What are legitimate reasons for citizens owning guns?

[SlowSpyder]

Holy Cripes man who doesn't understand and support shooting someone to avoid financial inconvenience and keeping your stuff at the small, small, insignificant price of a human life. But hey, the fu*ker brought a knife to a gun fight, what an idiot!

Weak. In that situation you can't know if the carjacker is just going to take your car and leave you alone or decide he doesn't want to leave any witnesses around. If someone pulls a knife on you and you have a gun, it isn't necessarily about protecting your property. It is about protecting your life.

 

[bradly1101]

Please, I have no problem with peaceful protest. That's absolutely a right and one I would defend. But what these antifa types are doing is not peaceful protesting, and you know it.

And progressives deplore violent protests and know it hurts causes on all sides. I don't see many conservatives condemning violence caused by their extremists. I know they do, they're just not very loud about it.

 

[bradly1101]

Weak. In that situation you can't know if the carjacker is just going to take your car and leave you alone or decide he doesn't want to leave any witnesses around. If someone pulls a knife on you and you have a gun, it isn't necessarily about protecting your property. It is about protecting your life.

Knowing the mind of another is indeed difficult, but if he is going for the car, isn't it likely to only escalate at the point of brandishing?

 

[Paladin3]

Knowing the mind of another is indeed difficult, but if he is going for the car, isn't it likely to only escalate at the point of brandishing?

What would you expect a cop to do if he saw someone stealing a car? The cop would order the criminal at gunpoint to stop and safely take them into custody. Guns can be used to control someone without killing them. In fact, it would be up to the criminal to decide if lethal force was used based on their compliance with a lawful order to stop.

Why can't a citizen do the same to protect their property, and why do you value the life of someone who preys on others so much that you would let them victimize you? Such an attitude implies that might is right. I would propose might for right is a better philosophy.

 

[ivwshane]

What would you expect a cop to do if he saw someone stealing a car? The cop would order the criminal at gunpoint to stop and safely take them into custody. Guns can be used to control someone without killing them. In fact, it would be up to the criminal to decide if lethal force was used based on their compliance with a lawful order to stop.

Why can't a citizen do the same to protect their property, and why do you value the life of someone who preys on others so much that you would let them victimize you? Such an attitude implies that might is right. I would propose might for right is a better philosophy.

When you go through the same training and the follow up training and the mental and background checks police officers go through then I'll gladly concede that you are ready to have a gun.

 

[Vic]

The whole topic is backwards assed. It's asking "what are legitimate reasons". You do not need a legit reason to do something that is legal. It is not your burden to defend being a Law Abiding Citizen. Idiots.

Your logic is a wee bit circular, and actually a little dangerous to gun rights IMO. What is legal or not is often arbitrary and unjust, subject to popular whims, as is often the reason that many people are no longer considered law abiding citizens. Many people get away with breaking the law over and over again, and are still considered law abiding citizens, while others get busted the first time.

I have a better argument for why people should be able to own firearms: because it would be more expensive and more harmful for a government to try to forcibly disarm its citizens rather than to allow them to remain armed. As in, it's a right.

 

[ivwshane]

Your logic is a wee bit circular, and actually a little dangerous to gun rights IMO. What is legal or not is often arbitrary and unjust, subject to popular whims, as is often the reason that many people are no longer considered law abiding citizens. Many people get away with breaking the law over and over again, and are still considered law abiding citizens, while others get busted the first time.

I have a better argument for why people should be able to own firearms: because it would be more expensive and more harmful for a government to try to forcibly disarm its citizens rather than to allow them to remain armed. As in, it's a right.

Using that same argument one could say the best course of action is to ban guns and gradually phase them out through buy backs and normal confiscation when crimes are committed.

The right itself can easily be changed (relatively speaking) back to how it was interpreted for 150 years prior to the Heller decision.

 

[Atreus21]

The whole topic is backwards assed. It's asking "what are legitimate reasons". You do not need a legit reason to do something that is legal. It is not your burden to defend being a Law Abiding Citizen. Idiots.

I suppose I misuse the word legitimate then. I use it as a stand-in for morally defensible. Plenty of legal things have been or are morally indefensible.

 

[Atreus21]

I thought it was odd that he said he didn't know if he could shoot someone. Why have the gun then? If you aren't going to shoot to kill then its probably better to keep the gun out of the equation and like in his original encounter, walk away alive.

I would imagine the decision to kill someone by any means at all is one that most people aren't sure they can make in advance, unless you've done it before.

 

[ivwshane]

I would imagine the decision to kill someone by any means at all is one that most people aren't sure they can make in advance, unless you've done it before.

Exactly. Which is why I question people who have guns for safety.

 

[Younigue]

What would you expect a cop to do if he saw someone stealing a car? The cop would order the criminal at gunpoint to stop and safely take them into custody. Guns can be used to control someone without killing them. In fact, it would be up to the criminal to decide if lethal force was used based on their compliance with a lawful order to stop.

Why can't a citizen do the same to protect their property, and why do you value the life of someone who preys on others so much that you would let them victimize you? Such an attitude implies that might is right. I would propose might for right is a better philosophy.

Ah, but you're not a cop. You're a civilian looking to shoot someone.

 

[Younigue]

When you go through the same training and the follow up training and the mental and background checks police officers go through then I'll gladly concede that you are ready to have a gun.

And then join the police force. Do we think logic has a place in his world?

 

[Younigue]

Your logic is a wee bit circular, and actually a little dangerous to gun rights IMO. What is legal or not is often arbitrary and unjust, subject to popular whims, as is often the reason that many people are no longer considered law abiding citizens. Many people get away with breaking the law over and over again, and are still considered law abiding citizens, while others get busted the first time.

I have a better argument for why people should be able to own firearms: because it would be more expensive and more harmful for a government to try to forcibly disarm its citizens rather than to allow them to remain armed. As in, it's a right.

LOL

 

[Vic]

Using that same argument one could say the best course of action is to ban guns and gradually phase them out through buy backs and normal confiscation when crimes are committed.

The right itself can easily be changed (relatively speaking) back to how it was interpreted for 150 years prior to the Heller decision.

I'm not following you as my argument was specifically the opposite. A right is a right.
If you're saying that a populace could become more accepting over gun ownership restrictions over time, that's certain, as it's happened elsewhere. But I strongly doubt such a thing is ever going to happen in the US. And even if such a thing were possible in the US, banning guns as you suggest, instead of waiting for public opinion to change, is the surest way to make it so public opinion never changes.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm not following you as my argument was specifically the opposite. A right is a right.
If you're saying that a populace could become more accepting over gun ownership restrictions over time, that's certain, as it's happened elsewhere. But I strongly doubt such a thing is ever going to happen in the US. And even if such a thing were possible in the US, banning guns as you suggest, instead of waiting for public opinion to change, is the surest way to make it so public opinion never changes.

My argument was the exact opposite of yours. Banning guns and having but back programs and confiscation through normal means (ie when criminals are caught), is pretty cheap compared to the overall costs of having guns, administration costs, health care costs, police counter weapons, etc. I also countered that the right to own guns is a recent right and can be changed the same way it was changed in 2008. A right is right until its not.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Ahhh. The ever-ready fix for whatever we disagree with. Some if not all critics love this country despite its sordid history/present and would love to see positive changes come from debate and our leaders. That's love of country. That's democracy. The kick 'em out crowd seems to want something different.

Sordid? I like to think of it as a heroic settler history.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Ah, but you're not a cop. You're a civilian looking to shoot someone.

It's perfectly lawful in my State to use a firearm to stop someone from stealing a car. It doesn't even have to be my car, it can be a neighbors car and that includes using lethal force to stop them. It all depends on which state you live in.

 

[bradly1101]

Sordid? I like to think of it as a heroic settler history.

School books tell a story, but don't forget that Thomas Jefferson was a genocidal rapist.

 

[bradly1101]

Sordid? I like to think of it as a heroic settler history.

Sorry, second reply:

History shows over and over that when a "more advanced" culture encounters a "less advanced" culture, the less advanced lose (even if they don't fight back). They lose their lives, their customs, their territory, and their spirit [edit: down the barrel of a gun]. That's heroic? Who's truly advanced? The natives or the invaders/destroyers/builders?

It happened here, Australia, Central and South America... It's happening right now in the Middle East (The Saudis are laying waste to Yemen and her people. They can do that because of their superior, American firepower), and ex-colonial Africa.

Don't get me wrong, I love this country and all she could be, her promises. I can't ignore facts though and whitewash history.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Ah, but you're not a cop. You're a civilian looking to shoot someone.

Almost every time a gun is used in self defense, it is not fired. Simply brandishing the weapon usually does the trick. Your fear that people who use guns to defend themselves do so out of a desire to shoot somebody is not backed up by facts, statistics, or logic. People want to use a gun in self defense because it works. That's it.

 

[ivwshane]

Almost every time a gun is used in self defense, it is not fired. Simply brandishing the weapon usually does the trick. Your fear that people who use guns to defend themselves do so out of a desire to shoot somebody is not backed up by facts, statistics, or logic. People want to use a gun in self defense because it works. That's it.

You'd think the fake gun market would be bigger if that's the case. I'm guessing it's harder to get a real, fake looking gun than an actual gun.

 

[theeedude]

To protect their daughters from Roy Moore.

 

[Younigue]

Almost every time a gun is used in self defense, it is not fired. Simply brandishing the weapon usually does the trick. Your fear that people who use guns to defend themselves do so out of a desire to shoot somebody is not backed up by facts, statistics, or logic. People want to use a gun in self defense because it works. That's it.

Works to make a poorer nation. Works to keep people afraid. Works to keep people stupid. Works to enable a population to lack empathy. Works to convince too many Americans that guns are the only answer. Worth saying again, works to keep people stupid... and afraid. I assume that's what you mean by it working.

You seem clever.

 

[Younigue]

You'd think the fake gun market would be bigger if that's the case. I'm guessing it's harder to get a real, fake looking gun than an actual gun.

It is.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

You'd think the fake gun market would be bigger if that's the case. I'm guessing it's harder to get a real, fake looking gun than an actual gun.

https://www.pyramydair.com/info/Replica_Airsoft_Guns/42
Ignorance.