Why do we, as citizens, really need guns?

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot


I dont see why anyone would choose to eat at Burger King vs McDonalds, doesnt mean I think the govt should shut them down. Or, should I ask you - please justify why we need 10 fast food chains instead of just 1? Dumbass argument.

I like where you're going with this. I bet fast food kills more people every year than guns do :^)

 

[swbsam]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: swbsam

Originally posted by: waffleironhead

Originally posted by: swbsam

I understand that hunting is fun - I respect my middle-western inlaws and some of them are badass real MEN. Men who change their own oil and capture their own dinner. I respect that but, if the potential exists that a messed up family member can use this tool in a way that can destroy so much life then, well.. I just don't get it. Do we need to hunt? Not really. Grocery stores are awesome.

You would limit others freedom, not because what they have done, but for what you IMAGINE they are capable of doing. Nice leap in logic there. We are all supposed to give up rights based on your imagination? Where does it end?

As far as the do we need to hunt. Lemme tell you that where I live there a quite a few families that need to collect wild game to survive. It is the taking of rabbits/fowl/deer that allow them to EAT. At a lot lower cost than groceries.

I'll give you that - see, I'm really posting to understand. I understand, taking away a tool that allows people to live is not progress. I'll agree with that. My "grocery stores are awesome" was smug, an assumption based on my ignorance. But assault rifles? Semi-automatic or automatic weapons? How can those be justified?

YOU need to justify taking them away

YOU not seeing the value does not constitute a good reason to restrict personal behavior

I dont see why anyone would choose to eat at Burger King vs McDonalds, doesnt mean I think the govt should shut them down. Or, should I ask you - please justify why we need 10 fast food chains instead of just 1? Dumbass argument.

I'm not changing the laws (thank god, because the ignorant shouldn't be allowed to!), I'm just asking a question, I'm just curious - what's the real reason all of us within current legal requirements/guideline should be allowed to use such weapons as those used in the VT shooting. It's not a hostile question but a question bred from my own ignorance - I can't see what they be used for, other than killing a bunch of people really quickly. There must be another benefit, I just can't see it. Enlighten me because I'd like to be more informed.

 

[nakedfrog]

I haven't read the thread, I'm just going to chime in with "it doesn't matter whether or not we need them"

 

[LTC8K6]

Full auto = I pull the trigger, and the gun fires the rounds continuously until it runs out of ammo, or I release the trigger. Hundreds of rounds a minute. Very hard to get. Not used in crimes. Last recent crime use was LA bank robbery, and those were likely altered illegally.

Semi-auto = I pull the trigger, one round fires. I have to release and pull the trigger again to fire another round. Very common. Used in many crimes and shootings. Common handgun and rifle type used by hunters, sportsmen, target shooters, and criminals.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: swbsam
I'm really wondering why gun control is such a terrible thing, in light of all of the other things that are already prohibited by antiquated laws. For example, I don't believe that marijuana has actually hurt anyone yet it's illegal, but guns have the potential.

What are these reasons that we really (not law enforcement) *NEED* guns? Hunting? Protecting your family from intruders? If you do have a gun for protecting your family from intruders, have you ever been in the position that you've had to use it? Are there any other reasons I'm not thinking about?

gun control does not work... because the criminals which break other laws... will just simply break this one.

the solution to violence is obvious... everyone should carry a gun at all times.
This would make shootings a lot less likely.

 

[lxskllr]

Shooting as sport is fun(and also Olympic), and hunting is fun, and a necessary part of wildlife control. Many animals would die agonizing deaths if it weren't for hunting.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: adairusmc

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
You already need a very special, hard-to-get license to have fully automatic weapons.

Actually, you don't have to have a license at all for full auto, just a $200 tax stamp from uncle sugar with an approved Form 4.

And about $16k for a 30yo rifle.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: swbsam
I'm really wondering why gun control is such a terrible thing, in light of all of the other things that are already prohibited by antiquated laws. For example, I don't believe that marijuana has actually hurt anyone yet it's illegal, but guns have the potential.

What are these reasons that we really (not law enforcement) *NEED* guns? Hunting? Protecting your family from intruders? If you do have a gun for protecting your family from intruders, have you ever been in the position that you've had to use it? Are there any other reasons I'm not thinking about?

Research this little concept called liberty. The 1st 10 amendments of the Constitution were never meant to grant rights, they were meant to enumerate rights held by every person. Those rights are yours by birth, not granted to you by government.

 

[LTC8K6]

What else don't you "need"?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: adairusmc

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
You already need a very special, hard-to-get license to have fully automatic weapons.

Actually, you don't have to have a license at all for full auto, just a $200 tax stamp from uncle sugar with an approved Form 4.

And about $16k for a 30yo rifle.

And a CLEO that isn't an asshole...

 

[hiromizu]

Originally posted by: racolvin

Originally posted by: hiromizu

Originally posted by: spidey07
To kill people or animals, that's why. Or for just plain fun.

Which according to some includes the two.

There's really no need for guns in society. Only the police or other law enforcement officers should carry them - and use them as sparingly as possible. A voice of reason goes a long way.

Oh please ...

The whole point of the "Right To Bear Arms" is and an armed populace is able to defend itself against an oppressive government. The poor schlubs who wrote the Constitution believed that armed rebellion is a perfectly viable way for the citizenry to force a government to either correct itself or to replace that government with one that is more friendly to their citizens.

Hunting and home protection are fine reasons to own a gun but the real reason that right is enshrined in the Constitution is keeping the politicians on their toes.

Sure, you guys go ahead and defend yourself against a government army. There's only a slight chance that they might win.

The constitution can and should be amended to reflect the needs of a modern society. This country would be a much more pleasant place to stay if we didn't have these idiot pro-gun wackos.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: swbsam

I'm not changing the laws (thank god, because the ignorant shouldn't be allowed to!), I'm just asking a question, I'm just curious - what's the real reason all of us within current legal requirements/guideline should be allowed to use such weapons as those used in the VT shooting. It's not a hostile question but a question bred from my own ignorance - I can't see what they be used for, other than killing a bunch of people really quickly. There must be another benefit, I just can't see it. Enlighten me because I'd like to be more informed.

I think you need to learn something about firearms first. You're imagining the movies where somebody has a evil looking rifles and sprays the entire area with hundreds of rounds.

The benefit in your VT case would be to stop the shooter before he caused more harm instead of just being defenseless.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: hiromizu

Originally posted by: racolvin

Originally posted by: hiromizu

Originally posted by: spidey07
To kill people or animals, that's why. Or for just plain fun.

Which according to some includes the two.

There's really no need for guns in society. Only the police or other law enforcement officers should carry them - and use them as sparingly as possible. A voice of reason goes a long way.

Oh please ...

The whole point of the "Right To Bear Arms" is and an armed populace is able to defend itself against an oppressive government. The poor schlubs who wrote the Constitution believed that armed rebellion is a perfectly viable way for the citizenry to force a government to either correct itself or to replace that government with one that is more friendly to their citizens.

Hunting and home protection are fine reasons to own a gun but the real reason that right is enshrined in the Constitution is keeping the politicians on their toes.

Sure, you guys go ahead and defend yourself against a government army. There's only a slight chance that they might win.

The constitution can and should be amended to reflect the needs of a modern society. This country would be a much more pleasant place to stay if we didn't have these idiot pro-gun wackos.

Sure- becaused armed citizenry is so easy to defeat..I mean, look at how fast we were done in Iraq!

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: spidey07
To kill people or animals, that's why. Or for just plain fun.

LOL, you and I disagree a lot, spidey, but I :heart: this post.

I often think of ATOT and laugh whenever I do something that pisses off certain members... like rolling through a stop sign on my bicycle or shooting my gun. In fact sometimes I make a point to do things that I normally wouldn't do just because I know it pisses certain people off who can't do anything about it, and then I can come on here and talk about how much fun I had doing it.

So yeah, um... I like my gun! Killing things is fun!

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: swbsam

I'm not changing the laws (thank god, because the ignorant shouldn't be allowed to!), I'm just asking a question, I'm just curious - what's the real reason all of us within current legal requirements/guideline should be allowed to use such weapons as those used in the VT shooting. It's not a hostile question but a question bred from my own ignorance - I can't see what they be used for, other than killing a bunch of people really quickly. There must be another benefit, I just can't see it. Enlighten me because I'd like to be more informed.

I think you need to learn something about firearms first. You're imagining the movies where somebody has a evil looking rifles and sprays the entire area with hundreds of rounds.

The benefit in your VT case would be to stop the shooter before he caused more harm instead of just being defenseless.

Yep - like by shooting him. Unfortunately, he was in a "gun free zone", so nobody could.

Oops.

 

[ElFenix]

the VT guy used a glock 19 which in normal form has a capacity of 15 bullets, and a walther .22 with a normal capacity of 10 bullets.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: hiromizu

Originally posted by: racolvin

Originally posted by: hiromizu

Originally posted by: spidey07
To kill people or animals, that's why. Or for just plain fun.

Which according to some includes the two.

There's really no need for guns in society. Only the police or other law enforcement officers should carry them - and use them as sparingly as possible. A voice of reason goes a long way.

Oh please ...

The whole point of the "Right To Bear Arms" is and an armed populace is able to defend itself against an oppressive government. The poor schlubs who wrote the Constitution believed that armed rebellion is a perfectly viable way for the citizenry to force a government to either correct itself or to replace that government with one that is more friendly to their citizens.

Hunting and home protection are fine reasons to own a gun but the real reason that right is enshrined in the Constitution is keeping the politicians on their toes.

Sure, you guys go ahead and defend yourself against a government army. There's only a slight chance that they might win.

The constitution can and should be amended to reflect the needs of a modern society. This country would be a much more pleasant place to stay if we didn't have these idiot pro-gun wackos.

Yep, lets wipe out some other parts of that pesky Bill of Rights while we're at it. It's pretty much useless anyway.

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
I haven't read the thread, I'm just going to chime in with "it doesn't matter whether or not we need them"

You can't read, can you?

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: hiromizu

Originally posted by: racolvin

Originally posted by: hiromizu

Originally posted by: spidey07
To kill people or animals, that's why. Or for just plain fun.

Which according to some includes the two.

There's really no need for guns in society. Only the police or other law enforcement officers should carry them - and use them as sparingly as possible. A voice of reason goes a long way.

Oh please ...

The whole point of the "Right To Bear Arms" is and an armed populace is able to defend itself against an oppressive government. The poor schlubs who wrote the Constitution believed that armed rebellion is a perfectly viable way for the citizenry to force a government to either correct itself or to replace that government with one that is more friendly to their citizens.

Hunting and home protection are fine reasons to own a gun but the real reason that right is enshrined in the Constitution is keeping the politicians on their toes.

Sure, you guys go ahead and defend yourself against a government army. There's only a slight chance that they might win.

The constitution can and should be amended to reflect the needs of a modern society. This country would be a much more pleasant place to stay if we didn't have these idiot pro-gun wackos.

The Soviet Union had a huge standing army including nuclear weapons. Where exactly is the Soviet Union today?

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: JLee


Sure- becaused armed citizenry is so easy to defeat..I mean, look at how fast we were done in Iraq!

Not only that, if the government really got that bad, a good percentage of the military would be on the side of revolution.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: hiromizu

Originally posted by: racolvin

Originally posted by: hiromizu

Originally posted by: spidey07
To kill people or animals, that's why. Or for just plain fun.

Which according to some includes the two.

There's really no need for guns in society. Only the police or other law enforcement officers should carry them - and use them as sparingly as possible. A voice of reason goes a long way.

Oh please ...

The whole point of the "Right To Bear Arms" is and an armed populace is able to defend itself against an oppressive government. The poor schlubs who wrote the Constitution believed that armed rebellion is a perfectly viable way for the citizenry to force a government to either correct itself or to replace that government with one that is more friendly to their citizens.

Hunting and home protection are fine reasons to own a gun but the real reason that right is enshrined in the Constitution is keeping the politicians on their toes.

Sure, you guys go ahead and defend yourself against a government army. There's only a slight chance that they might win.

The constitution can and should be amended to reflect the needs of a modern society. This country would be a much more pleasant place to stay if we didn't have these idiot pro-gun wackos.

Yep, lets wipe out some other parts of that pesky Bill of Rights while we're at it. It's pretty much useless anyway.

Might as well start from the beginning- 1st Amendment. They're in order for a reason, right?

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: swbsam
I'm not changing the laws (thank god, because the ignorant shouldn't be allowed to!), I'm just asking a question, I'm just curious - what's the real reason all of us within current legal requirements/guideline should be allowed to use such weapons as those used in the VT shooting. It's not a hostile question but a question bred from my own ignorance - I can't see what they be used for, other than killing a bunch of people really quickly. There must be another benefit, I just can't see it. Enlighten me because I'd like to be more informed.

From the Wikipedia page:

The Virginia Tech review panel detailed numerous incidents of aberrant behavior beginning in Cho's junior year of college that should have served as warning signals of his deteriorating mental condition. Several former professors of Cho reported that his writing as well as his classroom behavior was disturbing, and he was encouraged to seek counseling.[48][49] He was also investigated by the university for stalking and harassing two female students.[50] In 2005, Cho had been declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice and ordered to seek outpatient treatment.[51]

I don't think the guns were the problem here.

VT did have a "gun free safe zone". Which obviously failed.

 

[swbsam]

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: hiromizu

Originally posted by: racolvin

Originally posted by: hiromizu

Originally posted by: spidey07
To kill people or animals, that's why. Or for just plain fun.

Which according to some includes the two.

There's really no need for guns in society. Only the police or other law enforcement officers should carry them - and use them as sparingly as possible. A voice of reason goes a long way.

Oh please ...

The whole point of the "Right To Bear Arms" is and an armed populace is able to defend itself against an oppressive government. The poor schlubs who wrote the Constitution believed that armed rebellion is a perfectly viable way for the citizenry to force a government to either correct itself or to replace that government with one that is more friendly to their citizens.

Hunting and home protection are fine reasons to own a gun but the real reason that right is enshrined in the Constitution is keeping the politicians on their toes.

Sure, you guys go ahead and defend yourself against a government army. There's only a slight chance that they might win.

The constitution can and should be amended to reflect the needs of a modern society. This country would be a much more pleasant place to stay if we didn't have these idiot pro-gun wackos.

Sure- becaused armed citizenry is so easy to defeat..I mean, look at how fast we were done in Iraq!

Call me naive, but do gun owners actually think that they'll need to band together to form a citizens based army to fight the U.S. Military, in their lifetime?!?

Is this how abortion doctor murderers justify their actions - the U.S. government is not in touch with the individual's ultimately right moral code so, in a way, they're being a soldier of justice by taking the law into their own hands?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: swbsam

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: hiromizu

Originally posted by: racolvin

Originally posted by: hiromizu

Originally posted by: spidey07
To kill people or animals, that's why. Or for just plain fun.

Which according to some includes the two.

There's really no need for guns in society. Only the police or other law enforcement officers should carry them - and use them as sparingly as possible. A voice of reason goes a long way.

Oh please ...

The whole point of the "Right To Bear Arms" is and an armed populace is able to defend itself against an oppressive government. The poor schlubs who wrote the Constitution believed that armed rebellion is a perfectly viable way for the citizenry to force a government to either correct itself or to replace that government with one that is more friendly to their citizens.

Hunting and home protection are fine reasons to own a gun but the real reason that right is enshrined in the Constitution is keeping the politicians on their toes.

Sure, you guys go ahead and defend yourself against a government army. There's only a slight chance that they might win.

The constitution can and should be amended to reflect the needs of a modern society. This country would be a much more pleasant place to stay if we didn't have these idiot pro-gun wackos.

Sure- becaused armed citizenry is so easy to defeat..I mean, look at how fast we were done in Iraq!

Call me naive, but do gun owners actually think that they'll need to band together to form a citizens based army to fight the U.S. Military, in their lifetime?!?

Is this how abortion doctor murders justify their actions - the U.S. government is not in touch with the individual's ultimately right moral code so, in a way, they're being a soldier of justice by taking the law into their own hands?

how do you know they won't? it has happened before. and as Jlee pointed out look at what happened in Iraq.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
I haven't read the thread, I'm just going to chime in with "it doesn't matter whether or not we need them"

You can't read, can you?

Not a single word