Do you Really Need a Gun?

Status
Not open for further replies.
One thing I think most urban folks forget when asking about guns and need is the fact that there are still large numbers of folks who live, work and play in very rural areas.

Areas so rural that any law enforcement presence may be hours or days away. Think about the need for guns in those situations. Not only to protect against the two legged animal, but also the four legged.

There are counties in Wyoming larger than many states in the east, with less population than a few city blocks of some cities. LEO may be 100's of miles away from a call (if the caller has phone service), and roads are not always paved and plowed. Sometimes, and it happens alot, a person must use the tools at hand to take care of themselves. Sometimes those tools are guns.

It is NOT like urban areas where there is a police station every five miles and a fire department with paramedics every three. Some of our first responders are stationed two to three hours apart.

I don't think anyone could argue that these folks "need" guns, literaly!

Take some time and look at some maps. Notice the large areas and distances without roads or towns. One would need a gun in these places, I submit.
 
I would say that a prime motivation of owning firearms is to prevent government oppression.. Sure we are an advanced country, however Germany was also very advanced in the 1930s.

I'd say the reason that the Nazis had as much success in mass murder, was because each person involved in delivering people to death got to tell themselves it was not happening.. If your involved in active shootouts with the people your trying to murder, odds are you have to face your conscience.

Sure the government here could use tanks and aircraft, but they still depend on people.. And those people are going to see first hand the awful things happening, and may refuse orders. Resistance groups did have an effect on the Nazis.

In a more localized view. A problem that has existed in history is road gangs, groups that attack people in out of the way places.. The existence on the AR-15 and similar firearms removes the strength in numbers aspect.

A semi auto is only more dangerous then a bolt action or pump shotgun if:
Your armed
Your wearing body armor
Or your outside of 100 yards.
Since most mass murders happen at close range, its likely that a sporting shotgun would increase death tolls rather then decrease them.

And the most deadly acts of mass murder committed in the US was done with box cutters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

My final point in the "need" concept.. I don't need to own a firearm, I own a full machine shop and can make one whenever I want one. Guns and ammo are 19th century technology and easily produced.
 
The short answer is:

I may never NEED a gun BUT the 2nd Amendment provides me the right to own one. Now, I've never done the history search to prove that I had any ancestors that fought in the revolutionary war to win me that right but I had a father who spent 3 years in Merry old England (his description) dodging buzz bombs and seeing to it that our planes dropped bombs on Hitler's factories and troops to defend that right.

NOGUN, hopefully you remember Hitler, the little dark haired German guy with a cheesy mustache who murdered some 6-7 million UNARMED civilians who didn't agree with his politics.

That little piece of history, is why I NEED guns.

Now a question for you. From your original post it would seem you support the proposed "assault weapons" ban. Which would mean that you believe this ban does not violate the 2nd amendment to the constitution. That being said, I ask: If Sen Feinstein proposed a ban on books by your favorite author, would that not violate your 1st amendment rights?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top