I’ve lived most of my life in densely populated Suburbia. No one I’ve ever known has ever mentioned that they own a gun, though that could be for reasons other than not owning one. Be that as it may, I have no one but the Teeming Millions who I can turn to for this.
I feel no desire to go hunting, but I have no problem with those who do. My question is for those who have a gun for general protection purposes. And I don’t mean police or security guards or armored car employees. I’m talking about ordinary people with ordinary lives.
The thing I don’t understand is this: In my whole life (and I am not so young any more) I have never been in a situation where I said to myself, “I wish I had a gun right now.” That’s not to say that such a situation won’t ever occur, but only to say that the odds seem so low that I can’t see it being worth the various downsides. This is compounded further by the idea that whatever safety measures I might take would have the side affect of making the gun less available should I ever need it.
So I really want to know: Am I in more danger than I realize? Have I simply been lucky? If you own a gun and keep it locked in your nightstand, have you ever used it? How often do you use it?
(Someday, I might join a discussion about whether or not guns should be banned. But I won’t feel qualified to join that discussion until I understand why people want guns to begin with.)
In terms of home protection, the standard response to your question is the analogy of having a home fire extinguisher. You might have one for years, and hopefully never need to use it.
Growing up, we always had a fire extinguisher, and I have 3-4 located around my house today. As boy, we used ours once. As an adult, I have yet to need to use ours. I still keep them, and keep them in locations where I can find them easily.
Growing up, we had firearms, and I have a few today as well. As a boy, I used the shotgun a few times on rattlers in the yard. Loaded the rifles one night when we heard shots as well. We lived on some acres, limited police protection, and there had been a flood. Robbers / burglars were working the areas that people had fled, and we were not sure if they were local or not. Phones were out. As an adult I brandished a shotgun at a man coming through my window the day of the LA earthquake (I had a ground floor apartment). He took off at a run.
Because I’m a sexual minority in a country that easily could have elected Rick Santorum President.
Because the cops in my city won’t arrest anyone in the last week of the month if the crime rate is embarrassing our mayor-for-life, and they scold you if you call 911 during that time.
For the same reason I should justify to you why I “need” to be gay, or why someone “needs” to be Jewish, or “needs” to get a trial before being sentenced to prison. AKA, none of your goddamn business.
That’s it for me, except the downsides are so minimal (expense, range time to stay proficient) that it tips in favor of gun ownership. There’s four potential conditions:
Don’t need gun / don’t have one
Don’t need gun / have one
Need gun / have one
Need gun / don’t have one
Trouble is, I only have control over the right-hand side; the left is up to chance.
That analogy works for me, though there is a recreational aspect to firearms as well.
I endorse this sentiment as well. Exercise of natural rights isn’t something that must be justified, it’s infringement upon them that must be.
I heartily endorse this quote that I’ve recently seen:
I’m sorry if I offended anyone. (That means you, Condescending Robot and silenus.) I tried very hard to write nothing that was anti-gunownership, and I thought that I adequately explained that I was simply asking how useful you’ve found your guns to be.
[QUOTE=ME!!!]
(Someday, I might join a discussion about whether or not guns should be banned. But I won’t feel qualified to join that discussion until I understand why people want guns to begin with.)
[/QUOTE]
Was there something in there that suggested which side of the discussion I’d be for? I really do want to understand all views BEFORE I take sides!
A man came to the door of my home in Colorado under the guise of delivering a package. When he handed it to me he had a pistol aimed at me underneath and tried to force his way into my home. I wrestled with him and threw him out. Now understand that I had a gun in the house at the time and it did me no good in that immediate instance because I don’t answer the door with a gun in hand. But had he made his way in or if he had ever returned I would find someway to get it in my hand and use it. Then I’d reload.
Because when it comes to guns, gun advocates think that the simple act of questioning the limits of a right means you are automatically as far opposed to guns as can be, and they answer in a way they think people deserve. Its the same as a previous topic, where John Stamo’s Left Ear asked if, after Newtown, we could have a discussion about guns, he practically begged for one, but the first response was a snotty remark about why he’s poisoning the well
I fully believe that a vocal majority of those who speak out for guns feel that this one right can never be questioned, even rhetorically, and they are so afraid of any tiny limit that they infuse with bile and venom and response so as to immediately destroy any semblance of honest debate
Because I’m objecting to the notion that the baying mob’s evaluation of whether other people “need” something is in any way relevant to their right to have it. While the question may have been honest, the implied sentiment (that someone can take away my guns, or my books, or my password-protected files if they aren’t satisfied that I “need” them) is the sort of stupid thinking infecting America today. There isn’t any notion that there are legitimate tradeoffs to be made, that perhaps it’s better to live in a society with some level of violence in exchange for not become a dictatorship in the name of preventing “terrorism” or “gun murders,” nor that there is often a disconnect between what is morally appropriate and what is the proper sphere of government action. To ask the question “why do you NEED a gun” is to implicitly buy into the mainstream American notion that there is no middle step between “I don’t like a thing” and “the government should ban that thing.” I reject the exclusion of the “is it proper for the government to be invested in addressing your dislike of this thing” step.
Truth is, almost no one needs one - most cops make it thru lifelong careers never firing theirs, even in cities like Chicago. The odds are against it, pure and simple. The fire extinguisher analogy is apt because in the face if similar odds people like to be prepared, and when the stats go against them they’re still not prepared - smoke detectors have bad batteries, extinguishers haven’t been charged or they don’t have the right type or don’t know how to use it. The gun has been stored improperly, hasn’t been maintained, isn’t readily accessible, they have little practice with it. But in both cases people feel better kidding themselves.
I like shooting guns. I like hunting. Owning guns is the simplest way to fulfill my desires. That I have one for protection is of secondary importance to me.
I think some of you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. Take high capacity magazines. There are many people who want to ban them to prevent the rapid kill capability like we saw in Newtown and Aurora. If you don’t want to see this happen, you might be well served to give reasons why you need to have them. Just sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting “(second half of) Second Amendment!” isn’t going to serve you well. Similarly, you’d help your side of the public debate if you would react civilly to simple questions rather than go batshit.