You are right. I had meant to title the OP as “Why do you want a gun?” My apologies.
Maybe because their isn’t an active and industry-funded pool lobby stoking pool owners with the fear that the government is going to take their pools away. Or arguing that the solution to pool drownings is that pools need to be bigger and deeper. Or wondering why–if a ban on pools makes society safer, why do government employees like fire-fighters carry around high-powered hoses?
Or maybe because there hasn’t been an instance of a crazy pool owner (or a crazy relative of a pool owner who has easy access) drowning 10-20 people in his backyard. Though I’m sure if there were, there’d still be folks making false analogies and absurd arguments: “If we regulate pools, what’s to stop people from using rivers, lakes, or the ocean?” and “The only solution to a bad guy with a squirt-gun is a good guy with a squirt-gun”.
Before beginning this thread, I did do a quick search on all threads in the past month where the word “guns” appeared. I had not noticed any which asked what I did. If I missed some, then I apologize.
Do you have a right to own a bazooka? A SCUD missile? Even if you accept that there is a right (which I do NOT), there can and must be reasonable limitations. To establish reasonable limitations, one must define what reasonable use is.
Actually, there’s a lot of truth to that.
So, can we end the hijack now? Keeve asked a couple of politely-worded questions, and he’s made it clear he had no ulterior motives. It would be a pity to see this thread degenerate into the usual gun-thread mess.
Meanwhile, I just noticed that I forgot to answer a couple of the OP’s questions:
Yes.
That said, most people are going to be lucky. Just like most people will never have their house destroyed by a tornado (even if they live in Tornado Alley) or destroyed in a house fire.
Knock on wood, not yet.
I try to get to a range once a week and shoot at least 100 rounds. Alas, work doesn’t always allow that, and I suspect I’ll also have more enthusiasm for shooting once the weather’s better and I can practice at my club’s nice outdoor range instead of a noisy indoor one.
Umm…what are you putting in your squirt gun?
Because I am female, and Rob works an hour away, and my roomie lives in a studio flat in the barn so I spend many long hours totally alone except for my fat lazy cat.
I live in a rural area with a 20 minute plus response time at best, several hours otherwise.
Because I am handicapped and have no reasonable expectation of escape or evasion if someone breaks into my home while I am here alone.
Because sometimes I end up traveling late on empty country roads.
Because target shooting is fun, and though I did at one time actively hunt I am no longer able to it was an activity I enjoyed for many years.
Not everybody lives in the depths of suburbia and has fast police response.
Somewhat similarly to aruvqan, I grew up in an area where you had a gun in the house because sometimes you’d walk downstairs to find a bear had ripped through your screen door and was rummaging through the chest freezer on your three-season porch.
That, and shooting those bastard orange frisbees is fun.
That, and deer are tasty bastards.
I probably get out to the range three times a year these days, but when I do I go through 200 rounds easily. If I felt the need to have a gun for self-defense, I wouldn’t bother until I had time to do something more like 100 rounds a week of both straight target and decision-making. Gun’s only useful for self-defense if you are properly trained, IMHO.
I have a gun because I want to have the ability, option, possibility, remote chance, whatever you want to qualify it, to never be raped again by a male who is much larger and stronger than me.
If anyone wants to challenge that, keep in mind I’ve been debating this topic on this message board for 12 years; I’ve heard every possible counter-point, argument, and insult, and none have changed my mind in the least.
Well, here’s a start: Ask yourself why police and security personnel carry weapons. And now ask yourself whether civilians might ever be put into a similar situation.
The fact is, cops, security guards, Secret Service members, intelligence agents, and soldiers carry weapons primarily to defend themselves against attacks. (Ignore the infantry for a moment. There is a whole military outside the infantry that will never be called on to shoot someone unprovoked, but who nevertheless carry firearms for protection.)
If you can assure me and every other civilian in the country that they will not be attacked (and if you could, why the urgent need for gun control?), then you could convince me that civilians shouldn’t be allowed to carry firearms for defense. Otherwise, there is a chance I will be put in the position of defending myself with deadly force, and I must have the right to respond.
Until the Secret Service and police find it reasonable to go unarmed, I’ll reserve the right to arm myself as well, and for similar reasons.
And even if you do live in the depths of suburbia with a fast police response time, 5 minutes is PLENTY of time to discover just how rapidly a violent thug can turn you into a red smear on the floor. Violent attacks happen extremely quickly! And until the police have access to a Star Trek transporter beam, it’s going to be hard for them to get an average response time much lower than that. They do, after all, have to drive to get to your house, and even in suburbia that takes some time.
And of course, people’s individual risks vary. I’m lucky enough to be reasonably able-bodied; unfortunately, you’re not. And then there are people who have the Stalker Ex From Hell to deal with, or whose job involves making Very Bad People seriously angry with them. I figure it’s up to the individual person to weigh the risks versus the benefits of firearms ownership; beyond “you should seriously consider the downsides as well as the benefits before you buy a firearm, and commit to getting good training and regular practice if you decide to keep a gun” there aren’t any blanket rules that work.
Yes, I agree. It is just a question of degree. But I happen to think banning large-capacity magazines in order to minimize the damage caused by mass murderers is not a reasonable trade.
In the context of the OP, I do not “need” or “want” a high-capacity magazine. But I do need and want to live in a country that respects my freedom to do as I please as long as I am not harming anyone, and does not arbitrarily and pointlessly reduce my freedom in order to score political points with people who do not see the world the way I do.
Mass shootings are incredibly rare, and banning large capacity magazines will not prevent them, only marginally reduce the number of deaths. Considering that the total number of deaths due to mass shootings in a given year is already vanishingly small, I don’t think limiting the freedom of millions of law-abiding citizens is at all worth it.
If banning large-capacity magazines would forever solve the problem of gun violence, I would support it. In reality, it would barely make a dent, since it would simply force the shooter to pause briefly to switch magazines, and most mass shootings do not involve a continuous hail of bullets anyway. And so I consider such a ban a meaningless political gesture that pointlessly sacrifices freedom in order to score political points and create the false impression of increased safety.
But we don’t all assume that. IMO, the government doesn’t need to be in the business of telling me when I need to reload anymore than they should be able to restrict the number of bullets that I want to buy.
But we do tolerate restrictions. I can’t own whatever I want. And slippery slopes aren’t always fallacies you know.
Pretty much this. It’s amazing how uniformly white, upper-middle-class, and benefitted of living in an area where the police actually give a shit about what the citizenry thinks of their job performance the entire leadership of the gun-confiscation movement is.
Obviously none do, and the NRA is lying. This is known as the Pauline Kael theory of gun ownership.
We just had an incident of home invasion locally, where 4 intruders busted in and beat the elderly homeowners. You might say that’s cause for people to feel the need for gun ownership. However, this particular couple owned guns, but apparently had no chance or inclination to use them (they were taken in the robbery).
Which is kind of a paradox. :dubious: Maybe the moral of the story is, you need fortifications or a moat to allow time for you to get to your weapons.
When most people talk about owning a gun, they mean just owning a gun - it’s more a talisman than a weapon, and they often think having it or at most brandishing it will make bad man go 'way.
Many gun advocates are white males living in suburban or rural (i.e., low-crime) areas. After Newtown, Modest Change in Opinion about Gun Control | Pew Research Center
I don’t have to justify need, any more than you need to justify your desire to have a 500-horsepower two-seat car or a $5000 computer while kids are starving or an abortion just because you feel like it.
I must be naive. I live in the 11th most violent crime city in the country and I’ve never felt fearful enough for my or my families safety. Not saying you can’t have a gun, I’m just saying nothing has happened in my life where I looked back and said, wow if only I had a gun.
I keep on having this argument on Facebook, that truly random crime is such a rare act that I feel OK without having a gun in my house or in my wife’s purse. I live in a decent, but still urban neighborhood, I’m not involved with the wrong element, I’m not hanging around the ghetto, I’m not hanging out anywhere past midnight. I’m not particularly in a high risk group, so no I don’t feel the need to have a gun.
If a violent, truly random, act were ever to happen to me, I’d like to think I’d chalk it up to simply being my turn and that I could live another 2 lifetimes and it wouldn’t be my turn again. I understand if people who live in a sketchy neighborhood want to be armed. I do not want to ban or confiscate any guns, I just don’t understand why people are fighting for their right to carry a gun while grocery shopping. It would never occur to me. I suspect I’m just naive.