Do you Really Need a Gun?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you aware, NoGun, that firearms restrictions were an important tool of Jim Crow? Any person is more easily oppressed when they cannot effectively defend themselves, whether the oppressor is a government, a mob, a street gang, or an individual of bad intentions.

Firearms are used to take the life of another between 12 and 13 thousand times a year in the US. The most avid gun control groups claim that defensive uses of firearms occur "only" around 65 thousand times a year, around 5 times as often as they are used for a homicide. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that householders use a firearm to defend against an identified home intruder - a rather narrow definition of self defense - around a half a million times a year, or 40 times as often as they are used for a homicide. Papers published in peer-reviewed journals of criminology estimate defensive uses of firearms to number as high as 2 to 2.5 million a year, or 200 times as common as firearms-related homicides.

In answer to your question, "Why do you need a gun?" I have to answer, "Why should I, or any person willing to responsibly own and use firearms, give up such an effective means of defending myself and my family?"
 
Are you aware, NoGun, that firearms restrictions were an important tool of Jim Crow?
Click to expand...

This is true. Some of the first significant gun laws in the country were adopted after the Civil War to keep guns out of the hands of the newly freed slaves.

And today, look at what demographic typically has the highest gun control laws placed on them. Minorities in the inner cities. Taxes on guns/ammo affect the poor, not the rich. Prior to the Shall Issue CCW permit movement in the late 80's, the method of obtaining a permit was based wholly on who you were and who you knew. It would be ignorant to say that this type of power was never used to keep guns out of the hands of a certain race or demographic. The history of the gun control movement is rooted in racism. I wouldn't go so far to say anti-gunners are racist...that's quite a stretch. But for the most part, the rules they wish to implement affect poor minorities at an disproportional rate.

And by banning guns, you just created a society where only two groups are armed: Criminals, and the Government. And now both of these groups can do what they please to the law abiding citizen with little fear of resistance.
 
Holy! What have you guys been doing to my friend? He's researching cannons and asked me if Spats McGee was a lawyer! :eek: Five pages! You bullies! :D

I haven't read further than the first post so I don't know how this is going, but maybe I can shed some light on where "NoGun" is coming from (with a screen-name like that! :eek:). I apologize if I've let a wolf into the sheepfold (or lamb into the wolves den..).

I'll respect his anonymity unless he chooses to out himself. He's an economist and lawyer specializing in international law. Currently heads up numerous humanitarian efforts/missions, which is how we met. More importantly to us, is the fact that in the past he was a major player in a U.N. program that disarmed various insurgent or paramilitary groups in Africa. So he's sledgehammered more Soviet Bloc weapons than this forum probably owns (;)).

He also writes things that end up desks that belong to people like President Obama (not gun related, put down the pitchforks and torches slowly..). In general he's a pretty nice guy and open-minded. Needless to say, it would be a real feather in our cap if we could turn him from the dark side. :D
 
Last edited:
Tickling, I've been monitoring this thread pretty closely, as it certainly had the potential to turn ugly . . . fast. I'd say that we've been perfectly civil with NoGun, as he has with us.
 
It is simple: the nonlethal options do not always work in time to prevent maiming or death. Furthermore, lethal force must be met with lethal force. This is as much for psychological reasons as for physical reasons.
 
Tickling, I've been monitoring this thread pretty closely, as it certainly had the potential to turn ugly . . . fast. I'd say that we've been perfectly civil with NoGun, as he has with us.
Click to expand...

I had no doubt that would be the case, we have good people here. Great exchange of ideas over all.

And all jesting from my previous post aside, I'm truly proud to be an American when we can have discussions like this.
 
To answer your question, we must first decide what a need really is. Generally we think of a need as something that sustains our life, but modern times in America have thrown clothes, housing, running water, and even electricity into the category of necessities. Do we really need those things? If we are honest with ourselves, the answer is no.

On the contrary, needs do not have to be permanent. In most cases, they are quite temporary. You only need food and water for sustenance while you are hungry or thirsty. However, you would never want to go find food in an inconvenient place every single time you must eat, right?

Given this logic, I do not always need my firearm, but it would be incredibly inconvenient if the time were ever to come when my life is threatened and I do not have it close. Why should I have to wait for my needs when my need for it is immediate? Why should I have to rely on someone else to provide for me (cops) in my time of need?

Now, you can say that food never killed anyone, but guns have. Now, health issues aside, I would agree with you. However, has food ever saved anyone? I know a whole lot of guns have saved a whole lot of lives, but I don't recall many, if any, situations where food has saved a person's life from being threatened or even taken by another.

On to the perceived dangers of firearms. Firstly, statistics that claim people who own guns are several times more likely to be killed with a gun are completely ridiculous. This a matter-of-fact statistic, but it is no better than saying that car owners are several times more likely to die in car accident. These statistics likely also take into account suicides which, in my extremely controversial opinion, is absolutely irrelevant. Guns don't possess people to make them kill themselves, so saying that one of the dangers of guns is suicidal tendencies is pretty crazy. That statement would not be incredibly unlike saying that the presence of alcohol is conducive to alcoholism.

Lastly, I must turn your question towards you. Why should we ban or heavily regulate guns of any sort? The argument that the perceived cons outweigh the pros is deeply flawed. Ask the people on this forum how many people they have murdered with their guns. The minority does not dictate the actions of the majority, and the majority should never bear the judgement of the minority. My guns, like most people who do not own solely for sport or collection purposes, save lives; they do not take them in cold blood.
 
In the Army, I was taught that less-lethal options were for crowd control and forcing compliance from a non-lethal warranting threat. In essence, tasers, OC, and bean bag rounds were to be used only when me or my squad wasn't under direct threat.

If the Army applies that logic to less-lethal weapon, where I was operating with atleast eight guys in support, I can't see how the taser is a passable tool in a life threatening situation when I'm alone.
 
I think it is safe to assume that the OP has made his agenda clear - he is trying to answer his own, personal questions. I will be pleasantly surprised if he ends up on our side of the argument, but will give him the benefit of the doubt that he is at least willing to consider it.

Meanwhile, others have raised points that I would have, such as the millions of guns already in circulation; the inefficacy (and worse) of prohibition (alcohol, drugs, etc); the racial and economic discrimination inherent in control laws; the relative numbers between homicides and lawful cases of self-defense; the things that kill more people than do guns (depending on age group, that could include vehicles, swimming pools, household chemicals, or medical malpractice, and other things, besides).

A point I have not seen raised is the relative infantilization of the public at the hands of big government. Big government can only grow by making more citizens dependent upon big government. This can be achieved via economic manipulation, marginalization of the concept of individual responsibilities and freedoms, etc. Gun control helps achieve this, by making individuals ever more dependent upon law enforcement to protect them.

The thing is, that dependence ALWAYS seems to lead to later, greater restrictions on individual liberties.
 
Here is a study that places a tasers stop efficiency at 85%, which is according to my limited research is better than a handguns stop ratio. If you have facts that refute this in any way please share.
Click to expand...
The study is actually a bit inconsistent in its definition of incapacitation. While suspects were "incapacitated" 84.7% of the time, the mean time to incapacitation was 8.23 seconds. In a self-defense situation, that amount of time is downright leisurely.

Oddly enough, the study indicates that 68.6% of suspects continued to resist after being tasered, so I'm not sure exactly how one would call that "incapacitiation."

In any case, we've got a small and specialized test group, so I'd be wary of applying those odds to civilian confrontations.

You've stimulated an interesting and lively conversation, NoGun. Thanks for being honest and open-minded (and brave!) in continuing it.
 
the constitution was framed in a different time
Click to expand...

Now, not working for the National Archives and having never seen the back of the Bill of Rights, I cannot definitively say that the founding fathers didn't put an expiration date on the first ten Amendments. But I have some reservations that "Best If Used Before 2013" is somewhere on that document.
 
Last edited:
Dear Mr. Nogun -you are wise indeed

you make many good points, you might even sway someone, somewhere.

I will say that, unfortunately, the theives are not here to read your ideals nor would they be persuated. If you outlaw guns, they will make them. (check out zip guns on youtube). Machine shops would crop up in homes and basements making bootlegging during prohibition look small. The technology is here to stay and evil as you may think it is, outlawing guns isn't going to make it go away.

If you tax the crap out of ammo, you motivate thiefs to work harder to make up the difference.

I am not looking to overthrow or fight my government, they have stealth bombers and drones. I am going to be better armed, educated and prepared from the thugs who might target my home and family.

If guns were outlawed, we would be on a knife forum discussing the need for it as we can now buy beef steak tips thus removing the need of a knife. Congress would be disussing whether to limit blades from 1/2 inch to 1/4 of an inch as that would peel an orange just fine. This is why we are stating that enough is enough. They have to stop nibbling at our Bill of Rights. This isn't a battle about GUN control in our minds. It is a battle of control.

It is hard to look at all the things from alcohol to football to vehicles that go 200 mph and wonder why guns are the target without thinking it is about controling people.

If you truly feel you can convert someone, please contact our politicians and ask them to remove those AR's from their body guards. Let them lead by example.

We don't feel have to prove we need something. We have a right to defend ourselves. Our Bill of Rights isn't outdated, it was meant to be timeless.

That to me means having as good or better than the crooks and theives.



And if I want to be a little more accurate based on today's data, I would say I want a magazine that holds 103 bullets. (this based on the LAPD hitting a truck with 102 bullets with 2 innocent people inside.)

Tell me again how I need not fear our government.
 
Last edited:
I like how the anti-AW argument has turned to "prove you need it before we will let you own it".
This makes it plain as day that one segment of society believes they are qualified to tell everyone else what they can or can not possess according to whether they believe the item is "Needed".

While I've never much cared for autoloading rifles to begin with, only one I own was a gift from a now deceased relative and has only sentimental value to me, I don't feel I have to justify to others why I'd want one if I chose to buy one.

Semi Auto rifles with detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds have been widely available since WW1, with a few like the semi version of the Colt Monitor being available earlier on than that.
Aside from a few years in the early 30's when Dillinger was on the loose, autoloaders were not that commonly used in criminal acts.
Even the Thompson SMG fell out of favor with organized crime figures before WW2.

As for school shootings , why none immediately after WW2 or the korean conflict when the M1 carbine was dirt cheap and 30 round clips cheap and plentiful?
School Shootings are not triggered by the legal possession of a semi auto weapon, no matter how big the magazine. They are triggered by lunatics pumping themselves up to a blood thirsty frenzy, and the modern lack of empathy for others along with the dismissal of the worth of human life.

Jeffery Daumer killed dozens with an electric drill. His explanation was that the theory of evolution convinced him that people were no better than animals or the slime he believed generated life.

People kill because they are divorced from their own humanity. When they kill they use whatever is at hand. If no gun is handy they use a iron pipe or a butcher knife, or throw gasoline on an unsuspecting person and set fire to them.
Hundreds have burned to death in night club fires and explosions set off by freaks.
The Biker gangs in Canada terrorized cities by planting dynamite in bars.
We've all seen the effects of fertilizer bombs in the US and homemade explosives in Spain and the UK where hundreds died.

Cars are used to transport people, they are also misused to transport massive car bombs.
Guns are used for Target shooting, Hunting, Self defense, Law Enforcement, and occasionally misused to commit crimes, just as are automobiles.

Bow and arrow were designed to kill, and are still used for hunting as well as target shooting and bow fishing. Occasionally a bow or crossbow is used to commit murder.
Knives were first made by ancient man to finish off game animals and for close quarter fighting. Also as a tool to fashion better weapons.
Knives are still used for self defense as well as kitchen duties. Occasionally a knife is used to commit murder.

Why should anyone have to prove that they need an automobile, a bow and arrow, a ball bat, a hatchet, etc?
 
One small thing about the 2A and when it was written. The military used the common musket at the time. It was unrifled and was actually hard to hit anything past 60 yds or so. The militia on the other hand generally had hunting rifles which were more accurate and had much farther effective range. In other words the militia was better armed.
Just a little food for thought.
 
No-gun you are welcome at my camp-fire any time. If a need arises I will have the tools to address that need.;)

You represent a large group of the American people who are tired of the senseless violence that plagues our nation. You are an educated, intelligent man who has been around the block, and the world a few times and knows that violence is a symptom of a systemic problem. We have many problems in this country that allow a dangerous sub-culture to prosper and grow. As an economist you understand many of these issues far better than I do. What I understand is this: Taking guns away from law abiding citizens will not cure the disease, and will put more innocent people at risk.

You have said a couple of times that you believe the 2A was written for a different time and does not apply to the world of cruise missiles, nuclear weapons, and other weapons of modern warfare. The Founding Fathers understood human nature, and that has not changed. The nature of government is to grow and control; they knew it then and we know it now. An armed populous is necessary to the security of a free state. I believe that principle is as important today as it was then.
 
No Gun,

You stated in no certain terms you've been assaulted and feel having a gun at the time probably wouldn't have helped. I believe you also stated you were trained in using a Taser. Have you had thorough, high quality firearms training? I have a hunch that you advocate Tasers mainly due to the training you've had. I also have a strong hunch if you were well trained to use a firearm (and more importantly when NOT to use one), you would have a different viewpoint of our 2nd Amendment.

Welcome to TFL. After reading the extensive comments here and elsewhere, I hope you one day stand with us. The gun community by and large cement our beliefs based on facts, not hyperbole, and what the Founding Fathers intended. Although their intentions and the Constitution/Bill of Rights seem to be "dated", they knew exactly what our future held. The two glaring issues they were wrong on have since been corrected. Womens' suffrage and slave ownership isn't for this venue, unfortunately. Otherwise, I'd tell you why those two issues were destined to be overcome justly. I hope you come to understand it's different on all the other items in play.

Here's a site located in our TFL Library. You'll find a host of information that should keep your brain in high gear:

http://www.guncite.com/
 
Welcome to TFL NoGun, I know you can find some answers here, beyond the stereotypical responses. Always glad to have a conversation with an adult (as defined by their actions, not their age) no matter what points we may differ on.

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?
Click to expand...

An interesting question, one with several points to discuss. First, a basic answer, yes, I do still believe in the right to own modern firearms.

"False is the idea to take fire from man because it burns"

perhaps not a perfect quote, but it gets a point across. Another one, and I'm not even going to attempt the original Latin, is "Misuse does not invalidate use" or something close to that.

Those people who only see banning/making prohibitivly expensive as the solution are, sadly, living in a world of their own fantasies. The fact that you, I, or they have never had a "need" for a gun is immaterial, beyond the level of personal anecdotes. Useful to illustrate a point, but not the main underlying argument.

The basic premise being that for public safety, we must restrict what people "need" to own is the argument of the "ban the...." crowd. At the basest level, all people need to own is food and shelter. Nothing more is needed to sustain life. Deciding what people may own, above those basics is an arbitrary decision, and frankly one I don't believe anyone (govts included) has the moral right to make on my behalf. And I get particularly irked by those people who think they have that right, especially without any agreement on my part.

I believe this is one of the core concepts in the usage of the words Liberty, and Freedom.

I gladly live within a framework of laws and rules that allow society to function, but sadly, not everyone does the same.

You have brought up some good points about tasers, as have many others. Nothing is without its limitations. Sometimes, tasers don't work. Sometimes guns don't work. Sometimes nothing works. Every situation is an individual occurance, with a host of different variables. Tasers are fine for some situations. For other situations, only a gun will do. That's the main reason police carry both.

"Guns are designed to kill!" Ok. SO? That is one of the things that makes them so effective. AND it is the one thing that makes them effective without a shot being fired.

Most people really don't want to be shot. They believe (and rightly so) that there is a high risk of death from getting shot. This small "cowardly" fear of risk of death is a HUGE deterrent to those who intend evil to you.

BUT, this deterrent only works when criminals either know you are armed, or aren't certain. Note that no mass shootings by even the most deranged individuals have taken place at gun shows, gun shops, shooting ranges, or police stations in the US. (attacks on police in other nations are, as far as I know, political actions - terrorists-if you prefer, and outside the scope of this discussion)

These killers choose places where the odds of anyone there having a gun are slim. Gun Free Zones are "free lunch" signs to this kind of predator. And even military bases are gun free zones, except for the military police and troops actually on a firing range...

The Taser might do fine to stop an attacker, or maybe two, but it doesn't intimidate them. Because they "know" that even if shot, it won't kill them.

Human predators are the top end of that mindset that begins at bully, and all pretty much share some common traits. The do what they do, because they can, because it benefits them in some way, and because they like doing it. And most of them realize that they cannot enjoy doing these things if they are dead. Now, its true that some don't care, but most do, and that is why guns are more effective at stopping an attack before it actually happens. A taser may do it too, but the odds are much lower, simply because no taser has the "respect" a gun has when pointed at someone.

And remember, when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away!
Lots more to discuss, Look forward to your views...
 
The entire post is moot. There are far too many guns out there, that ship has sailed.
As long as the Second Amendment stands, I will continue to carry a gun.
As long as we live in a Constitutional Republic, my right will supersede those who wish it were not so.
We do not live in a Democracy. There is no way, short of amending the 2A, that anything will change.

"The needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the few, or the one"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top