What are legitimate reasons for citizens owning guns?

[bradly1101]

Mine hasn't.

Your faith in humanity is stronger than mine.

 

[Atreus21]

All of the above. Like you OP i live in a really bad part of town. Lots of gang shootings and home invasions and drug use. Being in canada i cant CCW but i sure can defend my home with a firearm. And being in a ground floor apartment with the door to patio and door to unit being in the same room i will have no avenue of escape if i am the victim of a home invasion and i want something more than my dick in my hands if im forced to confront armed intruders.

Well what's striking is that I live in a pretty nice neighborhood. Quiet, nice neighbors, kids, barbecues, crazy Halloweens. But things were suddenly and dramatically shattered in the last 8 months.

 

[Thebobo]

I have guns to keep the Apaches from stealing my land.

And they got guns because you stole their land first ~

 

[Thebobo]

What motivated me to purchase a gun was a spike in crime in my immediate neighborhood - literally my neighbor across the street (carjacked in the middle of the day by two kids who put a gun in her face as she sat on her porch) and a neighbor about 8 houses down who's home was invaded in the middle of the night while she, mercifully, was out of town.

That type of brazenness shakes me. I have four small children, a wife, and a mother-in-law in this house. If someone comes through that door at 2AM, I've presently got a machete and a hatchet to defend myself and my family with. That's not going to cut it (so to speak).

So there are several things I could do: Get an alarm system, get a dog, get a gun, move, or some combination. Financially, alarms and dogs are recurrently costly. As a practical deterrent in a physical fight, alarms won't do any more immediate help than calling the police would; dogs would though, big ones at least. The shotgun I'm getting is under $200. The security cabinet for it is about $300. That's comparatively inexpensive.

One of the reasons I'm getting a shotgun is precisely because they're big and heavy - not easy for children to pick up, load, and fire, unlike handguns.

You'll be safer if you move. And less stressed out. Who wants to live under those kinda threats all the time. Its bad for your health and your families health.

 

[ivwshane]

Well what's striking is that I live in a pretty nice neighborhood. Quiet, nice neighbors, kids, barbecues, crazy Halloweens. But things were suddenly and dramatically shattered in the last 8 months.

Thanks trump!

 

[Puffnstuff]

Everyone grows up differently and subsequently is exposed to different concepts and lifestyles. I grew up around guns and they've been in the family for generations just as its normal for family members to serve in the armed forces. Any legal reason is reason enough to own anything under the sun.

However, there's a reasonable expectation of responsibility on the part of the gun owner so they don't endanger themselves or the public.

 

[woolfe9998]

It's an interesting question. My mind comes back to two things:

1. If the Jewish population in Germany circa 1930s was well-armed, would that be a check or even a full stop against Nazi aggression against them?

2. A gun is the ultimate force equalizer between a 250-pound man and a 120-pound woman. Are we saying we're willing to take that away from the woman?

I think the answer to #1 is complicated; there was a surprising amount of assent within the Jewish community in Germany to play along with whatever new rules got imposed upon them, thinking that with the latest set of rules those that hated them would finally leave them alone. I could see them trading in the majority of their guns willingly. On the other hand, had the SS come door to door, ain't nobody stopping them.

I guess #2 is complicated too, but even recent events have shown that the aggressor has a huge advantage - they're going to "win" a battle the majority of the time. So what does having a gun really help?

The Jews did eventually get around to arming themselves in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. They killed about 10 German soldiers and disabled a few vehicles before the Nazis used artillery to level the entire ghetto to rubble. Which illustrates the utter futility of using personal firearms to fight a modern army.

 

[Thebobo]

The Jews did eventually get around to arming themselves in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. They killed about 10 German soldiers and disabled a few vehicles before the Nazis used artillery to level the entire ghetto to rubble. Which illustrates the utter futility of using personal firearms to fight a modern army.

But benghazi?

 

[bradly1101]

Well what's striking is that I live in a pretty nice neighborhood. Quiet, nice neighbors, kids, barbecues, crazy Halloweens. But things were suddenly and dramatically shattered in the last 8 months.

And that doesn't shake your faith? Doesn't purchasing a firearm because of that indicate less faith in humans being peaceable with their guns?

 

[Younigue]

Anybody who needs a gun for subsistence hunting likely will be living very far away from any city (where there will not be fast er easy access to such training yrograms, and likely they will learn at a VERY young age from their parent(s) or uncle or grandpa or some other family member in their household on how to hunt over the course of their childhood. I would expect any 10 year old who lives in a subsistence hunting household to know more about gun safety and marksmanship than most instructors or trainers.

Honestly, I would expect that just about every "farm boy" and "farm girl" could safely handle most firearms as they would likely learn at a young age to protect their livestock from predators with a shotgun or a rifle.

I'll concede to your point. Grew up in a household that required meat from my father's hunting. He was a chauvinist so his girls didn't hunt.

 

[shortylickens]

The Jews did eventually get around to arming themselves in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. They killed about 10 German soldiers and disabled a few vehicles before the Nazis used artillery to level the entire ghetto to rubble. Which illustrates the utter futility of using personal firearms to fight a modern army.

Then why the fuck are we still losing in Iraq and Afghanistan you stupid ignorant cowardly son of a whore?

 

[kage69]

. Which illustrates the utter futility of using personal firearms to fight a modern army.

The problem I have with that proclamation is that it doesn't address quantity or tactics. I call into evidence the FP-45 Liberator, a stamped single shot .45ACP pistol that was dropped into occupied Europe to help various resistance groups. Literally took longer to load one than it did to make one, yet was used against those who enjoyed the world's most cutting edge military equipment for the majority of the conflict.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

That picture was way before Pulse. I wonder if they make you prove you are gay. How would one do that?

They ask, then provide free training and range time.

 

[woolfe9998]

The problem I have with that proclamation is that it doesn't address quantity or tactics. I call into evidence the FP-45 Liberator, a stamped single shot .45ACP pistol that was dropped into occupied Europe to help various resistance groups. Literally took longer to load one than it did to make one, yet was used against those who enjoyed the world's most cutting edge military equipment for the majority of the conflict.

Anti-Nazi resistance groups were at times effective because they fought behind battle lines - the key fact being that there were actual battle lines where the Germans fought real armies. These partisans could never have prevailed against the Nazis on their own, no matter how many pistols we gave them.

That said, I will concede that, depending on context, it's possible for guerrilla fighters to win a war alone, provided they are stocked with more than small arms (heavy weapons like RPG's/Stingers at a minimum) and have certain other advantages. The Soviet/Afghan war would be a good example. To a lesser extent, our own war in Afghanistan as well.

 

[kage69]

Then why the fuck are we still losing in Iraq and Afghanistan you stupid ignorant cowardly son of a whore?

Really? Take a breath shorty. That should be beneath you, particularly towards posters like woolf.

We're having a shit time in Afghanistan because of several factors, but the ones that impact your argument the most would be the IEDs, DShKs and RPGs I suppose. Things have been wrapping up out in Iraq/Syria lately, doesn't look like losing on the battlefield over there now.

 

[BigDH01]

That said, I will concede that, depending on context, it's possible for guerrilla fighters to win a war alone, provided they are stocked with more than small arms (heavy weapons like RPG's/Stingers at a minimum) and have certain other advantages. The Soviet/Afghan war would be a good example. To a lesser extent, our own war in Afghanistan as well.

The Stinger's effectiveness was questionable in Afghanistan but it did change tactics. But yeah, IEDs, RPGs, just plane grenades, even a couple of missiles here and there are helpful. You can watch youtube videos of various guerrilla conflicts in the middle east and see rebels taking out modern tanks (both US and Russian) using AT missiles (supplied by allies obviously).

Our own failures in guerrilla warfare are due to the armament of the enemy combined with our own tactics. Unlike the Nazis, we refuse to slaughter civilians and enemy combatants. In a real civil war, it's unlikely we would be so kind rendering our guns less useful. Honestly, when your opponent can just use artillery or drop bombs from planes or launch missiles from drones, your only hope is to go underground and then it turns into a war of attrition as the enemy goes door to door. A gun might be nice to have then, but you'll already be displaced from your urban/suburban home and it's unlikely you took your arsenal with you.

In other words, I don't find the argument that guns are useful against our government as being overly compelling. In any actual serious dissent, you'd be relying on the military to either treat you with kid gloves or join the resistance. The alternative is to distribute the rebellion and just overwhelm military forces with sheer geographical dispersion and numbers. Then you're relying on the popularity of your movement or overpowering your neighbors, where your guns might be more useful.

In that vein, I'm sympathetic to "guns as defense" arguments. Not sure where we draw a line whereby a gun moves to being primarily offensive in nature, if it ever does.

Edit: This might be the ballsiest person I've ever seen (assuming the tank was manned):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4RYc5yYvh4

 

[imported_tajmahal]

The Stinger's effectiveness was questionable in Afghanistan but it did change tactics. But yeah, IEDs, RPGs, just plane grenades, even a couple of missiles here and there are helpful. You can watch youtube videos of various guerrilla conflicts in the middle east and see rebels taking out modern tanks (both US and Russian) using AT missiles (supplied by allies obviously).

Our own failures in guerrilla warfare are due to the armament of the enemy combined with our own tactics. Unlike the Nazis, we refuse to slaughter civilians and enemy combatants. In a real civil war, it's unlikely we would be so kind rendering our guns less useful. Honestly, when your opponent can just use artillery or drop bombs from planes or launch missiles from drones, your only hope is to go underground and then it turns into a war of attrition as the enemy goes door to door. A gun might be nice to have then, but you'll already be displaced from your urban/suburban home and it's unlikely you took your arsenal with you.

In other words, I don't find the argument that guns are useful against our government as being overly compelling. In any actual serious dissent, you'd be relying on the military to either treat you with kid gloves or join the resistance. The alternative is to distribute the rebellion and just overwhelm military forces with sheer geographical dispersion and numbers. Then you're relying on the popularity of your movement or overpowering your neighbors, where your guns might be more useful.

In that vein, I'm sympathetic to "guns as defense" arguments. Not sure where we draw a line whereby a gun moves to being primarily offensive in nature, if it ever does.

Edit: This might be the ballsiest person I've ever seen (assuming the tank was manned):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4RYc5yYvh4

Do you think that the United States Armed forces would take up arms and use their weapons to slaughter American civilians, use artillery and drop bombs fairly indiscriminately ? Maybe if the order to kill fellow citizens was used nicely?

 

[OutHouse]

if you put all the above i would have selected that.

 

[kage69]

Anti-Nazi resistance groups were at times effective because they fought behind battle lines - the key fact being that there were actual battle lines where the Germans fought real armies. These partisans could never have prevailed against the Nazis on their own, no matter how many pistols we gave them.

The specific tactic with the Liberator was to use it to ambush a Nazi soldier or conscript and take their weapon. This was done in quantity until fighting units of resistance could be equipped to take on the Germans in outright attacks. The Maquis in particular made good use of it just prior to and immediately after D-Day, one of the things that helped facilitate taking on German troops in broad daylight when retaking France. A bunch of muddy Vietnamese farmers shouldn't have won against the US military, and their resistance would have happened with or without Chinese and Soviet support.

That said, I will concede that, depending on context, it's possible for guerrilla fighters to win a war alone, provided they are stocked with more than small arms (heavy weapons like RPG's/Stingers at a minimum) and have certain other advantages. The Soviet/Afghan war would be a good example. To a lesser extent, our own war in Afghanistan as well.

Home turf is always an advantage, and when coupled with patience some say the best advantage, i.e. Afghanistan. Technology, as usual, is the equalizer. As you say, when Charlie asked the muj what kind of trucks, what find of food and medicine America could send, the reply was essentially "Keep it. We need Hind killers and/or a way lob shells into bases."

 

[Alpha One Seven]

I think it was intended for citizens in a well regulated militia to have arms as a check against government as well as a means of defending their homes. Though certainly I can't imagine the founding fathers were thinking of futuristic guns like assault rifles and bump stocks when it came to making the 2nd amendment. They were thinking of one bullet pistols and muskets with very long reload times.

Even by the point of the civil war when technology was so much more advanced than the revolution that officers had revolvers, typical guns still took forever to load.

If the government has access to a type of firearm that make them significantly superior to the population, then the citizens should also have the same access to that technology or we are again subjects of possibly corrupt government actions. Does anyone think the Government is ever corrupt?

 

[BigDH01]

Do you think that the United States Armed forces would take up arms and use their weapons to slaughter American civilians, use artillery and drop bombs fairly indiscriminately ? Maybe if the order to kill fellow citizens was used nicely?

Did you not read my post? I thought it was clear:

In other words, I don't find the argument that guns are useful against our government as being overly compelling. In any actual serious dissent, you'd be relying on the military to either treat you with kid gloves or join the resistance.

I essentially describe two scenarios:
1) Contentious civil war in which yes, I believe the Armed Forces would take up arms and fight a bloody civil war. After all, the mostly costly war we've fought to date is one we fought against ourselves. Guns may or may not provide much value here, civilians would be far outmatched.
2) Popular uprising, no military support from the government (or maybe even a military coup) in which case the rebellion has popular support and the weapons would likely be superfluous anyway as you'd have no one to fight.

 

[Gryz]

Biased poll.
There is no option to vote for "none of the above".
You have to pick at least one option if you want to vote.
Dumb.

What's even dumber is that nobody here has noticed this yet.

All reason for citizens to own guns are the same reason for citizen to own nuclear weapons.
"I collect old hydrogen bombs. It's fun !"
"Hunting with my cruise missile is so effective, and so much fun. I never wanna hunt without my cruise missile any more".
"My neutron-bombs keeps me safe against foreigners that wanna rob my house as soon as I lower my guard. Goddamn foreigners".
"We citizens need our nuclear submarines to keep our government in check. Trump would overthrow our democracy if he knew we wouldn't strike back with out nuclear submarines".

 

[Younigue]

If the government has access to a type of firearm that make them significantly superior to the population, then the citizens should also have the same access to that technology or we are again subjects of possibly corrupt government actions. Does anyone think the Government is ever corrupt?

So, arm the people with tanks, fighter jets, warships, nukes ... Etc. Good plan!

 

[Sonikku]

If the government has access to a type of firearm that make them significantly superior to the population, then the citizens should also have the same access to that technology or we are again subjects of possibly corrupt government actions. Does anyone think the Government is ever corrupt?

Where's my nuke?

 

[bradly1101]

https://www.voanews.com/a/texas-gun-range-offers-free-training-to-lgbt-people/3399929.html
This is just one of several gun ranges that offers free training to LGBT people after the Pulse nightclub terrorism.
"
HOUSTON —
Cheryl Burgin is a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps who knows how to handle firearms and feels the need to have one now as a lesbian living with her wife in Humble, Texas.

“There is a target that has been painted on people’s backs now if they are part of the LGBT community,” Burgin told VOA.

Since the attack on gays and others at the Pulse night club in Orlando, Florida, on June 12 that left 49 people dead, LGBT people around the country have felt something similar could happen to them or the people they love.

In states such as Texas that allow the open carry of firearms for people who obtain a concealed handgun license, many LGBT people now consider wearing a holstered gun or carrying a weapon in a purse or bag as a deterrent to crime as well as senseless attacks.

Gun range lessons

Burgin drove for more than a half-hour to reach the Shiloh Gun and Archery Range in north Houston to take advantage of a special offer to self-identified LGBT people for free lessons needed to obtain a concealed handgun license."

Don't believe the crap that pro-gun people are haters, bigots or racists.

I'm sure I wouldn't want to visit a nightclub/bar/restaurant straight or gay where people are getting drunk and maybe armed with a gun. Sounds like a recipe/ask for disaster.