Gun ownership: Because you can? Or because you need?

a reply to: seagull

Interesting, is it not?

The right to keep and bear arms is not limited to or exclusively referring to firearms, and yet people instantly think of the gun when they think about either the second amendment, or indeed self defence.

Personally, the reason I prefer steel to lead, is that the chances of me being responsible for collateral damage while wielding a sword in my defence, are far, FAR smaller, infinitesimally small, when compared with the chance of being responsible for collateral damage with a firearm in hand. Furthermore, they are close range weapons are blades, and I personally think that it is bad form to do from a distance, what ought to be done while staring into the eyes of those who would seek to dominate, rob, or kill me.

The Katana, much as I have always had a fondness for European style blades, is probably the faster and the more appropriate weapon for a person looking to defend themselves with a blade. Although a sabre is a bloody good blade by all accounts, generally they are made for one handed use. A katana is a fast, and nimble weapon, and the fact that it can be manipulated with two hands, means that more power can be directed into the swing, and that in the hands of someone with an affinity for the doing of the thing, it can be swung in a tighter arc than a sabre as well.

I personally believe that there are some fairly big reasons why most people do not consider the blade in the same way they consider the bullet. First, as a cold and entirely soulless exercise, defending oneself with a gun is simply easier, and if you are not interested in how you do something, only that it is done, then a gun makes a hell of a lot more sense. Zero effort to wield, virtually no physical strength required to operate it, no stamina, no anything, and if it has a fun switch...well, no need to aim either. Let's face it, the gun is the equaliser. Since any two idiots with nothing to recommend them to anyone can figure out how to shoot straight eventually, regardless of their physical prowess, health, wit, or courage, the gun renders all who can draw and shoot one, absolutely equal. With a blade, your chance of besting your opponent is down to your personal level of skill, stamina, and brass nuts. It is not a battle of equals.

But guns are also making money for an awful lot of powerful people, and so it makes sense that they are being advertised more, that they have the share of the market, and therefore the attention of the majority. Gun sales feed arms manufacturers, and they feed war machines, and the inglorious cycle continues ad infinitum. Think about it. With guns, they have accessories, ammunition, consumables attached to any purchase of a firearm ever made. Parts, spares, cleaning agents, mod kits, scopes, rails, lights, laser dots, spare mags, extended mags, suppressors, alternative grips, trigger groups... This is all cash money, repeat business. You buy a sword though, and if it is of high quality, many times folded steel, sharpened and cleaned properly and regularly, you never spend more than the cost of a new whetstone every now and again.

You see, as much as it is possible to charge a great deal of money for a fine sword, a manufacturer may only charge ONCE for that sword. To get the best out of a gun however, it may be necessary to modify, tinker, and spend, spend, spend, to get the performance you want. It is a much more desirable consumer/provider relationship, from the providers perspective.

I say "Need" !!
I live in Texas, which is most definitely gun country.
Semi-rural area, very low crime rate... safe
I personally own weapons of all types, handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles, assault rifles, target rifles, you name it.
My family and I enjoy shooting guns as a hobby, or leisure activity if you will.
But beyond that, as a husband and father I feel that it is my duty to be able to defend my family from any threat, however unlikely it may be that it ever materialize. So, in my mind, I need firearms but hope I never have to use one against another human being.
Once had a friend who was anti-gun. Young man with wife and two young daughters. Had discussion one day about the need for firearms in the home. Said he didn't need any. "I live in a nice neighborhood and I have a burglar alarm". I told him "that's great". Then spun him a scenario (however unlikely) in which multiple intruders forced their way into his house, held him at gunpoint and had their way with his wife and daughters. I asked him what he would do. He stood there for a moment with an odd look on his face and said "What kind of gun should I buy?"
Bought himself a shotgun the next day.

a reply to: brace22

a reply to: UKTruth

Ipso facto YOU need a gun or you are permanently under the control of the next guy who has one.
Is it JUST in case?
Are you SURE your government won't go haywire?
We are armed for these and ,I'm sure I speak for many when I say it should obvious.
Paranoid?
Psychotic?
Hardly,if in fact guns exist then I will maintain parity.

i buy guns just to troll the gun grabbers.

i just brought a Ruger LC9s 9mm pocket pistol. i am going to buy a veridian auto on green laser sight for it to make it more scary to grabbers. and a pocket clip.

i am going to put a electronic voice thing on it to yell "your move creep!" "do you feel lucky punk?" and stuff like that.

The ruger lcs9 has a pretty good rep as an accurate weapon with short smooth trigger pull if long reset.

www.youtube.com...



And the sight:

www.amazon.com...=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_3?pf_rd_p=1944687602&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B00BPF0G3K&pf_rd_m= ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0NH0AV912HTAVXN04W5S

and for jealous overseas govt emasculated types i offer consolation:

www.webmd.com...

originally posted by: davidporter89
a reply to: brace22

Need.

The powerful are overstepping their bounds.

What kind of law can possibly be written that would prevent a person who is not allowed to own a firearm to kill to obtain one, someone willing to die themselves after killing as many defenseless people as possible?
A criminal will never submit to a background check; they get their guns illegally.....
The U.S. government, not the military, has ordered 1.8 million rounds of ammunition.
What is it for?
What are they not telling the American people?
"need"

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
i buy guns just to troll the gun grabbers.

i just brought a Ruger LC9s 9mm pocket pistol. i am going to buy a veridian auto on green laser sight for it to make it more scary to grabbers. and a pocket clip.

i am going to put a electronic voice thing on it to yell "your move creep!" "do you feel lucky punk?" and stuff like that.

The ruger lcs9 has a pretty good rep as an accurate weapon with short smooth trigger pull if long reset.

www.youtube.com...

And the sight:

www.amazon.com...=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_3?pf_rd_p=1944687602&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B00BPF0G3K&pf_rd_m= ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0NH0AV912HTAVXN04W5S

and for jealous overseas govt emasculated types i offer consolation:

www.webmd.com...

Haha, yes thanks for the last link.

I have to say, if I was a burgler I would make sure I knew where that guy in the video lived so I could give his house a very wide berth indeed

a reply to: UKTruth

If I were a burglar I'd go to his house while he isn't there and steal all his guns.

All burglars endeavor to break in when nobody's home.

Could some of it be down to the traditional American need to "look after myself"?

I don't mean in respect of having a weapon per se, but rather, it's a mindset that absolutely does not want to rely on a third party for protection.

If you think about having a gun, it's a statement that if something happens, I will not need to wait for someone else to get my chesstnuts out of the fire.

Rather like owning a decent tool kit means you won't necessarily have to call a plumber, mechanic or electrician.

Some people would rather get a professional in whatever, I know, but gun ownership as far as the constitution goes strikes me, an outsider, as an extension of the old frontier mentality of being self sufficient.

Doesn't mean they are afraid of anything in particular, it just means they have that "looking out for myself" one.

originally posted by: UKTruth


Haha, yes thanks for the last link.

I have to say, if I was a burgler I would make sure I knew where that guy in the video lived so I could give his house a very wide berth indeed

That red target and the gong target look like they are outside the normal range for a handgun engagement. It could just be the camera though. but it looks like he is getting into trick shooting range for a barrel that short.

No law; no regulation will ever make an immoral man moral, or an outlaw; lawful. or a criminal; law abiding. A self regulated man is not a danger to his neighbor or law enforcement no matter what arms he has. Conversely no law will prevent an evil man from doing evil. The problem with laws of this sort is they target the wrong person.

Not comming from the US I find it hard to be unbiased in the gundebate. But here is the thing, there is an undeniable link between the availabillity of fire arms and the amount of gun related violence in a specific country. If you won't accept any restrictions and requirements, you are accepting a higher amount of gun related deaths.

And here's what I think of the 2nd amendment. Are you serious? 1791? Let's be honest, freedom of speech in 1791 is pretty much the same in 2016. But how about fire arms? And what about fire arms? What makes them so special they even deserve this law? How can you defend this over 200 years old text regarding items that have evolved in such a dramatic way? This is like maintaining late 18th century 'horse riding regulations' for modern day car driving. There probably weren't any, my point exactly.

originally posted by: Jubei42
How can you defend this over 200 years old text regarding items that have evolved in such a dramatic way? This is like maintaining late 18th century 'horse riding regulations' for modern day car driving. There probably weren't any, my point exactly.

So...computers, the internet, word processors, an easy way to distribute info doesn't change the 1st?

Is it legit to limit freedom of speech and freedom of the press to what would have been available in 1791? To hand set movable type presses powered by steam? People on horseback for distribution of info?

Your point...it hasn't been thought through.

originally posted by: Bedlam


So...computers, the internet, word processors, an easy way to distribute info doesn't change the 1st?

No, it doesn't. Please point out where it does.

originally posted by: Bedlam
Is it legit to limit freedom of speech and freedom of the press to what would have been available in 1791? To hand set movable type presses powered by steam? People on horseback for distribution of info?

If there is an undeniable link between unlimited freedom of speech and freedom of speech related deaths then yes maybe we should go back to what was available in 1791.

I hate guns and wish they were less BUT

I understand people wanting guns in our violent society.

There one good reason not to trust the government about this gun issue I am reminded of recently:


That is when they told those poor people in the WTC buildings everything was okay stay at your desk….Sealed there death!


The citizen can’t trust a word out of the mouth of this government.


In fact the best way to live is if the government says to do x and not do y

DO Y! and don't do X

originally posted by: Jubei42

originally posted by: Bedlam


So...computers, the internet, word processors, an easy way to distribute info doesn't change the 1st?

No, it doesn't. Please point out where it does.

Thus also for the 2nd. You're welcome.

originally posted by: Jubei42
Not comming from the US I find it hard to be unbiased in the gundebate. But here is the thing, there is an undeniable link between the availabillity of fire arms and the amount of gun related violence in a specific country. If you won't accept any restrictions and requirements, you are accepting a higher amount of gun related deaths.

And here's what I think of the 2nd amendment. Are you serious? 1791? Let's be honest, freedom of speech in 1791 is pretty much the same in 2016. But how about fire arms? And what about fire arms? What makes them so special they even deserve this law? How can you defend this over 200 years old text regarding items that have evolved in such a dramatic way? This is like maintaining late 18th century 'horse riding regulations' for modern day car driving. There probably weren't any, my point exactly.

the stats are usually cooked though. for instance criminal violence is lumped in with suicides and worse- legitimate use that results in injury or death of a criminal (that is self defense) the intended purpose for a gun in the first place are lumped in with use by murderers robbers and so forth.

Why did Rosa Parks need to sit at the front of the bus?

Hey guys!

I am so sorry. I have had the most ridiculous weekend ever! I never made it home last week to carry on discussing... In fact I didn't make it home for 3 days! Nothing bad... Just a lot of spontaneous partying!

Anyways I intend on going through all the comments today now that I have some time. And I will be active again. Apologies.

Wow, so I have just had a quick glance at all the comments. There are a couple of direct responses to me and I shall hopefully answer them today.

What I have taken from this response is very informative. There is no definitive answer to why somebody would own a gun.

The amount of variables surrounding gun ownership implies that it is a subject that is here to stay for the long haul.

There are 2 things that have stood out though.... One is environment. I say environment because I feel that encompasses everything that one would include in the description of where somebody lives. Standard of living, location, habitat, wild life and social issues all come under the environment banner in this situation (?).

Therefore the reasoning behind one person owning a gun, will most likely be different to another person's reasons, even though the principle might be the same. I.E protection. 1 from animals, another from human beings.

The second thing, and the thing that I think has finally hit home to me and I have now accepted. Is that guns, especially in America, are a genuine every day way of life thing. Regardless of any potential dangers or what not, they are just... There. I think everyone who lives outside of a society that includes guns really needs to accept that fact, regardless of your personal opinions. Sure, we have the right to hold our opinions. But can we really judge another society based on the simple notion that "Guns kill people, so you shouldn't have them"?

I don't think so.

I am not pro-gun, but I don't think I am anti-gun. If I lived in an environment where I definitely needed to protect myself and my family, I would own a gun.

Gun ownership cannot be generalised. It is definitely a person by person subject.

I'm not against gun ownership, this is not a matter of having the 2nd amendment removed. Ofcourse most owners are responsible and sensible. The core issue is reducing the amount of gun related deaths. How can a responsible owner reject increased scrutiny when it comes to obtaining and owning a fire arm?

You can talk about the good guys and the crazies untill the cows come home, but to me it is clear that easy and unobstructed access to large amounts of fire arms is asking for trouble. How can you accept the increased risk of having a family member get shot and killed at an incident?
And you can't blame this on the crazies alone and go after them. Mental healthcare won't be up to that task and would involve giving up alot more than the 2nd amendment.

I think the responsible gunowner should realise that the gunlobby is misrepresenting them and they should unite and acknowledge there is a task for them in making america a little bit safer. Fire arms deserve the respect and the people need to be educated about them.
I like the gun and car comparison. No one advocating for safer traffic is calling out for a ban on cars.