Why do you need a gun?

[ChickenLegs]

@artemis

Chicken Legs, I think we do need to remember that not everyone who goes out and buys a gun for protection is a serious shooter. If they get a model that’s simple to use (like a revolver) and get at least a little bit of training, that’s not necessarily a problem. But if they don’t, tragedies sometimes do result because of their inept handling of their weapon. I see that as more of an education problem than a gun problem, though. And a gun which is stolen is more likely to be fatally misused than a stolen fire extinguisher. Again, this is a problem that better education can reduce, now that gun safes are so inexpensive and easy to open in a hurry.

Agreed. I usually recommend a revolver for first-time gun owners who want something for self-defense, along with a quick-access gun box.

That’s not the point, though. The point is, it’s a very tough sell trying to convince me, or guys like me, that we’d somehow be safer if we were disarmed.

[Fear_Itself]

@ChickenLegs

The point is, it’s a very tough sell trying to convince me, or guys like me, that we’d somehow be safer if we were disarmed.

I’m 58 years old, and have never owned gun, yet I don’t feel threatend because of it. You will have an equally tough sell convicing me I am safer with a gun.

[ChickenLegs]

@Fear_Itself

I’m 58 years old, and have never owned gun, yet I don’t feel threatend because of it. You will have an equally tough sell convicing me I am safer with a gun.

You might not be. Individual circumstances, abilities, and mental make-up vary from person to person. I’m not trying, though.

[artemis]

@Fear_Itself

Which is kind of a pointless fear, when you think about it. If the government was determined to confiscate all the guns, they don’t need registration; they just seize the membership records of the NRA.

No, only a minority of gun owners belong to the NRA. And without registration records, there’s no way to know what type or how many guns each gun owner holds. Someone clever would just hide a few of their firearms and leave the rest out for the Feds to “discover.” (Travelers often do something similar, carrying a wallet with just a little cash in it for the pickpockets and muggers, while hiding the bulk of their money somewhere inaccessible.)

[Odesio]

@ed_anger

You get the knowledge that with every gun carefully tracked you will live in a safer country.

I don’t believe that. Do you have anything else?

[artemis]

@Fear_Itself

I’m 58 years old, and have never owned gun, yet I don’t feel threatend because of it. You will have an equally tough sell convicing me I am safer with a gun.

Is anyone trying to force you to own a firearm?

I don’t know any gun owners who think everyone should own a gun. There do seem to be quite a few people in the gun control side, though, who believe no one should own a gun. There’s a big difference between “You may own a gun for protection if you like” and “You can’t own a gun for protection even if you believe you really need one.”

[ed_anger]

@artemis

Is anyone trying to force you to own a firearm?

I don’t know any gun owners who think everyone should own a gun. There do seem to be quite a few people in the gun control side, though, who believe no one should own a gun. There’s a big difference between “You may own a gun for protection if you like” and “You can’t own a gun for protection even if you believe you really need one.”

And there’s a big difference between “You can’t own a gun for protection even if you believe you really need one” and “You have to register your gun when you buy one”

[Zeriel]

@ed_anger

And there’s a big difference between “You can’t own a gun for protection even if you believe you really need one” and “You have to register your gun when you buy one”

In theory, yes. In practice, that well has been deeply poisoned by the gun-control advocates.

[ed_anger]

@Zeriel

In theory, yes. In practice, that well has been deeply poisoned by the gun-control advocates.

beset on every side by imaginary enemies, good thing you have guns.

[artemis]

@ed_anger

And there’s a big difference between “You can’t own a gun for protection even if you believe you really need one” and “You have to register your gun when you buy one”

And if you can convince gun owners that statement #2 is where things will stop, and not just a speed bump on the way to statement #1, you could get your registration law passed. Unfortunately some places (like California and Chicago) did use registration as a prequel to later confiscation, so it’s going to be a hard sell.

Omaha has a law requiring all handguns must be registered with the city unless the owner has a concealed carry permit. The law could be passed precisely because in Nebraska “gun control” means “hitting what you aimed at.” Because the overall legal climate in the state is gun-ownership-friendly and the law is clearly intended only to make life tougher for gangbangers, it was politically possible to pass it.

[artemis]

@ed_anger

beset on every side by imaginary enemies, good thing you have guns.

Morton Grove is an imaginary place? Chicago, DC, New York, and California are imaginary?

I think you’re not aware of just how underhanded some anti-gun politicians have been in the past.

[Crepitus_Fremitus]

To get back to the OP, with “want” in place of “need”, is it a fair summary to say there are 4 main reasons why people want guns, namely, and in arbitrary order:

1. Personal/home defense
2. Hunting/varmint control
3. Sport shooting/collecting
4. Maintaining a militia*

(*I appreciate several posters who have clarified what this one means. It seems to be most commonly put out there as preserving the ability of the populace to take up arms against their own government, should it ever go nuts. However, based on what has been posted in this thread, it seems that was not in fact the original intent.)

[ed_anger]

@artemis

Morton Grove is an imaginary place?

Morton Grove passed a straight out handgun ban, not a handgun registration law. I’m not seeing any “underhandedness” there, I’m seeing people lump together all gun control with gun bans.

[JXJohns]

@Fear_Itself

I’m 58 years old, and have never owned gun, yet I don’t feel threatend because of it. You will have an equally tough sell convicing me I am safer with a gun.

There’s the rub, I don’t care if you want a gun or not. I don’t care if you feel safer with a gun. My needs, wants or desires to pursue gun ownership do not force you to do the same.

[ed_anger]

let me leave this here for everyone arguing that gun regulation is equal to a gun ban:

For most products, comprehensive regulation is enacted when the obvious dangers of the product can no longer be ignored or the death toll associated with a class of products is determined to be unacceptable. Yet firearms have remained immune from regulation. The first step toward reducing firearms violence is to recognize firearms for what they are–inherently dangerous consumer products. The second is to design a comprehensive, workable regulatory framework that can be applied to firearms and firearms products.

Ultimately, meaningful regulation of the manufacture, distribution and sale of firearms, firearms products and ammunition will come about only through comprehensive legislation giving the ATF the regulatory tools wielded by other federal health and safety agencies whose job it is to protect citizens from unreasonably dangerous and defective products.

*As with products regulated by the EPA, the CPSC and the FDA, there is a consensus that some firearms should remain available to the civilian population. *There is also a consensus that more controls should be enacted. Before progress toward a safer, less violent country can be made, there must be a recognition that regulation of firearms is not inconsistent with continued availability. In short, it is possible to create a regulatory system that treats firearms just as we currently control other potentially dangerous consumer products.

The foundation for comprehensive firearms regulation is an expansion of the authority of the ATF. Just as regulation of pesticides has not led to an outright ban on their use, neither would expanding the ATF’s authority result in a gunless America. It could, however:

Reduce the availability of specific categories of weapons shown to pose an unreasonable risk of injury.

Place controls on an industry that today is free to manufacture and sell firearms or related products without any consideration of the consequences to the public's health and safety.

Protect firearms owners from products that present a serious risk of injury because of a hazardous design characteristic or manufacturing defect.

Rein in the abuse of federal firearms dealer licenses.

VPC - Cease Fire

[Kable]

@Fear_Itself

I’m 58 years old, and have never owned gun, yet I don’t feel threatend because of it. You will have an equally tough sell convicing me I am safer with a gun.

Fear itself, wouldn’t you like to confiscate semi-auto rifles at least?

[artemis]

@ed_anger

Morton Grove passed a straight out handgun ban, not a handgun registration law. I’m not seeing any “underhandedness” there, I’m seeing people lump together all gun control with gun bans.

And handgun owners living in Morton Grove suddenly found themselves facing some very unpalatable choices:

1. Get rid of their legally purchased property (which had never been used to harm anyone)

2. Keep their legally purchased property and risk a criminal conviction.

3. Move somewhere else.

Do you think the general public would be nearly so accepting of automobile registration if there was a history of towns banning the ownership of SUVs or Toyotas?

[ed_anger]

@artemis

And handgun owners living in Morton Grove suddenly found themselves facing some very unpalatable choices:

1. Get rid of their legally purchased property (which had never been used to harm anyone)

2. Keep their legally purchased property and risk a criminal conviction.

3. Move somewhere else.

Do you think the general public would be nearly so accepting of automobile registration if there was a history of towns banning the ownership of SUVs or Toyotas?

again, there was no registration and then seizure. my point stands.

[artemis]

@ed_anger

again, there was no registration and then seizure. my point stands.

No, it does not. Morton Grove showed gun owners why registration is a bad idea: because there ARE people out there who will in fact pass laws to take their legally-owned property away, and registration list would give those people the power to enforce their otherwise-unenforceable law. (Just like Chicago did.)

[DrCube]

@ed_anger

Yet firearms have remained immune from regulation.

Really? Would you like to educate yourself and try again? We try to fight ignorance on this board.