Do you Really Need a Gun?

Status
Not open for further replies.
My question is thus:

Why, with all the non-lethal self defense options out there today, do you still believe in the right to own modern (semi-automatic) firearms?

Let's use Air Tasers as an example, they are purported to have a 95% stop ratio, which is I believe better than firearms. They can fire multiple shots (3 or more?), they can be as easily reloaded as a common handgun, and they can also be used as a very effective contact weapon.

I know this example is not perfect (I've seen the youtube videos), but neither are guns, from what I'm reading here. It appears, at least to me, to be a very viable alternative to firearms, poses virtually no risk to bystanders, can't be used effectively for mass murder, and if used, will save you from most of the legal trouble most here seem to be worried about.

I am I totally wrong here?

Yes, you are totally wrong, and I do not mean any disrespect in saying this. First, the "right" to own modern firearms is a right that has nothing to do with self defense or hunting. It is a "check" against a tyrannical government that refuses to adhere to the constitution, ignore the rule of law and oppress its people. Joe Biden's 2-shot shotgun plan simply doesn't cut it. This right is every bit as important as the right to a fair trial, freedom of speech, freedom or religion (or no religion), freedom of assembly and all of the other rights guaranteed to us as citizens of the US. This means that we, the people, must be permitted to own the same kind of firearms as those that are hired by us to police us.

Second, lets address just self-defense. A taser is basically a one-shot (or two-shot at best) device that may or may not work on an attacker. They are easily defeated by certain kinds of clothing. They are useless on multiple attackers. Just ask any police officer in LA or Detroit if they would feel comfortable carrying JUST a taser. If that was a requirement, you would have no cops, because who the heck is going to risk their life with just a taser to defend them?

What about stun guns? Ever see the movie Jackass? That's what stun guns are good for - pranksters. Because, you can train (and gangs do train) to defeat stun guns.

Pepper spray might be effective, or it might not be. It is less likely to be effective against those that have experience with tear gas and/or having been sprayed with pepper spray. In other words, experienced rapists, gang-bangers, and thugs will know how to effectively defeat this stuff too.

Well, that's about it for "less lethal" means of protection in a self defense situation. If you don't believe me, do a little research and see how high violent criminal attacks have become commonplace in the UK where guns and most knives have been completely banned. Of course, criminals still have knives and other weapons, its just the law abiding citizens that can't have them. Is that the kind of society you want to live in? One where you are completely defenseless, except if/when you can find a police officer to protect you?
 
Taser, really? In my state they aren't legal, thus it leaves guns. Further, a taser is not going to do much against a guy in heavy winter clothing where it may not even penetrate. A gun is your best defense. Sure when the bad guys break into your house you can call 911. If you are super lucky the cops will be there in two minutes (not in the real world in most places), so what are you going to do for those 120 seconds? That's right you will bleed out so the cops can draw a nice chalk outline around you when they get there.

There are very few legal gun owners that actually ever shoot another human, they have them for insurance. Do you want to have one, maybe not, but don't tell me I can't have insurance. Do you have have homeowners insurance? You don't need to have it (unless you have a mortgage) but it is probably a good choice to have it cause you never know. The same goes for a gun - I don't expect to ever have to use it against a BG, but it is sure nice to know it is there just incase.

BTW - I use mine as a very expensive hole punch - to put lots of round holes in sheets of paper at the range :)
 
Quote by NoGun...
"I think (unfortunately?), we are past the stage where any civilian-available weaponry will prevail against tanks, artillery, drones, air strikes, etc.."

Your quote sounds similar to the old saying that "if rape is inevitable you may as well lay back and enjoy it." All through out history freedom loving people have defended themselves with inadequate tools for defense. This is no reason to just give up and let someone oppress you. On a sheer population basis there are more people on Earth today living under political and religious oppression than in all history.

Also, you might want to look back at recent history. The whole might of the USSR and the United States military, argueably the finest military in the history of mandkind, has not been able to totally defeat the resistance in Afganistan.

I would bet $10 that if you looked back into your family history, no matter where they came from, someone refused to be made a servant of another and give up their freedoms. Without their actions you might not be here now.
 
Last edited:
BTW - I use mine as a very expensive hole punch - to put lots of round holes in sheets of paper at the range

Same here. If guns are "only meant for killing people", then I've been horribly misusing mine for the past 30 years!

On a more serious note - NoGun, I'm a little bit disturbed by your statement "the constitution was framed in a different time. Firearms, and the best, were absolutely necessary then. The same is not so true today."

The idea that a fundamental right, specified in the Constitution, should somehow 'expire' or no longer apply just because society has changed is absolutely wrong. It's in the same vein as people who say "the internet has made privacy obsolete", or "why are you worried about being searched, if you have nothing to hide?"

We have to protect ALL of our rights, even the ones we don't think we "need", because once they're given up, we're not likely to get them back again.
 
First of all, I'd like to commend all of the posters who have participated in this thread. This is one that had great potential to turn south and head into flame-war territory, and I'm glad to see that everyone has been civil.

Welcome to The Firing Line, NoGun! Now, on to your questions:
NoGun said:
Why, with all the non-lethal self defense options out there today, do you still believe in the right to own modern (semi-automatic) firearms?
For starters, because the Second Amendment to the US Constitution says that I have a Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The term "arms" includes firearms. In fact, it includes "all arms that constitute bearable arms," according to SCOTUS.

Second, the Right to do something is not predicated on the Need to do it. The 2A is contained in the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. If you begin predicating rights on needs, you run into a whole host of issues. In addition to looking at the rights that an individual needs, we must also look at the rights that society needs for an individual to have. For example:
  1. Rosa Parks didn't need to sit in the front of the bus. She would have reached her destination just as quickly and just as effectively, had she sat in the back of the bus. She had a right to sit up front, though. Society needs for her to have that right, too.
  2. I, individually, have never needed to exercise my rights to: (a) be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; (b) be free from being compelled to testify against myself; and (c) to be free from cruel and unusual punishments. Nonetheless, society needs for every individual to have that right. (A4, A5 and A8, respectively). Without those three rights, police can go kick in a few doors without warrants and begin torturing whatever unfortunate sould happens to be home into confessing to crimes which they may or may not have committed.
  3. Do I, individually, need an AR-15? Probably not. At least, I hope I never have an honest-to-God need for it. Nonetheless, I would submit that society needs for me to have the right to have one. First, to defend my family. Second, to assist in the defense of my country if need be. Or maybe the other way around, and in particular, to defend my country against my own givernment, if necessary.

Third, I've heard the argument, in response to the defense-against-tyranny perspective, that it would be futile for the American citizenry to stand up against our own government. I'm not convinced that such is true, given a couple of factors. My seat-of-the-pants estimate (I'm afraid that I'm without sources on this one) is that there are some 100 million gun owners in the U.S. Michigan licensed some 600,000 hunters a couple of years ago. Presumably, hunters on the average own at least 1 gun each. A few hunters will borrow guns, and some will own more than one. Arkansas has another 130K Concealed Handgun Carry License holders. Most of them do own guns, I suspect, and many own more than one. Extrapolate that out to include all of the other States, throw in a few folks that will defect from the military if ordered to fire on American citizens (quite possibly taking equipment and arms with them), and it begins to look somewhat less far-fetched. Further, the American Revolution was not exactly a done deal. It was a hotly contested idea, whether we should declare independence against our own government, which was a European superpower at the time. Are our rights to be restricted based upon whether we are capable of succeeding at a particular goal?

Fourth:
NoGun said:
While I understand the "Heller" decision and all that, the constitution was framed in a different time.
Yes, it was framed in a different time. I've heard it said that "the Second Amendment protects muskets." Muskets were the AR-15 of the day, though. The 2A protected those arms that were in use by the military at the time. The glib response to this is: "If the RKBA only protects muskets, then Freedom of Speech only protects screw-type printing presses." The Supreme Court is much more eloquent in addressing this issue in saying that:
SCOTUS said:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Finally, and while I'm sure I could go on for much further on the RKBA, the comparison to Tasers. Let me start with the caveat that I'm not a techincal guru on Tasers. I'll give Tasers the benefit of the doubt on this and base my two assumptions on things I've read in this thread. Specifically, that: (a) there's a 3-shot Taser available; and (b) that the range is 35 feet. There really is no comparison to the effectiveness of a firearm. What if an active shooter is 36 feet from me? Even if my aim is dead on, there is zero chance that I'll hit the attacker. Second, multiple attackers: If there are 3 attackers inside 35 feet, my hit ratio has to be 100% under stress to stop them all. If you read very much about gunfights, you'll see that the stress, adrenaline and the fact that attackers are moving targets makes this extremely unlikely. If I miss one shot, I'm in deep doo-doo. Third, batteries. I can put a loaded revolver in my nightstand and leave it loaded for 15 years. Should I need it, I can reasonably expect it to go bang. If it doesn't, I can just pull the trigger again. Can I do that with a Taser? I don't know, but I have my doubts. (I also have some doubts about that 95% success ratio on Tasers, but that's a debate for another day.)
 
I will add to Skans excellent post by highlighting an important point, which you brushed upon earlier with:

Nor if the government was stripping rights away would you[sic] gun prevail against its military.

Don't be so sure. History is FILLED to the contrary.

Keep in mind that a rag tag bunch of colonials sent the world's #1 army/navy packing; a bunch of mountain men sent a superpower home in shame and is keeping another extremely busy. The civil wars in the middle east (Egypt, Libya, Syria) are perfect examples of how a few rifleman can overthrow a superior-armed and militarized tyrannical government.

You underestimate the resistance fighter. Even Dr Ruth Westheimer was a trained sniper and scout.
 
Last edited:
I just have to ask, if you are "anti-gun", what brings you to a firearms discussion forum in the first place?
It appears to me that you are simply here to stir up controversy. I say this with all due respect and I applaud you for sticking to your beliefs but I'm sure there are plenty of anti-firearm forums for you to visit.
I am certainly not looking for a debate from you. Just curious of your reasons.
 
Why, with all the non-lethal self defense options out there today, do you still believe in the right to own modern (semi-automatic) firearms?

Most local police forces and sheriff's departments have reserve divisions made up of dedicated local civilians. I would suggest that you join one of those and get some first-hand experience with the mind set and actions of the criminals you're trying to stop from committing violent deeds against you and your family. You may change your mind about willingly giving up your right to own modern (semi-automatic) firearms.

Nor if the government was stripping rights away would you[sic] gun prevail against its military.

Recent history has many times proven the falsehood of that statement. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.
 
Chris Van said:
I just have to ask, if you are "anti-gun", what brings you to a firearms discussion forum in the first place?
NoGun explained in in his opening post:
NoGun said:
I feel after a title like that, a brief explanation is in order. I am not a gun owner, in fact, I have been debating the merits of gun ownership with a member of this site! In several of our arguments he looked up information posted here, and I was intrigued for a look into your "world." Therefore, I "stalked" (believe is the proper word), you all! I was surprised, and I mean no offense by it, to find the very intelligent and articulate group of individuals that makes up this forum.

I am not here to flame or troll, but I was hoping that maybe you could provide some perspective for an "outsider." And I look forward to discussions with you all.
There may be "plenty of anti-firearms forums" for NoGun to visit, but he chose to come here for a civil discussion. Frankly, we should take thses opportunities to rationally & civilly discuss our position with those who do not necessarily share our perspective. If we cannot or will not discuss it, we will never convince others that our perspective has merit. If I've said it once, I've said it a dozen times: Right now, the gun community needs good ambassadors. This is a chance to be one.
 
Nor if the government was stripping rights away would you gun prevail against its military.

Tell that to the Taliban and Al Quida, whom our military has been fighting for 12 years now.

Wars are much more than just shooting. Politics and world perception play major roles, also.

Our brave, well equiped, and technologicaly advaced military still hasn't fully defeted them in the STAN.

BTW, Thanks again to anyone who is over there or has been over there! You guys and gals are my personal heros!
 
Spats has it absolutely right, we as members of this forum may differ in many ways, come from different backgrounds, and may not always agree on the same things; however to those who do not get to see one of us from another, we all speak with the same voice and are pretty much lumped into the same entity. Its hard to see individuals from a different perspective. So together we make up what "they" see. We should conduct ourselves in a positive, unified, respectful manner and help "nogun" understand who we are.
 
NoGun, in regards to the Constitution being framed in a different time. You are totally correct. Most of the heavy weapons used by the Colonists during the War for Independence were privately purchased.

The Colonial Navy, John Paul Jones aside, paled in comparison to the work of privateers, private merchant vessels armed at owner expense and ordered by Congress to go forth and raid British merchant traffic.

The argument could be made that the average Colonist was equally, if not better, armed than his British counterpart.

So yes, the Consitution was framed in a different time.
 
I'm going to go a little further with something mentioned by Grizz and Dwight on p.2.

If you've never experienced a situation where all that is standing between you and an attacker who is intent on causing you harm or worse is a tool, be it a gun, baseball bat, hammer, or whatever else, I hope you never have to.

I have, and I am thankful I had a gun to stop it from happening. In that type of situation, you want the best tool available to you. For me it was my gun and it made a difference. Maybe all the difference.

NoGun- I will ask you- have you considered how you would deal with a home invasion? What would you do? It's not a pleasant thing to think about, but giving it some serious thought is worth the time.
 
Ok, after reading all this I feel I must chime in with a story of a situation I was in that has affected and changed my views and life ever since.

Now right now in life I am an avid IDPA competitor, collector, certified firearms instructor, reloader, and huge firearm enthusiast. I love everything about about firearms including having for defense. Now let me get to my defense story.

When I was 18 years old I moved from my parents house to my own in York, pa. I had a good job, I worked hard and had a good life for being 18. I had a neighbor who I had no trouble with. He lived there with his mother, wife, and 2 young daughters. Always waved when he saw you, would help you at the drop of a hat. Just a very nice person. Well one night I'm asleep with my girlfriend at the time and I get woken up at 2:30 in the morning to massive gun fire. Not just gun fire full blown full auto gun fire!!! At first I grabbed my girlfriend and pulled her off the bed to the floor and moved to a safer location in the house. I made my way to a safe viewing area where in front of my house stood my neighbor being shot ( 28 rounds total ) to the chest and head. Now before I could grab a gun the shooter hopped in his getaway car and was gone. And there layed my neighbor facedown in the road bleeding to death while his family screamed from the porch! Now after the fact we learned that the shooter had a mistaken identity and killed the wrong person. It also came out he used a full auto ak47. Now I happen to own a semi auto ak47. I have nothing against them. He purchased the gun illegally out of Baltimore. Maryland also happens to have one of the strictest gun laws in the nation next to California and New York.

Anyway my point is what if by chance that shooter saw me and wanted to kill me because I saw it happen. That taser would not have done squat for me. I may have died trying to defend myself but at least a gun would have made a better chance! A month after I turned 21 I got my ccw permit and I have carried everyday since! You never know when something is going to happen. I now have a wife and 19 month old boy that I will do anything necessary to protect!!!

I do not blame the gun or guns for crimes no more than blaming a car for a DUI accident! That is obserd. Bad people no matter what will do what they set out to do. They are criminals for a reason!

So that's my story and maybe someone can learn or just be aware from it.
 
Here's a good read:

http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2007/...aser-shots-to-subdue-naked-man/#axzz2NQuUw9Ud

Your "tasers should replace handguns" argument is a poor one. This guy was pepper sprayed, and tasered three times before he went down. There's actually a video of part of it online, though I didn't link it because, well, the guy is truly naked. Alcohol can have a similar effect. If it's me against a PCP (or whatever chemical he is on) person, I want to know I have the ability to get out of the situation. Your three shot taser simply doesn't give me that assurance.

Part of the problem is the media telling us that the mythical "one shot stop" happens all the time. Does it happen? Sometimes. But most of the time, you need at least several shots to stop an attacker. Now, multiply that by the number of people you have attacking you, throw in a conservative miss rate of 50%, and you can see why even a so-called "high capacity" (the term should be standard capacity, when it was designed for the gun) might not even seem like enough.

As a father and a husband, I have a responsibility to protect my family from many unknown threats. A gun allows me to do that effectively. A gun allows my wife to protect herself against someone might want to assault her. There's a saying, "God made men, Samuel Colt made them equal." It is the only tool that can effectively allow anybody to protect themselves from anybody else.

Let's also take a look at where most violent "gun" crime is located. (I put gun in quotes because it's not the tool that is violent, it is the person using that tool. We should lump all violent crime together, but unfortunately, the MSM, Brady campaign and others think there's a difference between someone being shot to death, and stabbed or beat to death.) It's almost completely centralized in areas that have the most restrictive gun laws. You mentioned that prohibition failed because we couldn't enforce it. What makes you think that a total gun ban would be enforceable? Some law abiding citizens will give up their guns, because they are law abiding. Some previous law abiding gun owners will make the decision to become criminals under the new law, but they aren't a threat...they primarily do it to protect themselves and family against other criminals and tyranny. Lastly, we have the criminals, who most assuredly will not give up the guns they have. And will continue to use those guns for the purposes of evil.

You might say, well, the supply will eventually dry up. And for the most part, eventually, it will. BUT, then we have the situation like we have in the UK now that has almost FOUR TIMES the violent crime rate that the US has. The US has a higher murder rate, but that's also mostly centralized in the areas with the highest amount of gun control. Why is the UK's violent crime rate so high? People have no measure of protecting themselves, and the criminals know it. In the US, you don't know who is carrying or who is not. So violent crime, in general is fairly low.

Lastly, you mentioned that rifles and handguns are no threat to tanks, and bombers, etc. Tell that to the Viet Cong. Tell that to Taliban insurgents. You also have to realize that the even the threat of an armed revolt (I am in no way shape or form advising this course of action, merely stating facts) is enough to prevent certain types of actions by the government. Do you know why Hitler never invaded Switzerland? It wasn't because they were neutral...it's because he knew almost every citizen was armed. Although the Yamamoto "blade of grass" quote is most likely bogus, it's still reasonable to assume that the Japanese didn't invade the US in a ground war (beyond an island in Alaska) because they knew they'd be fighting both the military, and the militia (what the founding fathers knew to be able bodied men with rifles...nothing organized beyond that).

The need of a gun isn't the point. There are many things we don't need, that we are allowed to have...even dangerous things (Bugatti Veyron, for example?). We have the right to own it. The Constitution gives us this right. SCOTUS affirmed this right. If you choose not to exercise this right, that is also your right. I, on the other hand, choose to exercise this right.
 
I'm going to look pretty silly hunting deer with a laser. Or shooting a pistol match with one.
Your whole premise is flawed. The genie is out of the bottle, 300,000,000 guns in this country.
Most important above all else, there's that little pesky matter of the constitution. You know the one I'm talking about, right?

I suggest you find a gun club near you, go watch a cowboy action match or a steel plate match. Look at the people who are involved in the shooting sports.
These are regular people from all walks of life.

You'd be surprised, you might actually like shooting. Some of the best people I know are avid shooters. WE ARE NOT THE ''BOOGIE MAN''.
 
Why do I need a gun? Maybe a better question is why do we need the 2nd amendment? I think the answer lies not only in the founding father's intent to provide security against tyrannical rulers who would subjugate the people but to protect the sanctity of the remaining bill of rights.

As a matter of discourse it is always brought up that given the small arms that are available to us civilians how can we possibly imagine a victory over a government using tanks and drones. Well I'll tell you.

While under occupation by the Nazis my relatives suffered greatly. They died by starvation, by bomb and by bullet. But they didn't surrender. They used small arms and whatever they could to kill their oppressor. They blew up bridges and trains. Their children using sleds helped move millions of dollars of Norwegian gold over the mountains past Nazi guards. It is the availability of firearms which gave these people a chance to survive the horrific invasion. And how many times has this been repeated in the past?

Whether it is an invading force or your own government trying to oppress you, firearms may not give you final victory. But I'd rather stand on my feet and fight rather than on my knees in surrender.
 
First off Nogun, I applaud you for coming into a gun forum and having a rational debate for your side instead of just assuming we are all crazy.

The first thing i would like to address is the "civilian weapons vs. Military arsenal" argument. First off as a current member of the military on a CONUS base I can assure you that many people wouldn't even consider fighting the local town. The first reason being that a large portion are a PART of the local town. I don't think i'm prepared to start taking out people who have become my family and friends. Secondly, the purported idea that we would be fighting tanks, armored aircraft etc. etc. The resources you need just to position a tank somewhere is monumental and i guarantee they aren't everywhere and even if you were facing a tank, it's more likely you could just get away from it down an alley or through a house. Lastly, as a member of the US Military I took an oath to support and defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Many more people that I serve with feel very strongly about that and wouldn't follow orders that go against that oath.

Next, I would like to give my viewpoint as one of the younger generation on this site as i'm 23. I have never had to face at gunpoint anybody, nor have I been robbed or threatened with physical violence to that extreme. However, I know that if the situation were to occur, I would need to put up as strong a front as a could, I have no personal self defense history or any crazy knowledge about how to protect myself. But, I do know that if their is even a modicum of rational thought left behind in the Bad Guy(BG), then looking down the chamber of a gun will get their attention. Less so with a taser. Also from conversations with police officers(and this may be outdated) I know that they are only stunned while the voltage is going through them, hardly a permanent solution. I understand the thought that a gun ban will keep you safer. That with less weapons around will be a lower risk that they will "fall into the wrong hands" but the reality is it's not about the tool, it's about the user, what we need isn't a ban on weapons or even a restriction, but an emphasis on training and personal responsibility.
 
Dancing on the double edge

Did those students at Kent State really need to protest their government?
A simple petition or letter to Nixon would have surely been less confrontational.
Lucky for them their benevolent government was there to keep everyone safe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top