In the past couple weeks, there's been at least half a dozen journals that make and then pick apart the talking points of the pro-gun crowd. One of my favorites goes something like this:
Talking Point: If I can't be armed, how can I defend myself against a criminal with an illegal gun?
Counter: What if he was armed with an illegal machine gun? Or an illegal tank? Or an illegal ...?
One thing that this talking- and counter point seem to assume is that one not only has a right, but should use violence to counter violence. Or, "self defense" as many call it. There's no way around it: violence begets violence. If we really want to end this cycle, we need to end the notion that it's acceptable to use violence to combat violence.
This point is best illustrated with the pro-gun argument of more guns = less crime. The logic goes something like this: if 20% of people were armed, muggers would be much less inclined to mug someone knowing they'd get shot. Obviously, since it's illegal to actually research such topics, we can't actually know if it's true – but for the sake of argument, let's assume that muggings will be reduced by 75% in a heavily armed society.
Doing the math: if the unarmed society has 10,000 muggings, then the heavily-armed society will have 2,500 muggings. On the face of it, that sounds like a Good Thing, but let's examine closer.
Muggers are called muggers for a reason: they mug people. That is, they use the threat of violence to deprive you of your property. That's all their after: your stuff. Obviously, mugging is completely unacceptable (and should be dealt with appropriately by the authorities), but it's unquestionably not as heinous as murder. In fact, some states will go so far as to execute murders while no one (well, except for minority of Texas) will demand that mugging be a capital crime.
Now let's go back to our unarmed and heavily-armed societies. With 2,500 muggings and a 20% armament rate, there will be 500 muggers executed. That bears repeating. 500 muggers will be executed – with no judge or jury – for a crime that no one believes should be capital. Is this really the society we want to build?
But a mugger might become a murderer, some may point out. And of course that's true, but what would possibly inspire a mugger to commit murder? First and foremost, if they are threatened with violence, they will use violence to "defend" themselves, thus continuing the cycle of violence. There are of course other reasons (accidently fires a gun), but let's say that no more than 5% of muggings will result in deaths. I think that number's high, but let's work with it.
Doing the math: the unarmed society has 10,000 muggings and 50 deaths, while the heavily-armed society has 2,500 muggings and 500 deaths.
All deaths are tragic, but under no civil society should ever consider it just to execute 10 muggers just to save 1 victim. Real justice is working to prevent that the deaths of victims through social equality and educating people that violence is not acceptable – especially as a response to violence (i.e. "self defense").