Do you Really Need a Gun?

[alex0535]

So other than home defense, shooting is just plain fun, anything from a hobby to a variety of shooting sports. Hunting puts meat on the table. It is a constitutional right, rights that are not exercised are hardly rights at all.

On the topic of home defense. An air taser won't keep a large guy or 5 down for very long, certainly not long enough for the police to show up. Mace inside of a home is going to affect everyone in the home.

I know that shooting someone seems violent. But when someone takes a violent step towards harming me by kicking into my house. They get whatever they meet on the other side of that door. Whether that is a shotgun, or cracking their skull with baseball bat.

This kind of stuff happens, even to people that do not go out looking for trouble. A few years ago near a college campus, there was a party next door and there had been a confrontation. Some yelling, and these guys got in their truck and peeled off. Fast forward a few hours and it is 5am. These guys come back and kick in our front door. I was in the living room at the time and went around through the kitchen and just started screaming at 5 guys that had just kicked in our front door. After making it very clear that they had broken into the wrong house and a lot of explicative phrases they looked around and realized what I was saying and backed out the way they came.

They were lucky that I didn't have a gun in reach because there would have been a lot more shooting and a lot less yelling, but there was a shotgun and a pit bull upstairs so I just made as much noise as I could. If someone kicks their way into your home with the intention of hurting those inside, and these people seemed to have that in mind. They get whatever comes to them, their threatening actions make their lives cease to have any value inside my home.

When you find yourself unarmed with 5 intoxicated large men in your doorway. You won't be wanting an air taser, you want a 12 gauge shotgun. Whether you shoot them is up to you, the racking of a shotgun is a universally recognized bad sound to hear if you are somewhere you are not supposed to be and will probably back them out, but if they are persistent it will neutralize a threat against your life.

 

[NoGun]

Wow! I did not anticipate the number of responses. I would like to respond to all of them as they each made very good points. However I will lump them together instead of replying to each separately, if that is all right? I am not sure of the usual custom here in regards to replies.

I will quote your name when responding to your arguments.

Grizzly223 and AH.74,

Posted by Grizzly223,
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.

Posted by AH.74,
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 understand that I am only "some guy on the internet." Maybe my colleague who is a member here can vouche for me. Anyway, I am an economist, amongst other hats that I wear and I work for several humanitarian organizations. So I have been in a few "hairy" situations. In regards to the U.S., I will freely admit to never being mugged, attacked or having my home burglarized. However, abroad, I have been robbed, at gunpoint and machete point, beaten, shot at and held against my will.

In most of these situations I don't believe a gun or even a taser in my hands would have done me or my group any good (I am NOT saying there is never a situation where guns can do good). On the flipside, good guys with guns probably saved my life at least once and definitely rescued us from molestation. In the spirit complete honesty, I've been protected by U.N. forces, various police/military and even private security while abroad. And I was very glad they were armed.

The difference in here versus there, is that these were unstable countries and the criminals (so to speak) were either military or paramilitary organizations. Because of the proliferation of guns here in the U.S., a person almost does have to be armed with a gun to go toe to toe with criminals. However, we have a stable government that could change that. If guns could be rendered prohibitively hard to obtain or use, then they would go the way of hand grenades and machine guns, their use in crime would be a statistical anomaly. And there are some very viable ways we could make that happen.

Posted by Grizzly223,
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.

Thank you for your public service A gun, also does not work all the time so I hear.

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 admit that a taser is not ideal against a group of antagonists. However this same group is really no easier to subdue with a handgun. And a gunshot wound has been known to just "make people angrier" as well.

I will concede that guns trump the "intimidation factor." I remember that some of our Food Aid convoy escorts would load empty magazines(?) into their mounted machine guns and swivel them around to scare off problem groups. I will consider that point as it is a good one.

 

[spacemanspiff]

NoGun, based on your advocacy of less-lethal forms of self defense, do you have more than anectdotal evidence that such is better than lethal forms?

Do you have examples you can share of how you have first hand used less-lethal means to defend yourself?

If you have never had the opportunity to discourage someone with intent on harming you, with whatever means you choose, how can you really say that our choices are worse than yours?

My reason for feeling I 'need' a semi-auto firearm for defensive purposes is simple. My state has clearly defined laws outlining when lethal force is justifiable in defense of life. These laws were written by those who understand there are circumstances where fellow humans will try to do bad on others. Personally, I have respect for life, and I value mine, that of my loved ones, and even the life of a stranger highly enough that if anyone seeks to endanger those forementioned lives, this peaceable man is willing to do whatever it takes in defense of life.

 

[NoGun]

Response to 4runnerman, WeedWacker, Whippoorwill and 2damnold4this

Posted by 4runnerman,
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.

I didn't think guns' primary purpose was up for debate.. Just because a tool can be used for something else does not change its primary purpose. I can use my riding lawnmower (if I had one) for trips to the mall, but that doesn't change the fact that it's primary purpose is to cut grass.

Posted by 4runnerman,
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.

I value my life and family's life as well. My daughter owns a taser and we went to a class together to learn how to use it.

Posted by WeedWacker,
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.

I think your cynical side answered your first question.

While it's true that you can make anything you wanted in theory, practical application is much more of a stretch. For an example, it's pretty easy to make a toxic gas, but to weaponize it and deploy it without killing yourself in the process is a whole other matter.

Posted by 2damnold4this,
I'm not sure on what the claim for Taser effectiveness is based.

Here is a study that puts tasers at 85% stop effectiveness: http://www.google.com/url?url=http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dhttps://cvpcs.asu.edu/sites/default/files/content/projects/PQ%252520article.pdf%26sa%3DX%26scisig%3DAAGBfm2DyxionF-L_TPRTCLmpsPyiCsdsA%26oi%3Dscholarr&rct=j&sa=X&ei=7KVAUeCQL8f8qwHpoICYDQ&ved=0CCwQgAMoADAA&q=taser+effectiveness+study&usg=AFQjCNHLIKqUDodR9YNGP2hT7Ydwc0VauA Some studies put it higher. Also, civilians can get tasers that fire up to three shots.

 

[BerdanSS]

I admit that a taser is not ideal against a group of antagonists. However this same group is really no easier to subdue with a handgun. And a gunshot wound has been known to just "make people angrier" as well.

really?

If I'm surrounded by a group of thugs, intent on killing me, raping then killing my wife and taking our valuables. My weapon I chose to carry will most defiantly be 100% better than a taser.

Think about what your saying.

When being confronted by a violent individual(s), the thought of being zapped with a taser, then recovering while their (now really angry) friends beat/stab you to death is much better to them than the though of, he's got a gun and can (will) at any second here kill me to protect himself and wife that we are attacking...or maybe he'll kill my buddy to my left.....or my buddy to my right, or kill me then kill two more of my buddys before we can stab him or grab his wife. That right there can end a conflict with NO ONE dying. A taser? that will get laughed at and you will get a front row seat to the death of your loved ones then yourself.

Have you ever experienced an event like that? Maybe just one person instead of a group? I have FOUR times in my life. Twice with just me and my wife, once with my wife while carrying my 18 month old son across a parking lot (in the MIDDLE OF THE DAY). And once in a CVS at the check out, with a clerk there, right in front of a security camera. BAD people DON"T CARE.

 

[AZAK]

AZAK posted:

“[We] should not blame a gun itself for any crime or any acts of violence, any more than we can blame a pen for misspelling a word.” - Senator Wallace F. Bennett (R-UT), Congressional Record, 5/16/68

Perhaps rereading the last quote may help you to understand.

It is always the person. Not the tool. A gal of gasoline and a box of matches can be very dangerous in the hands of someone with "bad intentions".

NoGun replied:

I wholeheartedly agree with that quote.Dynamite is a tool too, but last I checked I can't just buy some to blast stumps in my back yard... The risk of misuse, is not worth the benefits of allowing its free sale. The same I think, is something we are coming to in regard to firearms.

"wholeheartedly agree"
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya
"but"
An acronym: Behold the Underlying Truth
"The risk of misuse, is not worth the benefits of allowing its free sale."
A reoccurring theme in your argument; an agenda.

A short story:
A university professor went to visit a famous Zen master. While the master quietly served tea, the professor talked about Zen. The master poured the visitor's cup to the brim, and then kept pouring. The professor watched the overflowing cup until he could no longer restrain himself. "It's overfull! No more will go in!" the professor blurted. "You are like this cup," the master replied, "How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup."

 

[Vurtle]

Nogun,

The Bill of Rights is clearly stated. Regardless of opinion (which I think yours is wrong), you cannot dispute the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No matter what any persons opinion is, you cannot change these rules. Anyone who attempts to undermine the Bill of Rights is a domestic terrorist. Everyone is free to an opinion, but those who create or support laws that are against the Constitution should be removed from their elected positions and charged with tyranny.

Your posts resemble other trolls who have visited other forums.

 

[NoGun]

MLeake

Mr. Leake,

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

Thank you for not being the stereotypical "gun nut," spouting conspiracy theories or chest pounding my reasoning away. It's eye-opening

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?

Good solid reasoning and you're open to acknowledge the weak points of your argument. I like it, I shall enjoy parrying ideas with you.

One could say that Police Officers have guns because the criminals do and in a gun versus taser scenario the taser comes up short in several aspects. But if guns were made to be prohibitively hard to obtain or use than (which could be done fairly easily) then their significance in crime would drop to nearly nil. Thus, there would be no need for civilians to carry them. Also, there are drawbacks to guns as well.

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).

Some guns also do not have much capacity, not all calibers will penetrate heavy clothing effectively. A rather small bullet needs to hit some rather small area(s) in order to ensure a "stop." People on drugs or with mental problems will be more likely to respond to a taser than pain caused by gunshot wounds, etc.

And while non-lethal weapons can cause death, you have to admit that it is the exception, not the norm. I think you will agree that your chances of surviving being "tasered" is so much infinitely greater than surviving being shot, that the comparison doesn't warrant discussion.

As far as states banning forms of non-lethal self defense, I'm aware of it, and I think it's the height of ignorance and silliness.

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.

On the matter of civil unrest, either a) the military does not support the government, in which case gun ownership is a mute point, or b) the military fully or partially supports the government, in which case you will be branded a terrorist and you are a mute point.

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?

I'm not, in fact I don't think it's the government's place to tell anyone what they need or want. But they can and do tell you what you can't have. I might think I need to snort cocaine, but the DEA will tell me otherwise. The government, whether we like it or not, is now in the business of public safety. They tell us what to buy in the form of regulating companies. The FDA and other departments tells us what drugs we can buy, what safety features we need to have on our cars, what kind of light bulbs we use, etc., etc..

 

[Spats McGee]

When I wrote my post earlier, I realized that I could have gone on for quite some time. Time of which I am woefully short these days. Nonetheless, I'm back to make a few points:

1) Initial design -- NoGun, a few times in this thread, you have mentioned that "guns were designed for killing." My query: Even if you are correct in that, how much difference does the initial designer's intention really matter? If dynamite were designed for the purpose of destroying large sections of rock, say to make railroad tunnels, would that mean that I should be able to buy dynamite down at the 7-11? If not, then why would a firearms "design purpose" factor into this equation?

2) In a fairly recent post, you said:

In most of these situations I don't believe a gun or even a taser in my hands would have done me or my group any good (I am NOT saying there is never a situation where guns can do good). On the flipside, good guys with guns probably saved my life at least once and definitely rescued us from molestation. In the spirit complete honesty, I've been protected by U.N. forces, various police/military and even private security while abroad. And I was very glad they were armed.

(Emphasis supplied by Spats)

Why were you glad? If Tasers were the answer, should you not have been worried that the UN forces had firearms instead of Tasers? Those soldiers carried guns, because those are the most appropriate and effective tools for the job.

Your post highlights one of the things that really sticks in many gun owners' craws: elitism. There is a very strong push right now to limit access to firearms, and that push is coming from people who are surrounded by armed guards. If guns are such a bad idea, why do the rich and famous surround themselves with men with guns? Why is it OK for their security squads to carry firearms, but not OK for a single mother who can only afford an apartment in a questionable neighborhood? As gov't ramps up the requirements (education, training, licensing, etc.) to exercise the RKBA, that right gets further and further out of reach of the poor.

The difference in here versus there, is that these were unstable countries and the criminals (so to speak) were either military or paramilitary organizations. Because of the proliferation of guns here in the U.S., a person almost does have to be armed with a gun to go toe to toe with criminals. However, we have a stable government that could change that. If guns could be rendered prohibitively hard to obtain or use, then they would go the way of hand grenades and machine guns, their use in crime would be a statistical anomaly. And there are some very viable ways we could make that happen.

(Emphasis supplied by Spats)
Our "stable government that could change that" . . . Have you looked at the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports? Some of the highest per capita murder rates are in Chicago, NY and DC. Many of us do not think that it is an anomaly that those cities have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.

The post quoted immediately above and here:

But if guns were made to be prohibitively hard to obtain or use than (which could be done fairly easily) then their significance in crime would drop to nearly nil. Thus, there would be no need for civilians to carry them. Also, there are drawbacks to guns as well.

also point out one other fly in the ointment. Even if we assume, but only arguendo, that making guns prohibitively expensive or hard to obtain would drive down "gun crime," the first people to be affected will be law-abiding citizens who purchase their firearms through legal channels. Criminals who steal guns do not have a "reserve price" which they must get back when they sell a gun. If Mikey Meth steals a Glock, he can sell it for $100. IOW, making guns more expensive only makes them more expensive for law-abiding citizens, and the long-term effect is to turn those folks into defenseless victims first. Criminals and violent felons will remain unaffected. Further, even if we make the above assumption, does that really improve matters? Is it really any better to be beaten to death with a crowbar than shot with a gun? Is the gun really the problem?

As for whether making guns hard to use, I have my doubts as to whether this could be done fairly easily, and I don't think it's a good idea.

 

[BerdanSS]

But if guns were made to be prohibitively hard to obtain or use than (which could be done fairly easily) then their significance in crime would drop to nearly nil. Thus, there would be no need for civilians to carry them.

what in the........wow


Also,
I get the feeling that you do not really understand what a taser is, or what it's primarily used for. I'd want to understand that before touting them as better than a firearm for the situations we're talking about here. Which is what your doing.

 

[globemaster3]

Nogun, as has been said several times, I'd like to reiterate my appreciation for your candor in this discussion. It is really refreshing to see someone willing to openly debate a point without employing the tactics so common in todays discussions.

We've made some good points along numerous lines, some which you mentioned you would meditate on.

I'm going to come at you from another perspective.

You believe that if we remove semi-automatic weapons from the landscape, that will make our world safer.

I disagree. Our world would be just as unsafe, and people would still be killed in senseless ways. It's not the weapons that cause our world to be unsafe. It's the people.

The same week as Sandy Hook, a Chinese man walked into a school and stabbed over 20 children. No gun was used.

People have driven their cars into groups of innocents, killing and maming countless people. No guns were used.

A woman stands on trial today for brutally killing her boyfriend by stabbing him multiple times and slashing his throat.

A disenfranchised American packed a Ryder truck full of fertilizer and diesel fuel and blew up an office building, killing not only adults, but the children in the daycare located on the first floor.

Based on your position, you feel that if there were laws which took away semi-automatic weapons, less people will die. They won't. People will still die.

The last semi-automatic and magazine ban did nothing to reduce the total amount of people killed. The results speak for themselves that the legislation targeted in this manner will not solve the problem.

There were laws in CT whereby the Sandy Hook shooter should not have been able to get a gun! It didn't matter. He broke the law and savagely performed his atrocity. It's already illegal to kill people, perform straw purchases, and have guns in gun free zones. However, these laws have done nothing to prevent criminals from wreaking havoc.

Now, I am not a nihlist. Are there things that could be done to improve the process? Sure! Lets begin with enforcing the laws we have, beginning with prosecuting those attempting to illegally purchase weapons who are thwarted by the NICS check. Last reported, most who make the attempt and are denied walk away. During the last debates I heard on TV, something like thousands/year and 20 are prosecuted. Lets also see some arrests and people held accountable for the "Fast and Furious" debacle that let loose 1,000s of firearms into the hands of criminals by our current administration.

How about making the family a priority in American culture again? How many of these criminals come from broken homes that lacked a good father figure? 42% of American children are born in homes without fathers. Was there this much chaos in the 50's when the percentage was in single digits?

How about mental health reform?

Bottom line, the only people impacted by any proposed semi-auto ban would be the law-abiding.

Your argument that the 2nd Amendment was written for a different time. That argument alone is a slippery slope!

Our rights are not granted by the bill of rights. They are guaranteed. We were endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written to limit the power of government, not the people. We are also governed by law, which also guarantees due process and proper punishment for law breakers, and in certain cases will result in a loss of rights. But as a baseline, our rights are unalienable!

The gun community has already compromised in the interest of the public on several fronts. Background checks, Class III categorization and restrictions, waiting periods, etc. How much more compromising must we endure before we lose the right entirely? As has been mentioned before, to change an ammendment is a daunting task. To pass laws that should restrict the ammendment, much easier. But it should not be! "...shall not be infringed." has meaning! All of this is gone in the interest of compromise, and yet, people are still dying and it is clear where this vector is going.

If this were truly about saving lives, we'd see the top life taking issues tackled. They are not, as you mentioned! Cars, smoking, obesity, all take more lives than guns. Why do we have cars that will go over the speed limit? Why are sports cars street legal? Why do motorbikes top out over 100 mph? You dismissed previous arguments as apple/orange comparisons, but its not when you consider what the root cause of the argument is supposed to be: making us safer. If that were truly the motivation, why are we not seeing attempts in other areas?

But honestly, I don't want to see attempts in other areas! I appreciate my freedom! I hate restrictions placed on my rights. We fought too many battles to win our freedom and today see those freedoms supplanted by big government implementing a nanny state.

 

[Father Time]

But if guns were made to be prohibitively hard to obtain or use than (which could be done fairly easily) then their significance in crime would drop to nearly nil

This right here is simply impossible....

Even with a total ban on illegal drugs people still easily buy them on the black market.
That is just the way the real world works.
It would be the same for guns.


And as for:

People on drugs or with mental problems will be more likely to respond to a taser than pain caused by gunshot wounds

That statment is also untrue. People that are high or mentaly unstable are going to be LESS effected by a tazer than a firearm. A tazer uses pain to force compliance. There have been MANY cases of people simply ignoring the pain and continueing the attack. And as soon as the charge stops flowing the criminal can resume the attack. (also keep in mind that civilian tazers are not as powerful as police issue tazers)
A firearm CAN use pain to force compliance but can also use physics to make it impossible.
You cannot move on/stand on a shattered leg bone. You cannot attack if your blood pressure drops below a certain level, you cannot attack of your central nervouse system has been disrupted.

Guns are continued to be used because of one glairing reason. They are the single most effective and efficient means of self defence on the planet.

 

[NoGun]

Specs and Themalicious0ne.

Specs wrote,
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 agree that non-lethal devices will not always be a viable alternative when faced with lethal weapons and will place you at a disadvantage. This is food for thought. Thank you.

Specs wrote,
I submit that I must be as well equipped as possible to protect myself against violent attackers equally well.

Well that is a slightly slippery slope as I pointed out earlier. We agree that criminals will not follow the law, correct? Therefore if they use grenade launchers I should be allowed to use them too?

About Vice President Biden, he is politicking. What he says doesn't matter any more than campaign promises these days, as long as it drives whatever political agenda he supports. It's easy to see the "divide and conquer" strategy at work.

Themalicious0ne wrote,
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.

Against a gun, I could see the range limitations being a negative. But in other self defense scenarios I can't see needing to shoot further than 20 or so feet with a taser. There are trasers with three shots:http://shop.fortresstactical.com/TASER-X3-HD-s/179.htm. I was not aware of the static issue, I will look into it, guns themselves also have drawbacks too though.

Themalicious0ne wrote,
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.

Which would go to show how things have changed since then. We can't own "cannons" anymore.

 

[Father Time]

We can't own "cannons" anymore

Actually civilian ownership of cannons is legal. And there are some very dedicated collectors as well.


And a I would rather be armed with the following items than a tazer:

Bow and Arrow
Crossbow
Atlatl
Sling and rock
(all of these weapons could outrange a tazer)

And thats not even counting the melee weapons I would rather be armed with than a tazer.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The reality is that good guys, here in the U. S., have successfully used guns to defend themselves and families. Many of the reported stories of such can be read here, here, here (scroll down the page a bit) and here.

Would things have worked out well for those folks if they hadn't had guns? Who can say for sure. But it is clear that they were able to make good use of a gun to deal with a potentially very bad situation. I suspect that each of them is glad that he/she had a gun.

 

[Spats McGee]

Which would go to show how things have changed since then. We can't own "cannons" anymore.

I didn't think the question was, "What can we own?" I thought the question was, "What do we need?" or "What should we be able to own?" That is a different question.

Against a gun, I could see the range limitations being a negative. But in other self defense scenarios I can't see needing to shoot further than 20 or so feet with a taser. There are trasers with three shots:http://shop.fortresstactical.com/TASER-X3-HD-s/179.htm. I was not aware of the static issue, I will look into it, guns themselves also have drawbacks too though.

Remember the statements I made about putting the RKBA out of the reach of the poor? From your link: Our Price: $1,099.00.

As regards the 20 feet or so, I don't have a link, but if you'll run a search here on TFL, you'll find references and links to a study. I don't recall who did it, but the long and short of it was that someone studied whether officers could draw and fire before an attacker could close the distance between them. IIRC (no guarantees there), the average seemed to be that, if the attacker was any closer than 21 feet, the officer was unable to draw and fire before the attacker got to him. You may not see a need to fire beyond 20 feet, but if your weapon isn't drawn by then, you may be too late.

 

[Father Time]

The reality is that good guys, here in the U. S., have successfully used guns to defend themselves and families.

And lets not forget that in the vast majority of cases where people use a gun to defend themselfs, no shots are fired!!!

Most of the time the bad guy simply runs away when they see that their "victim" is armed.

 

[dakota.potts]

You can own cannons, mortars, and rocket launches sans the explosive rounds (and even those with the right licensing).

Regardless, I hope you (NoGun) can understand and help uphold our right to bear arms just as we uphold your right to say that you don't think it should exist. If you wanted to print it in a newspaper or say it on live TV you would be protected and while we would disagree, nobody would say that you should not be allowed to do that. On the same hand, the text clearly states that gun laws shall not be infringed upon. Reducing ownership by even one item would be infringement. Not total destruction, as you and I both understand, but simple infringement is unconstitutional.

We can debate "need" all you want and we're happy to do so as long as all can acknowledge the right.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Looking at things from another perspective, guns are one useful and effective means of self defense and an appropriate choice for some people. Essentially, it's a matter of supporting one's right to choose what means he/she wishes to use for defense of self and family against a potentially lethal attack.

There may be other useful defensive strategies, from hardening one's home to practiced situational awareness and avoidance. But there is always the possibility that all else will fail leaving one with the last option -- a gun, if he/she has it.

You might notice that under current common police procedures, lethal lethal munitions (e. g., pepper spray, tasers, shotguns firing bean bags, etc.) are generally deployed with a group of officers present, at least some of whom are in a position to immediately resort to lethal force should the less lethal option fail.

 

[Spats McGee]

I have many, many concerns about basing rights on what one might need. (I must, as I keep coming back to this thread . . . )

I've been told, "you don't need X." How does the speaker know? Generally, the speaker rolls through some statistics that show A, B, and C. The problem is that even if those statistics are 100% accurate, there's no way to know if my situation will be the one that really does require deadly force to defend myself. To claim that I "don't need" a particular firearm is based on said statistics is merely to speculate that I won't need it. My crystal ball hasn't worked for a while. It is no more speculative to say "I might need a pistol today," than it is to say "you don't need a pistol."

The attacker often has the advantage of planning, too. While there are cases of spur-of-the-moment attacks, road rage, and the like, in cases of burglary, robbery, home invasion, etc., it is the Bad Guy that has the advantage of planning the attack, of choosing the time, the place, and the weapon. I cannot plan for every possible contingency, but I plan for the ones I can. A gun is a little like a fire extinguisher or an insurance policy. You sincerely hope you never, ever need it. If you do need it, though, there's really no substitute.