PDA

View Full Version : Why do we need guns?


biko
11-13-2008, 6:37 PM
I am in my 40's and recently got into guns (for some very practical reasons I won't go into here). I grew up in a country that is an anti-gun society. But since August, I've acquired a number of pistols, rifles, shotguns and ARs. I've taken some advanced clinics on defensive pistol. I am going to take a defensive rifle course. I shoot 1000 rounds a week of something. Heck, I wonder why CCW isn't more common! Suffice to say, I am a complete proponent of gun ownership -- despite the fact that I don't vote republican.

My observation is that gun advocates in the defense of gun ownership, generally seem to rely on the 2nd Amendment as the primary reason for gun ownership. That might be the best legal argument, but I wonder if that is the most effective argument. Ultimately anti-gun can chip away at gun ownership without breaking the 2nd Amendment: Single shot anyone? That's more than sufficient for sport shooters. Who needs anything more than a .22 for that anyhow?

Are there arguments that bring forward more practical reasons why we need multiple guns, semi-autos (perhaps even auto) of anything we want? I am asking out of ignorance, so there maybe some good ones, just point me to them. Building a case for gun ownership is the best way to ensure the types of guns we can own remain completely open -- there is no right to bear semi-autos.

Lastly, I do believe gun owners suffer from a PR image problem. Maybe not of our own making, but if you don't position yourself in the public eye the way you want to, your opponent will do it for you. Anti-gun positions us as uneducated red-neck hicks, criminals, gang members, psychos, and generally unsavory people. I am surprised when I speak to my peers how many are pro-gun and would represent the opposite: well educated, responsible and role models in society.

Very last point: pro-gun needs to reach out and embrace non-Republicans. Drawing the lines on politcal lines maybe convenient, but you are doing yourself a disservice. Gun ownership should not be political but should be mainstream. Polarizing it means political change will affect gun ownership.

Josh3239
11-13-2008, 6:46 PM
My observation is that gun advocates in the defense of gun ownership, generally seem to rely on the 2nd Amendment as the primary reason for gun ownership. That might be the best legal argument, but I wonder if that is the most effective argument. Ultimately anti-gun can chip away at gun ownership without breaking the 2nd Amendment: Single shot anyone? That's more than sufficient for sport shooters. Who needs anything more than a .22 for that anyhow?

The 2nd Amendment isn't about sport shooting it is about defending our rights from an overbearing, dictatorship. I doubt any reasonable person would believe that our rights can be defended with since shots or .22s.

Are there arguments that bring forward more practical reasons why we need multiple guns, semi-autos (perhaps even auto) of anything we want? I am asking out of ignorance, so there maybe some good ones, just point me to them. Building a case for gun ownership is the best way to ensure the types of guns we can own remain completely open -- there is no right to bear semi-autos.

To defend ourselves from our government, to defend ourselves from people who wish to do us harm, for sport shooting, for competition, for recreation and possibly the most overlooked reasons... because we are a free people living in a free nation (or atleast that was the idea).


Lastly, I do believe gun owners suffer from a PR image problem. Maybe not of our own making, but if you don't position yourself in the public eye the way you want to, your opponent will do it for you. Anti-gun positions us as uneducated red-neck hicks, criminals, gang members, psychos, and generally unsavory people. I am surprised when I speak to my peers how many are pro-gun and would represent the opposite: well educated, responsible and role models in society.

You can credit media to that. Hollywood and the news would rather tell you a story of homicide rather than average joe American defending himself.

Very last point: pro-gun needs to reach out and embrace non-Republicans. Drawing the lines on politcal lines maybe convenient, but you are doing yourself a disservice. Gun ownership should not be political but should be mainstream. Polarizing it means political change will affect gun ownership.

It is hard to do when 1) the other side is responsible for the regulations 2) the other side is spreading lies about gun owners and guns 3) the other side has people ranging from Feinstein to Pelosi to Obama who are supported by characters ranging from the Brady Campaign to Hamas.

The fact is there is one political party who has done more to control guns than any other political party and there is another political party that has done more to deregulate gun control than any other political party.

CCWFacts
11-13-2008, 7:00 PM
You make some good points. In particular:

Very last point: pro-gun needs to reach out and embrace non-Republicans. Drawing the lines on politcal lines maybe convenient, but you are doing yourself a disservice. Gun ownership should not be political but should be mainstream. Polarizing it means political change will affect gun ownership.

Yes. There was a time, decades ago, when racial segregation was a partisan issue: one party for, the other against. Today, no mainstream politician would support racial segregation. Same with a lot of other issues. They went from being "owned" by one party to being universally accepted.

Once gun rights becomes like that, we've achieved total victory, and both the parties and all the voters focus all the more on other issues.

And today, at the state level, it's not a partisan issue. A Democrat from Montana is probably solidly pro-gun, and a Republican from New Jersey might be anti-gun.

And historically, it hasn't been as much of a partisan issue. JFK, the Democrat that Democrats love most, was an NRA member.

Unfortunately, the current leadership core of the Democratic party at the national level (the Clintons, Obama, Feinstein, Schumer, some others) happen to all be rabidly, insanely anti-gun-rights. Obama, in particular, is way out there.

If this leadership core could be replaced by some people with more neutral opinions, there would be a lot less of a partisan edge to this issue.

I believe that many of the new Democratic members of Congress are "Blue Dogs", ie, conservative Democrats from pro-gun states. If some of these can get into the party's core leadership, we could have a slow change of stance. And you're right, to ever have "permanent" solution to gun rights, we need to get both parties behind it. But we're not there right now.

biko
11-13-2008, 7:56 PM
Well, maybe I am naive because I am new to the debate, or haven't had to try to convince the extreme opposite side, or have lots of friends who are like minded.

I really do think that you've got to embrace individuals who are Democracts and are pro-gun. There is nothing more effective than co-opting individuals who are "on the other side".

Are there credible websites that have pro-gun statistics? I'd like to really develop a pro-gun argument for Democrats.

Regarding the PR issue, that's exactly my point: if you don't take charge of your own PR, the other side will do it for you. Don't complain about "the media" and "Hollywood". They are doing IT to YOU. Think judo: pro gun needs to co-opt, find thought leaders, and change public opinion. It's not easy, it's not quick, but it is being done very successfully all day long in other industries. Do you remember when ADM (Archer Daniels Midland) had big negative public opinion? You may not be familiar with ADM, but from where they were to where they are today, you'd think Ayatolla was Reagan!

CCWFacts
11-13-2008, 8:00 PM
I really do think that you've got to embrace individuals who are Democracts and are pro-gun. There is nothing more effective than co-opting individuals who are "on the other side".

That's right, and I'd love to co-opt ALL of them. And in many states, there's no difference in RKBA stance of D vs. R.

Are there credible websites that have pro-gun statistics? I'd like to really develop a pro-gun argument for Democrats.

There are tons of sites. A really good one is: http://www.gunfacts.info/

But much of the real anti-gun arguments are purely emotional: "We should be civilized, we don't need guns, guns only lead to violence, I knew someone who was shot, etc". These are beyond statistics and beyond reason.

Regarding the PR issue, that's exactly my point: if you don't take charge of your own PR, the other side will do it for you. Don't complain about "the media" and "Hollywood". They are doing IT to YOU. Think judo: pro gun needs to co-opt, find thought leaders, and change public opinion. It's not easy, it's not quick, but it is being done very successfully all day long in other industries.

The NRA is really bad at this trick, unfortunately. They need to think of some clever way to break their brand out of where it is right now.

biko
11-13-2008, 8:16 PM
Setting aside the politics (and competence at a national level, OK cheap shot) of Sarah Palin, if I were in charge of the the NRA, I'd be recruiting someone like Sarah to create a new, young, respected, image of gun owners.

Sarah Palin may not be the right choice, but you get my drift: Young, female, national recognition, looks good in front of the camera, and most importantly, could be a friend of yours, someone you'd want as your neighbor... Run a national ad campaign, talk about stuff everyone is deep down worried about, make it all sound rational, normal and sophisticated. Create a series that starts easy and over time progresses the argument. It's not hard to do, but hard to do well.

Heck, California cows make the best cheese, haven't your heard!!!

hoffmang
11-13-2008, 8:25 PM
I would suggest that you read about the Deacons for Defense and Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice). Tyranny was something that was fought back by defensive gun possession and carrying as recently as 1963.

Allowing government to have a monopoly on force means that government doesn't have to answer to the people at the end of the day.

-Gene

vinny_land
11-13-2008, 8:32 PM
Setting aside the politics (and competence at a national level, OK cheap shot) of Sarah Palin, if I were in charge of the the NRA, I'd be recruiting someone like Sarah to create a new, young, respected, image of gun owners.

Agreed!!!
Can you imagine if young Hollyweird would fully embrace gun ownership. :eek: The perception in the U.S. would change drastically. It doesnt necessarily have to be Sarah Palin, but it should be someone who is young, chic, and can be a new look to gun owners.

csmintel
11-13-2008, 8:34 PM
The tune of pro-gun campaign must change from we have the right to WE HAVE THE NESSESITY to defend our lives, the lives of our families and our children. Do it with all the children in ads and as patriotic as we can. otherwise were just gun nuts. and rightly so, because we donate money to the NRA alikes who are old, marazmatic men that don't understand the need for change. they just like to be in control of our memebership fees. untill we remove those old men from board and elect new faces with new ideas.....this hobby of ours will be harder to fund.

forgiven
11-13-2008, 8:37 PM
The 2nd Amendment isn't about sport shooting it is about defending our rights from an overbearing, dictatorship. I doubt any reasonable person would believe that our rights can be defended with since shots or .22s.



To defend ourselves from our government, to defend ourselves from people who wish to do us harm, for sport shooting, for competition, for recreation and possibly the most overlooked reasons... because we are a free people living in a free nation (or atleast that was the idea).



You can credit media to that. Hollywood and the news would rather tell you a story of homicide rather than average joe American defending himself.



It is hard to do when 1) the other side is responsible for the regulations 2) the other side is spreading lies about gun owners and guns 3) the other side has people ranging from Feinstein to Pelosi to Obama who are supported by characters ranging from the Brady Campaign to Hamas.

The fact is there is one political party who has done more to control guns than any other political party and there is another political party that has done more to deregulate gun control than any other political party.

:iagree:

biko
11-13-2008, 8:43 PM
The tune of pro-gun campaign must change from we have the right to WE HAVE THE NESSESITY to defend our lives, the lives of our families and our children. Do it with all the children in ads and as patriotic as we can. otherwise were just gun nuts. and rightly so, because we donate money to the NRA alikes who are old, marazmatic men that don't understand the need for change. they just like to be in control of our memebership fees. untill we remove those old men from board and elect new faces with new ideas.....this hobby of ours will be harder to fund.

From the literature I get from the NRA (I am a member), I come to the same conclusion. They use old arguments that haven't gotten any traction. No one outside the NRA is listening to the arguments. In some ways, Obama being elected (or maybe the recession) did more for gun ownership in the last 6 months than anything specific the NRA did.

I just bought 3 books on the topic from Amazon.

hoffmang
11-13-2008, 8:53 PM
The tune of pro-gun campaign must change from we have the right to WE HAVE THE NESSESITY to defend our lives, the lives of our families and our children. Do it with all the children in ads and as patriotic as we can. otherwise were just gun nuts. and rightly so, because we donate money to the NRA alikes who are old, marazmatic men that don't understand the need for change. they just like to be in control of our memebership fees. untill we remove those old men from board and elect new faces with new ideas.....this hobby of ours will be harder to fund.

Please keep your NRA bashing to the NRA threads. If you don't like the NRA don't donate. If you like slandering the NRA, please keep it at least in the on topic threads.

NRA is not perfect, but those who think its utter crap are either ill informed or have an agenda. It's a membership organization and if you're actually a member you can change it.

-Gene

JohnJW
11-13-2008, 9:11 PM
I like to think I own guns primarily for self-defense but really I owns guns because I want to. Guns are not inherently dangerous. I know because my guns has killed less people than Ted Kennedy's cars and he's a senator. Unfortunately when it comes to gun regulations we start getting blogged down in a polarized catch 22 situation where neither side trusts the other. I can understand the need for regulation because straw man purchase or abuse of unregulated private party transfer are very real problems and guns ended up in hands of people who should not have them. However, I can also understand the anti-regulatory stance of NRA because most gun control regulations simply punish the law-abiding citizens while doing little to solve gun violence, ie AWB, microstamping, or mandatory magazine safety.

More people die from motor vehicle than from guns every year but I don't see people calling for banning sport cars, motorcycles, or 6000lb SUVs. Everyone wants to live in a safe society but if we want freedom we can never be 100% safe due to human free will. People needs to accept the reality of life and that crap happens to good people. Taking away firearms just reduces our freedom without changing human free well.

Anyway, I'm just an oppressed minority seeking equal treatment under the law.

movie zombie
11-13-2008, 9:30 PM
Allowing government to have a monopoly on force means that government doesn't have to answer to the people at the end of the day.

-Gene


i just said this very same thing to a guy who thought the founders hadn't anticipated a national military....my response was that the national military is a tool of the government and as such we need to be able to defend ourselves.

movie zombie

oddball
11-13-2008, 10:04 PM
Are there arguments that bring forward more practical reasons why we need multiple guns, semi-autos (perhaps even auto) of anything we want?

Why do folks purchase 4 cars for a household of 2? Why do some guys buy 15 titanium drivers? Or own 127 American electric guitars? Because we like to. Maybe because it's fun. Guns are just inanimate objects. If one chooses to own one or 25, or NONE, that should be the choice of the individual. And that's why most of us are here in this forum, members of the NRA, etc. Gun ownership should not be taken away. Does having 34 AR15s and not having a single arrest, make me more dangerous to society than a criminal with one 9mm pistol?


Lastly, I do believe gun owners suffer from a PR image problem. Maybe not of our own making, but if you don't position yourself in the public eye the way you want to, your opponent will do it for you. Anti-gun positions us as uneducated red-neck hicks, criminals, gang members, psychos, and generally unsavory people. I am surprised when I speak to my peers how many are pro-gun and would represent the opposite: well educated, responsible and role models in society.

I am a perfect example of the opposite of what you state. Because of my demeanor, EVERYBODY assumes I'm a liberal Democrat. Most of my friends and associates are liberals. Yet I can't change their minds regarding firearms. The folks I have conversed with just out and out HATE GUNS. They believe the police will always take care of their security needs. They believe they will NEVER be a victim of crime. They believe there will never be a breakdown in society in this country. They believe tyranny is an impossibility. They believe guns are for murder, not for defense.

PR will not change my friend's minds. Just like them trying to change my mind on universal health care or spending more tax money on more govt. entitlements. Ain't gonna happen until they're banging on my door for protection during a SHTF situation.

biko
11-13-2008, 10:55 PM
I was trying to get beyond the rhetoric, but perhaps gun ownership is too polarizing on both sides for that to happen. Guess it is up there with... religion.

The problem is that if the debate remains at the philisophical level, the practical aspects of gun ownership will get chipped away. You will still have your "right" but it may not be what you will want.

The debate needs to get re-directed to a practical level. Perhaps the reason it doesn't is because the pro gun argument too quickly responds with and only with "it's my Right" or worse, "why shouldn't I have as many as I want".

My thesis is the 2nd Amend should be the trump card in the pro-gun argument, not the only argument. That is, if you don't want your rights eroded. You need the practical arguments to attack the practical limitations that get imposed bit-by-bit by anti gun.

Again, I am new to the debate and collecting my data and building my case on this, so I am not aware of all the arguments that already exist and have been debated. I am just reacting to what I have generally been seeing and reading.

gunsmith
11-13-2008, 11:17 PM
I have needs and I have rights.
I believe in a "Bill Of Rights" not a bill of needs.

rayra
11-14-2008, 12:17 AM
most excellent troll material. Got all the memes in there AND a plea for 'bi-partisanship'. Well done.

CCWFacts
11-14-2008, 12:29 AM
The debate needs to get re-directed to a practical level. Perhaps the reason it doesn't is because the pro gun argument too quickly responds with and only with "it's my Right" or worse, "why shouldn't I have as many as I want".

It's great to have gun ownership based in needs. And there are needs. The woman who has to wait for the bus after her late-shift job. The gay man in a rough neighborhood worried about his safety. The policeman serving a warrant. The liquor store clerk late at night. All of these people need guns.

However, here in California, we have a system where some government officials (sheriffs, police chiefs) have their say in deciding what "need" is. In San Francisco, someone who has just been a star witness in a major gang trial is not considered to have "need". In Mendocino, someone who applies for a permit is (more or less) considered to have "need".

Need is a very squishy word. Our experience, as RKBA activisits, is that once you get into a debate on "need", you're lost. Senator Feinstein or George Soros will never agree that I need any type of gun. Ever. No matter what the circumstances. So... "need" is a place we don't like to go.

And the other aspect is... probably 99% of us gun nuts here know we own plenty of guns we don't "need", that have no practical use we can identify.

Those are the reasons why people here are so apt to jump straight to "it's my right".

So how do you make a compelling argument to a non-gun-owner who is apathetic about the whole issue? I agree with you, "it's my right" isn't exactly persuasive to someone who doesn't already agree with that. It's an argument that only works for someone who doesn't need to be convinced. I think that's the point you're making?

I wouldn't focus on statistics. The best approach is to take the person shooting so he sees how much fun it is, and how responsible gun owners are. Second best is to show cases of obvious need, where people have sympathy for the person who needs it. "Nicole Brown Simpson would be alive today if she had been carrying a gun, because it's the only thing that would have allowed her to protect herself. The police couldn't have done it. Pepper spray would have done nothing. Martial arts against a football star? Only a gun would work." People sympathize with her and can see the need.

DedEye
11-14-2008, 1:46 AM
Why do we need guns? Ask your namesake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Biko).

odysseus
11-14-2008, 3:15 AM
most excellent troll material. Got all the memes in there AND a plea for 'bi-partisanship'. Well done.

You know I am reading the OP and yes, I myself can't help but have this too in mind about it.

For the OP author: The issue on the RKBA is higher than partisanship. It is an inalienable right. However when the majority of a particular political party has a history now of decades of work against the RKBA (I am not saying the Repubs are innocent) like the Democrats, well then yes - some level of polarization does occur for there is a line that one must stand to on this issue.

Especially in California with the likes of Boxer, Perata, Feinstein and Pelosi - there is a history of animosity those Demo's and those whom support them have against the RKBA. A lot of those "stereotypes" you mention, come from them.

.

Bruce
11-14-2008, 12:58 PM
The tune of pro-gun campaign must change from we have the right to WE HAVE THE NESSESITY to defend our lives, the lives of our families and our children. Do it with all the children in ads and as patriotic as we can. otherwise were just gun nuts. and rightly so, because we donate money to the NRA alikes who are old, marazmatic men that don't understand the need for change. they just like to be in control of our memebership fees. untill we remove those old men from board and elect new faces with new ideas.....this hobby of ours will be harder to fund.

Another hobbiest. A hobby is something to do with your spare time. A RIGHT is something you are born with. Firearms are our RIGHT.

AaronHorrocks
11-14-2008, 1:05 PM
I wasn't born with any firearms.

nicki
11-14-2008, 1:28 PM
Our government exists by the "Consent of the Governed" and it is supposed to recognize and protect "Rights given to us from the Creator".

Our country was founded because the previous government(England) violated the Natural Rights of the governed and they revoked their consent to be governed by England.

To be free, the governed must have the ablity to revoke their consent. The only thing Tyranical governments understand is force.

Read the Declaration of Independence and you will see the Colonists exhausted peaceable means, they tried to avoid a war, but had no choice.

When our Constitution was drafted, peaceable means of political activity were covered in the first amendment.

The founding fathers did not want large standing armies or "select militias" because they were the "tools of tyranny".

Instead what they did was keep the "power" in the people.

Just because we have allowed our country to change from a "Free Republic" to a "Socialist Democracy", doesn't change the need for the 2nd amendment or any other parts of the Bill of Rights.

Democracies, rule of the majority, is a great thing, unless you are in a despised minority and the majority decides to take away rights.

Democracies can make mistakes and a disarmed population can't correct mistakes. Hitler was elected and look at the end results.

If the Jews ignored gun laws and actually stood up to Hitler, maybe if someone put a bullet in his head in say 1938, history would have been very different.

A few Jews with a handful of guns held of the German Army for 6 months in the Warsaw Uprising. The Polish Professional Army lasted 30 days.

Ultimately, the RKBA is our safeguard to make sure our rights stay rights and not government revocable privileges.

Nicki

JohnJW
11-14-2008, 2:33 PM
Just because we have allowed our country to change from a "Free Republic" to a "Socialist Democracy", doesn't change the need for the 2nd amendment or any other parts of the Bill of Rights.


I don't think we're a "socialistic" democracy or anywhere near a "socialist" society. Sure, there's heavy government intervention in the financial sector, but overall, we still operate on capitalistic principles. There's talk of government bailout but not government takeover of private companies. However, I do think we are setting closer and closer to a "police" state courtesy of the "law and order" social conservatives that wants to lock everyone up and throw away the key for minor offenses.

On a practical level, guns are the ultimate social equalizer on an individual level. Regardless of your physical, gender, or religious affiliations, guns makes everyone equal.

Theseus
11-14-2008, 3:57 PM
Single shot anyone? That's more than sufficient for sport shooters. Who needs anything more than a .22 for that anyhow?

Well, first off....What if your first shot misses? Deer won't sit around for you to reload a single shot.

Are there arguments that bring forward more practical reasons why we need multiple guns, semi-autos (perhaps even auto) of anything we want?

What if my first gun jams? What if I have a bullet lodged in the barrel of my rifle? I would need another one to finish the job because when SHTF I won't have time to clear the weapon.

The real deal is that I want weapons for several reasons. . and likely in this order. Protection of my family, protection of my country, enjoyment of the skill it takes to effectively aim and hit an 800 yrd target on a consistent basis.

InvictusManeo
11-14-2008, 4:08 PM
All political and idealist views aside, there are practical reasons why we need guns.

I believe in private gun ownership because I believe in personal responsibility, including for my safety and that of my family. If someone breaks into my house, the police response time is about 11 minutes, IF they're not busy, and IF the BG gives me time to finish the 911 call. If there is a threat that requires the use of deadly force, and I lack the means to neutralize that threat, this puts not only the lives of myself and my loved ones at risk, but also the lives of the officers who eventually have to break in and attempt to clear the house after the BGs have gained the advantage of setting up a defensible position.

Do I plan on my house being broken into and having to shoot someone? No. I also don't plan on getting in a head-on collision, but I still have airbags (and yes, they can discharge inappropriately and kill innocent people too). The RESPONSIBLE thing to do is to be prepared for the undesired/unplanned possibility.

biko
11-14-2008, 5:38 PM
The personal responsibility argument resonates most with me. I think that is a good starting point for building a use-based argument.

As an interesting data point, when I bring up gun owernship in the context of sailing to remote regions, even my anti-gun friends agree that I should be armed. At least in these instances, a rationale argument seems it can take hold.



All political and idealist views aside, there are practical reasons why we need guns.

I believe in private gun ownership because I believe in personal responsibility, including for my safety and that of my family. If someone breaks into my house, the police response time is about 11 minutes, IF they're not busy, and IF the BG gives me time to finish the 911 call. If there is a threat that requires the use of deadly force, and I lack the means to neutralize that threat, this puts not only the lives of myself and my loved ones at risk, but also the lives of the officers who eventually have to break in and attempt to clear the house after the BGs have gained the advantage of setting up a defensible position.

Do I plan on my house being broken into and having to shoot someone? No. I also don't plan on getting in a head-on collision, but I still have airbags (and yes, they can discharge inappropriately and kill innocent people too). The RESPONSIBLE thing to do is to be prepared for the undesired/unplanned possibility.