Do you Really Need a Gun?

Status
Not open for further replies.
NoGun said:
I think (unfortunately?), we are past the stage where any civilian-available weaponry will prevail against tanks, artillery, drones, air strikes, etc..
Click to expand...

Having a ton of friends in the military including a cousin who is a drone pilot, I just don't think that's true. The majority of the military is actually support. Those tanks, artillery, drones, and air strikes require a truly massive battery of fuel depots, maintenance personnel, avionics specialists, and supply chains. Those targets are perfectly vulnerable to a rifleman. What good is the 1500 horsepower jet engine of the M1A2 Abrams with no fuel to slake its massive thirst?

This is a subject change, but note that we allow 16 year olds to drive vehicles that can easily crush 20 people in a crosswalk. There are tons of alternatives that would save countless lives. Only allowing personal cars in rural areas, forced mass transit, 20 MPH universal speed limits, and you would save enough lives to make gun deaths barely register.

But we respect the freedom of the automobile more than safety. Why is that not the case with firearms? Why not respect the freedom of self-defense over the (I argue completely false and illusory - other things will just cause deaths instead of guns in their absence ) safety created by banning most of them? And make no mistake, the safety IS illusory. A handgun ban was enacted in 1997 in the England. And how are they now? The most violent country, in terms of street crime, in Western Europe. Who cares if less people actually die? Are the people being mugged with 3x the frequency supposed to be grateful for this "safety" at the cost of quality of life?

The late Hunter S. Thompson said in 2003 that as a nation we have become slaves to fear. Fear of germs, terrorism, judgment, plane crashes, the stock market, pretty much everything under the sun. At what point do you reject constant fear and boldly proclaim, "Yes, more people will die if we allow this freedom, and we accept that cost!"

If we're afraid to say that, I fear freedoms, choices, and quality of life will disappear, year after year, into the yawning and insatiable mouth of the vague demon that is "safety".
 
Last edited:
WeedWacker,
What were we able to do at one time and cannot do anymore that was directly linked to a basic human right from our constitution?
Click to expand...
While not exactly enumerated, we used to be able to own slaves....

The "Nuke" argument is leaning towards being a "straw-man" fallacy. Hand grenades would not be prohibitively expensive if a general market existed, nor would fully automatic weapons, C-4, mortars, or mustard gas for that matter.

So I still maintain that it is a bad argument and a slippery slope.
 
LockedBreech,
Those targets are perfectly vulnerable to a rifleman. What good is the 1500 horsepower jet engine of the M1A2 Abrams with no fuel to slake its massive thirst?
Click to expand...

A truly good argument. However any army worth its salt has a reserve supply, which would initially be enough to prioritize the requisition of more supplies and protect soft targets. One also forgets the fact that the government can buy from overseas anything it wants, and has the navy to ship it. We are getting into speculation here, but our military is not made up of fools. I'm sure they have a plan on the books for civil unrest.

But we respect the freedom of the automobile more than safety. Why is that not the case with firearms? Why not respect the freedom of self-defense over the (I argue completely false and illusory - other things will just cause deaths instead of guns in their absence ) safety created by banning most of them?
Click to expand...

Another good argument! Vehicle related deaths already outstrip gun deaths by a large margin. But again, a car's primary purpose is deemed worth the secondary risk. Can the same be said for firearms when other means are available? To take your argument a step further, what if a system was invented that would eliminate 80% of car accidents/pedestrian deaths? How much do you want to bet that system would be mandatory?
 
Now, of course, I have to take the cheap shot that cars aren't guaranteed by the Constitution. Arms are.

And that's really the core of the tension, I think. If guns really have advanced too far and the Second Amendment is overly permissive, simply amend the Constitution and narrow the right. But the gun control community knows that they have not - and likely will never - convince enough people to get 3/4 of the states to narrow the Second Amendment, so they try to whittle it away bit by bit with legislation and courtroom battles. A death by a thousand cuts to bypass our founding document's intentionally difficult amendment process. After all, we got an amendment passed banning alcohol, for a time, then one passed repealing the ban. If people felt strongly enough that the Second Amendment was too broad, they could fix it very easily. But, at the end of the day, the pros of guns outstrip the cons in the collective consciousness. That might change someday, but the smart money's not on tomorrow morning.

This has been a very interesting read. Thank you for participating in a civil debate with us. I know it must be difficult to be the lone gunslinger (pun intended) taking on all comers. I'm off to bed but will rejoin this later.
 
LockedBreech,
Now, of course, I have to take the cheap shot that cars aren't guaranteed by the Constitution. Arms are.
Click to expand...

Touché. Not cheap at all.

"Reasonable restrictions" however seem to be the critical point. And non-lethal weapons are, well, weapons. All it's waiting for is the right lineup of Supreme Court justices to decide where the lines are drawn. Do I think that's the right way to decide the issue? No, but that's were my money's at.

Thank you for participating in a civil debate with us.
Click to expand...

Thank you, I'm learning a lot and digging through your forums to learn more. It is really very interesting and educational.
 
We don't need the first Amendment, the government will decide what is appropriate for us to say--just to make sure everyone is happy and no one is offended.

We don't need guns. That's what the police and army are for. And if you have extra room in your house, they're welcome to stay there.

You don't need protection from unreasonable search and seizure, I mean you're not breaking the law, are you?

And if you break the law, you're already guilty. Right?

There's no need for a jury, and I'm sure your sentence will be fair--whatever it may be.

Still, I'm sure the government knows what's best for you and your state.
 
Sparks1957,
While we're at it, do we really need any of our constitutional rights?
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure where you are going with this line of reasoning, but I'll play along.

Either a) You are pointing out that the constitution is our protection from government intervention. Therefore a chipping away of one right will lead to others. I would counter with "living document," etc., etc..

Perhaps b) The second Amendment helps guarantee the rest of our rights? I would counter that a gun never guaranteed anyone any more "rights" as I have seen in Africa and other countries. Nor if the government was stripping rights away would you gun prevail against its military.

Or c) I have totally missed where you're going and hopefully you tell me :)
 
No gun

I carry a Taser and a firearm every day as I am a Deputy Sheriff. I can tell you from personal experience that A Taser does not work all the time no matter what you may have heard. If what you say about Tasers were true than I would not need a gun but we do not have a phaser set to stun yet. What you write is out of ignorance because you have never been on the pointy end of the stick as it were. I hope that you and your family never have to face the bad things that are in this world. But as for me and mine, been there done that. I will always carry a gun to protect myself and my family even when I retire from this line of work. I will tell you that criminals run in packs because they are cowardly by nature. So if you think that Tasing one of them will stop an attack you are wrong most of the time plus you will just make the rest of them angrier. However if you draw and point a gun at them all the bravado just goes away most of the time. I hope that you will not respond that because I’m a Deputy that of course I should have a gun because I have been on many a call where a citizen with a firearm ended the problem before I got here.
I do agree that if you cannot kill someone than you have no business carrying a firearm.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NoGun-You say guns are meant to kill???..Where did you come up with that Idea?. Gun's can be used to kill,but where not made to kill,They are for self defense or preservation. Gun's to me are another recreational item to pass time,accuire skill's and have lot's of fun. I carry because of a few reason's. The world is not getting better,I am over 50 with a bad back and over weight. I can not run as fast as I used too. God forbid that I ever have to use it in self defense,but I do still value my life and my Family's life very much. To this day I could have left my carry at home and it would have made no difference in my life,but someday that might not be the story. I don't know how old you are,but as I stated I am over 50 and have seen where this world is going. I still live in a town where you shake hands with the police man In church every Sunday,but lot's here do not have that comfort.
I shoot paper only with my rifles. I do not hunt any more as I have lost the intrest in it. We ( hope this is ok with all members in here) as a group of gun lovers in here are not the problem,It's the bad guy's that have guns that are the problem. Your taser means nothing when looking down the barrel of some gun with a deranged person behind the trigger. On a side note--- You taser someone with a pace maker--- you have just killed him. So your taser is a deadly weapon now.
 
y. Hand grenades would not be prohibitively expensive if a general market existed, nor would fully automatic weapons, C-4, mortars, or mustard gas for that matter.
Click to expand...

And why should the law abiding civilian population not be permitted to possess these items? (The cynical side of me secretly thinks it's a good idea based on it will further human evolution)

Re: Mustard Gas - a few household chemicals and a bit of chemistry know how and you can make your own small scale chemical weapons ("Mustard gas" can be home made), even to the point of incendiaries and aerosols. It is easier to obtain legally than high explosive destructive devices per the NFA.
 
NoGun-You say guns are meant to kill???..Where did you come up with that Idea?. Gun's can be used to kill,but where not made to kill,They are for self defense or preservation.
Click to expand...

Of course, guns were made to kill. In our modern society, however, we are fortunate enough to be able to use them for paper punching as well. It is my fervent hope that I never need my firearms for anything other than target shooting and hunting. We are also fortunate that our Constitution allows for their use for protection. By the way, bows and slings were also meant to kill.
 
I'm not sure on what the claim for Taser effectiveness is based. I haven't seen any police agencies leave their firearms behind in favor of Tasers and I think they have access to better Tasers than the single shot versions available to civilians.
 
NoGun,

In no particular order:

1) Thanks for not playing the stereotypical anti, being shrill, or blowing off reasonable answers. That's refreshing.

2) Police have, in addition to handguns (and tasers): body armor; a shotgun and/or rifle in the car; a radio in the car and a radio on their person; help at the other end of the radio, and potentially a lot of help on the way within a minute or two for an "officer needs assistance" call; a maglite, PR-24, or other impact weapon.

(Edit: Depending on the department, the officer may have a partner with him at all times when on duty; in other cases, standard practice for any stop may well be for another officer to automatically drive over preemptively in case backup becomes necessary.)

If the officer, with all those resources, needs all that gear AND still carries a handgun, then why should the rest of us feel that a taser will handle any issue? Granted, the officer is supposed to pursue and apprehend criminals, but at the point when the criminal puts up a fight - that is the same criminal against whom we may have to defend ourselves.

3) Not all tasers have multi-shot capability. Not all tasers will penetrate heavy clothing. The dart type tasers need two good dart points of contact in order to cycle current through the body. Tasers are not non-lethal, either, as they have been known to kill people with heart conditions, cocaine or PCP users, and those in generally poor health at an alarming rate (at least, at an alarming rate for what was supposed to have been a "non-lethal" weapon). Tasers are very limited in range, too. And, in many states, tasers are restricted as heavily as, or even more heavily than, handguns.

(For instance, while there are states like Florida, where with a concealed weapons permit I can carry a handgun, knife, collapsible baton, short barreled shotgun or rifle - assuming I have the stamp for that, taser, pepper spray, etc, there are also states like Tennessee, where it's specifically a "concealed handgun license," and I can only carry a handgun on that permit.)

4) On the Constitutional Rights issue, how strong do you think the First Amendment would remain, if the people allowed their teeth (the Second Amendment) to be pulled? Quite frankly, I WANT the US government to feel at least some trepidation when it considers passing some particularly onerous piece of legislation.

5) Without meaning to sound harsh, who are you to tell me what I need for defense of myself or my family? Are you going to race to our side should an attacker appear? Would you like me to decide what items in your life you really need?
 
Last edited:
Quote:
"While I understand the "Heller" decision and all that, the constitution was framed in a different time. Firearms, and the best, were absolutely necessary then. The same is not so true today. Plus, it is accepted that the 2nd Amendment is subject to reasonable restrictions. We already cannot buy mortars, machine-guns and cruise missiles, for the public good. If, something less-lethal but more effective came along for self defense, wouldn't it be better for society to embrace it and pass semi-automatic firearms into realm of military-only use?"

The two things that come to mind deal with disparity of force and intent. On one hand you posit that non lethal force should be sufficient to prevent being killed by attackers who may be armed with lethal devices of their choice and who also may be in a group of 3 or more who are INTENT ON KILLING YOU while you are only concerned with stopping the attack. Disparity of force.

I am curious as to why you would relegate semiauto firearms to "military-only use" if they are no longer needed for self protection and are capable of subduing evil doers non lethally? Is it because the military and LEOs must deal with numerous murderous violent attackers armed with lethal devices themselves? I submit that I must be as well equipped as possible to protect myself against violent attackers equally well.

Our esteemed VP says "buy a shotgun". He is of the impression that the sound of a shotgun "blast" will cause an intruder to run. Why not just get a recording of an 870 12 ga slide being racked and then the sound of a shotgun "blast"? Foolish eh? Actually, he is partially correct in that the sound of a shotgun being actually fired AT an intruder with the smoke and 00 buck entering just 1 attacker will probably be enough to end the attack and send the others packing. Your taser will not really cause additional attackers to run, they will just tackle you and beat you to death, or stab you to death, or possibly use a lethal weapon like a HiPoint semiauto to shoot you. Meanwhile, your battery is dead and so are you.
 
I guess some facts to also point out are:

1. Tasers have a range of 15ft cords or 35ft cords. They have yet to invent one that shoots farther. As far as I know there are only one shot tasers... with three prongs that I know of, but you would have to carry extra cartriges which are very expensive. Also tasers are very prone to static discharge. I have seen many pictures as I have done many reports on tasers of someone loading a cartrige and it automatically shooting into their own hand. Or imagine if you were carrying more in a bag that could go off as well. I do however think that their effectiveness is great, but they also have major limitations. When the come out with their shotgun taser round that has been in developement for years, and if it becomes available to civilians. We would have much greater non-lethal options.

2. When the constitution was written, civillians were able to obtain any and all equipment the military had, including cannons. And they DID own them. Some that could afford it at least.

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away"
 
There are a couple problems with the notion of "non-lethal" weapons. First and foremost, nearly all of them can, under the right circumstances, be quite lethal. Hit someone in the right (or perhaps wrong) place with an expandable baton, pepper spray someone with a respiratory condition, or taser someone with a heart condition and you may very well kill them. As a matter of fact, many "non-lethal" or perhaps the better term is "less-lethal" devices require just as intensive, if not more intensive, training as a firearm to be both effective and non-lethal.

Secondly, the effectiveness of most "non-lethal" devices is somewhat limited. Even a taser can fail as I can know of an incident in my own community where this happened. In the particular instance, a police officer deployed a taser against a crazed individual wielding a chair. Unfortunately, one of the leads got tangled in the legs of the chair and failed to complete the circuit. To make matters worse, the suspect then grabbed the taser wires and jerked the taser out of the officer's hands. Much chaos ensued and it was only through sheer luck that the suspect was able to be apprehended without shooting him. This is why, even in the age of tasers and pepper spray, that police officers still carry firearms. The unfortunate fact is that the most effective means of stopping a violent attck are also the most likely to be lethal.

Finally, a "less-lethal" device does not have the same deterrent effect that a firearm does. If a violent criminal knows that his intended victim may be armed with a taser or pepper spray, he can be reasonably confident that he won't be killed in the course of trying to commit his crime and, while it may be painful, he may even still be able to get away. If he knows that his intended victim may be armed with a firearm, however, then he also knows that he risks his life in commission of his crime.

The notion that eliminating guns will make us safer is based upon the flawed logic that all guns can be eliminated, they can't. Even in countries where private gun ownership is completely forbidden, there is still at least some gun crime because criminals, by definition, do no obey the law. Even if banning firearms can reduce gun crime (and such has not always proven to be the case in the U.S. as evidenced by Chicago and Washington D.C.'s longstanding gun bans), that is only one type of violent crime. Rather than focusing on the tool that the criminal chooses, I think it would be much more productive to address the overall problem of violent crime.
 
This is where this gets funny. You set the trap and some have fallen in. I don't need a reason to own guns I have a constitutional right.


Now, it is said this is all about safety, especially children's safety. So I ask, in the interest of safety, why do you need ladders, cars and bath tubs? I mean the numbers clearly show those 3 as a much bigger risk to your safety. Why aren't the powers that be registering, restricting and working to eliminate these child killers?!


I suspect it is because none of those can be used to fight tyranny. Isn't tyranny the threat the 2A was made to protect against?

What is tyranny? Is it reducing average Americans spending power so you can direct them around by their wallet?
 
No Gun, . . . I looked for and may have missed the answer to a question I will pose to you:

Ever been in a fire fight, robbed at gun point, threatened to die right there, right then, on that spot?

If you answered no to the above, . . . I can easily see where you literally have been sheltered and kept from the fray of real world mayhem.

If you answered yes, . . . there is probably nothing I will ever say that will change your mind. You don't see, comprehend, or appreciate the danger or finality of dying or living in a crippled state.

For the record, there are people out in the real world, . . . and you no doubt have been within bad breath distance of them unknowingly, . . . who would kill you in a heartbeat for your wallet, your wristwatch, or to be able to rape your daughter or your wife. The time was not right for them that day, . . . or you would (if you lived through it) answer yes to my question.

Again, . . . for the record, . . . I have had firearms in my posession for the vast majority of the last 55 years of my life. I, fortunately, have not had to "fully" utilize any of them, . . . but there is no way anyone can guarantee that if they were not there, . . . I would have not been a victim.

I really, really do not want to be a victim, . . . and I really, really will use all 30 rounds in my mags if the bad guys keep coming, . . . you see, . . . they have 30 round mags too. And to pontificate "what if they didn't?" is to deny the absolute reality of the times we live in.

The reality is: we live in a dangerous time, . . . prepare to survive, . . . or prepare for something other than survival. That includes the Monday morning stroll through Wally World as well as the 2:00 am forced trip through the 'hood.

May God bless,
Dwight
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top