Why Do People Think They Need A Gun?

originally posted by: moniker


Quite right, but far too many people get it wrong. The US constitution is based on the premise that everybody is born with any and all rights, and the constitution simply limits what the government can do in terms of limiting or removing them.

But it does not protect the right to arm bears, for example.

How have you reached that conclusion?

originally posted by: Involutionist
a reply to: Answer

Guns are how I make my living.

Cool. So this thread was simply a marketing tactic. Keep promoting fear for dollars. No worries. I have never been one to shy away from making a buck that's for sure.

I wish you much success in your endeavours.

This thread was an attempt to show the posters of ATS who constantly ask the question "why do you think you need a gun" that there are actually real-world examples of people using guns for self defense.

I'm not promoting fear at all. If I wanted to promote fear, I would have posted all the cases where someone didn't have a gun and they were raped, stabbed, strangled, beaten, burned, etc.

a reply to: Answer

not to mention all anyone had to do was actually read the entire op instead of just replying to the question in the title to get a clearer picture of where you stand, or the basis of the thread.

a reply to: Answer
So they say. Wouldn't be the first time someone was caught lieing about keeping lists and databases lol.

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: Answer
So they say. Wouldn't be the first time someone was caught lieing about keeping lists and databases lol.

Law enforcement has to go to dealers to track down owners/prior owners when they're tracking a gun used in a crime. They wouldn't have to do that if there was a database.

a reply to: Answer

Well......all the sources you posted, IMHO, give excellent reasons as to why people want to have guns. what am I missing here??

This thread was an attempt to show the posters of ATS who constantly ask the question "why do you think you need a gun" that there are actually real-world examples of people using guns for self defense. I'm not promoting fear at all. If I wanted to promote fear, I would have posted all the cases where someone didn't have a gun and they were raped, stabbed, strangled, beaten, burned, etc.

I believe in the sincerity of your intentions and think you succeeded in your goal and naturally there are many real life instances and infinite scenarios where guns would help innocent law abiding citizens. The obvious answer is let them have guns. There are also infinite scenarios and many real life instances where guns have caused needless accidental harm and also have caused otherwise rational people to do something extreme in a rare moment of irrationality where they wouldn't have done as much damage of they didn't happen to already have a gun within arm's reach. Are these types of innocent victims not as worthy of being protected than victims of intentional criminal activity? The not so obvious answer is to take away guns. Both extremes don't wrk in my opinion so there has to be a compromise and I don't think there is any way to make it an even trade.


a reply to: Answer

originally posted by: TheBolt

This thread was an attempt to show the posters of ATS who constantly ask the question "why do you think you need a gun" that there are actually real-world examples of people using guns for self defense. I'm not promoting fear at all. If I wanted to promote fear, I would have posted all the cases where someone didn't have a gun and they were raped, stabbed, strangled, beaten, burned, etc.

I believe in the sincerity of your intentions and think you succeeded in your goal and naturally there are many real life instances and infinite scenarios where guns would help innocent law abiding citizens. The obvious answer is let them have guns. There are also infinite scenarios and many real life instances where guns have caused needless accidental harm and also have caused otherwise rational people to do something extreme in a rare moment of irrationality where they wouldn't have done as much damage of they didn't happen to already have a gun within arm's reach.

So you know that they wouldn't have grabbed a knife or blunt object and caused harm to someone? Again, the gun didn't cause them to do something irrational, it just happened to be the most effective tool available to them at the time.

There are 310,000,000 privately-owned firearms in the U.S. and that doesn't count police-issued firearms. There are ~30,000 homicides and suicides with guns each year.

So .0097% of privately-owned firearms in the U.S. are involved in the intentional death of someone each year.

Are these types of innocent victims not as worthy of being protected than victims of intentional criminal activity?

I guess I don't understand your question. Even if a person is "otherwise rational," if they pick up a gun with ill-intent, they're guilty of intentional criminal activity. You're probably grossly overestimating the number of people who "snap and kill someone because a gun was nearby." I've heard the line many times from folks who are never around guns... "if I had a gun, I know I'd get mad and shoot someone." That says a HELL of a lot more about the person's mental state that it says about guns if the only thing standing between them and murder is the ease of access to a weapon.

The numbers of cases where a good, rational person kills someone because of some moment of rage (or whatever it is you're trying to say) are infinitesimally small. It's certainly not a case of "man, if only that gun wasn't there, Bill wouldn't have killed his wife because she overcooked the potroast."

The not so obvious answer is to take away guns.

No, the "not so obvious answer" is to get rid of criminals. Unfortunately, that's not possible so the best defense is to be armed and trained. The vast majority of violent criminals are repeat offenders who SHOULD be in prison but our broken justice system keeps allowing them back onto the street. If you read up on violent crimes, you'll find that the animals responsible have long histories of lawlessness and violence. The system clearly knows about these people but does nothing about them. THAT is the core of the problem.

a reply to: Answer

lets be honest the system is doing exactly what it is designed to do with criminals. Release them on probation/parole and keep collecting money for the state until they end up in a cell to generate money for the state again or a private company.

So you know that they wouldn't have grabbed a knife or blunt object and caused harm to someone? Again, the gun didn't cause them to do something irrational, it just happened to be the most effective tool available to them at the time. There are 310,000,000 privately-owned firearms in the U.S. and that doesn't count police-issued firearms. There are ~30,000 homicides and suicides with guns each year.

While this is an excellent and well worded point, I was actually more focusing on the other type of innocent victim, the people killed by accidental discharge and kids playing with guns and stuff, which is also admittedly a small number. Going on that though you could argue that the number of people who DON'T innocently walk into a store or a home on any given day and try and rob the clerk or attack a customer is immeasurably small compared to the number that do so percentage wise it seems pretty dumb to give everyone a gun.

For the record, I'm all for people having the option of getting a guns I so that's a point for you. I would hope everyone from both sides would say that mentally unstable people or those with criminal intentions should not have a gun. Where the argument lies is the process. One camp feels everyone should have one chance at a gun, as many as they please really, and then slowly identify those that shouldn't have them and take them away. The other camp feels it might make more sense to have less guns and make it harder to get your initial gun, to perhaps try and identify some of the criminals before they have a chance to act. Less guns overall with more in the safer hands before problems happen seems like a good idea to me over unlimited guns in anyone's hands with restrictions only after an incident on someone's record. You would still have the "right" to have access to a gun should you choose.


a reply to: Answer

originally posted by: TheBolt
Less guns overall with more in the safer hands before problems happen seems like a good idea to me over unlimited guns in anyone's hands with restrictions only after an incident on someone's record. You would still have the "right" to have access to a gun should you choose.

With the number of guns currently in circulation, that train has left the station.

That's why gun owners are so defensive when someone brings up passing more laws... making it more difficult to get a gun can't possibly help the situation at this point so those restrictions do nothing but make things more difficult for the law-abiding folks.

a reply to: Answer

I see where you are coming from. Thank you.