is not only counterproductive, it borders on downright cruelty. The best thing that you can do for such a person is to encourage them, gently but firmly, to seek appropriate treatment from a qualified mental health professional who can help them resolve their condition. Clinical hoplophobes are not malevolent persons, they are suffering from a legitimate mental illness and should be treated with the appropriate compassion.
This does not, however, mean that they should be allowed to influence public policy on the subject of their phobia...
The most outrageous lies that can be invented will find believers if a man only tells them with all his might. — Mark Twain
In this section, we will outline some of the more popular arguments, ranging from the seemingly rational to the blatantly ad hominem, regularly employed by gun grabbers. Each subsection will also include an appropriate counterargument with accompanying facts, so you can set the record straight when needed.
 If it saves one life
"If it saves even one life, it's worth it."
This, with little doubt, is the most well-worn of all the gun grabbers' arguments. Whenever they find themselves on the losing end of an argument, they'll pull this one out... well, like a gun. The purpose of this sideways ad hominem argument is twofold: they seek to make themselves seem to be defenders of the sanctity of human life and, by implication, paint anyone who disagrees with them as having no regard for the lives of innocents.
The problem with their logic is that, while they're so busy talking about how many they are trying to save, they never take the time to tell anyone just how many they're willing to kill. Yes, you read that right. Study after study, social experiment after social experiment, in places around the globe have all shown that, when restrictive laws are brought in to disarm a law-abiding populace, crime -- and violent crime in particular -- skyrockets. This inevitably results in more deaths and injuries than would occur in a well armed, but also well protected, populace.
If gun grabbers were really serious about a net lowering of human mortality rates, they would be lobbying for mandatory firearms ownership, safety training, and open carry laws. They aren't (see Prophecies of doom, below).
 No guns, no crime
"If there weren't any guns, there wouldn't be any gun crime."
On the surface of it, this argument seems to make perfect sense. After all, how can there be any gun crime if there are no guns with which to commit those crimes? It is therefore perfectly logical to ban all firearms altogether, right?
The fundamental flaw in this argument is that, in order for it to actually work, firearms would have to "un-invent" themselves; they would have to simply cease to exist... everywhere.
Britain and Australia have both enacted bans on virtually all but the simplest of firearms. Jamaica has banned civilian firearm ownership altogether. In Britain, from 1997 (when the handgun ban was implemented) to 2006, crimes involving handguns more than doubled and injuries from handguns rose from 314 in 1997 to 1,024 in 2006 - an increase of more than 225%. Australia has seen a similar increase in gun crime rates, and violent crime of all varieties in Jamaica skyrocketed after handguns were heavily restricted and a special Gun Court established in the 1970s.
It should also be pointed out that, in addition to prohibitive gun laws, Britain, Australia and Jamaica have another thing in common: all three of them are islands.
 Accident reduction
|Cause||# of Deaths||Odds|
| Ingestion of food
or other object
|Smoke or fire||3,197||1,192|
The United States has the highest civilian gun ownership rate in the world (≈9 guns for every 10 humans), according to the Geneva Graduate Institute of International Studies' Small Arms Survey. The table on the right outlines the number of deaths by several causes in the US for the year 2005. Headings are for cause of death, raw number of such deaths in 2005, and the (1 in x) lifetime odds of dying in such a manner.
Based on this data, it can be determined (through simple mathematics) that a person is (approximately):
- 58 times more likely to die from car accidents,
- 25 times more likely to die from falls,
- 30 times more likely to die from poisoning,
- 5 times more likely to die from drowning,
- 5 times more likely to die from "ingestion of food or other object,"
- 4 times more likely to die from "inanimate mechanical forces,"
- 4 times more likely to die from smoke or fire,
- 3 times more likely to die from exposure, and
- 41 times more likely to kill themselves
... than they are likely to die from an accidental discharge from a firearm.
On the other hand, you are almost 15 times more likely to die in a firearm accident than you are to be executed...
 Protecting women
 Lying to Canadians
| Two tables:|
Canadian Domestic Homicide Data, up to 2007
|Number and rates of spousal homicide|
|Total||Sex of victim|| Rate of occurrence:|
Deaths by cause:
|Known causes of death|
|Method used||Total||Sex of victim|
|Female victims||Male victims|
Close to 88% of women who are killed in a situation of domestic assault are killed by the use of a shotgun or rifle. — Popular gun control claim in Canada
According to Statistics Canada, the domestic homicide facts are as shown in the two tables on the right:
It seriously begs the question of just where that "88%" figure comes from, doesn't it?
How can 88% of women be killed with long guns when 71% are murdered by manual means (stabbing, beating, strangulation)? Must be some kind of new math.
 Do it for the children
 Prophecies of doom
- As Dave Kopel, Paul Gallant, and Joanne Eisen of the Independence Institute pointed out in their article, "A World Without Guns," a gun-free utopia has existed before and isn't what it's cracked up to be.
- Kopel, David B. The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy--Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies? (1992), Prometheus Books, New York, pp.257-277, ISBN 0-87975-756-6
- National Safety Council The odds of dying from... NSC.org
- Geneva Graduate Institute of International Studies (2007-09). "Small Arms Survey 2007". Cambridge. ISBN 9780521880398.
- Table 5.2: Number and rates of spousal homicide, 1978 to 2007; Statistics Canada website.
- Table 5.4: Known causes of death among spousal relationships by sex, 1998 to 2007; Statistics Canada website.
- "Sept. 15 is National Day in Support of the Long Gun Registry Long Gun Registry Saves Lives" Exchange. September 14 , 2010