Sorry to drop in another gun thread, but I don’t think this question really fits in with any of the others open right now.
Why do we feel the need for a right to carry guns?
With the exception of rifles and other such guns (I admit, I don’t know much about guns in general) which are used for hunting, guns (such as handguns) are made to kill people.
So why do people actively want stuff around that is made solely to kill people?
‘Cause sometimes there’s people who need a little killin’.
Because they are viewed as equalizers. The little old lady stands no chance against the thug – unless she’s got a gun (I used to have a number of articles about just this topic – little old ladies who fought off intruders this way, but I lost them in a 'puter switch a few years ago).
Some people also believe they need guns to protect them against the potential for a tyranical government.
Yes, they are made to kill people, but the vast majority of those who want respect for the right to keep and bear arms want it for defensive purposes. Sometimes you have to kill when it comes to defending yourself.
Because sometimes killing people is not wrong in all circumstances, sometimes it’s a nescssity or even a positive action. They can guarantee personal protection against attackers and on abroader scalle against oppressive governments.
Also they give a great sensation of security and power. Also, we can’t forget about the glamour of having a gun, like, don’t know, 007 maybe?
Why guns? What the hell else are we supposed to use to shoot people?
Dr. J
Well, canons usually get the job done. Also if we are to forget about guns, what about swords and bows&arrows, a lot more nice to the eyes and spirit.
Crossbows don’t kill people.
People kill people.
Yes, but as this site proves swords are responsible for thousands of children deaths every year.
How about an example for each, with no guns in the equasion at all?
While I suppose there is SOME validity in the equalizing theory, it still doesn’t pass muster with me. Don’t you think guns are used more to commit crimes than to prevent them? I’d really like to give you a cite (and find out for sure for myself) but I’m outta time and still not very good at finsing them, I’ll come back to it later.
And I never said anything about crossbows. I am definitely pro-crossbow! 
Damm, it should read crossbows not swords!
Canonization can kill someone? 
I must be really stupid to post three times in a row but:
Sure I do! But I also believe that a prohibition on guns would affect much more the law abiding citizens than the croocks. Meanwhile you’re defenseless.
Just IMHO.
LaurAnge wrote:
Not quite.
Self-defense and military firearms are designed to neutralize a threat. They can accomplish this by incapacitating or knocking out a man as easily as they can by killing him. The problem is, with most weapons, the amount of force required to drop someone is almost as great as the amount of force required to kill someone.
Weapons designed only to knock out or incapacitate (e.g. tasers or pepper spray) won’t work in many circumstances where a gun would – they have limited range, can only affect the target if they hit him in specific areas of the body, can be easily nullified by glasses/clothing, etc… If someone is charging at you with the intent of killing you or doing you great bodily injury, you may lack the time, training, presence of mind, and calm hands necessary to shoot pepper spray directly into his eyes. But a .357 magnum or 10 mm round will stop him cold, instantly, even if your aim is so pathetic that you only manage to shoot him in the arm or leg (the systolic shock waves from the bullet impact travel throughout his bloodstream).
If someone ever invents a weapon that can incapacitate someone, reliably, without killing or seriously injuring him, every police force in the land will eventually adopt it. Many gun owners would also willingly trade in their .45 ACP for a Star Trek phaser with a stun setting. But it hasn’t happened yet.
Protection from someone that wants to do me,us,you, harm.
It is my opinion that banning guns will trigger a crime wave of enormous proportions.
Prove me wrong and I’ll give up my guns,maybe.
I have to take issue with the basic premise of your question. Guns are not “made to kill people.” They are made to shoot a projectile. That projectile can be aimed at a person or a target. Guns have no intent – they are inanimate objects. The vast, vast majority of guns have never been used to shoot at, much less kill, a person. I realize you want to understand more about guns, but understand that the your question used rhetoric that has been developed for a specific political purpose.
Guns are often used in self-defense. Estimates vary from 1-4 million uses of self-defense (last I checked). One of the problems in establishing the frequency of self-defense uses is that they often involve a person merely brandishing a weapon to a would-be attacker, who then gets the Hell out of Dodge. Since there is no reportable incident, there is no hard statistic to measure, unlike a wounding or murder by a criminal.
For the same reason we have Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms was for a different time when there were kings and tyrants? Hey, that’s why we have the other rights too. To speak of and write about the government without fear of being beheaded. Get rid of one of the “old time” rights, then get rid of them all as they were all written in different times, and have no purpose in today’s world and are all being misinterpreted and misused.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
I now understand the pain Collunsbury goes through in every race thread.
If you want to claim that guns are involved in more crime than crime prevention, I suggest you offer a cite.
LaurAnge
I would offer that you have a faulty premise in your op.
You assume that somehow you can close pandora’s box and make it as if guns never existed. The technology to make guns is fairly simple, there is no way to remove them from this world.
Tracer: I would not “trade in” my .45, used for home defense, for a stunner/phaser.
I would substitute a stunner/phaser for my .45, though.
Why the hell would you want a Star Trek phaser? They’re very unergonomically shaped, you’ll always be mistaking it for the TV remote (“oops, zapped another TV”), and they don’t have any way to aim them!
Now, a Star Wars blaster rifle, with THEIR stun setting, would be MUCH better. And they look cooler, too.
What?! This was multiple choice?
Dunno, Spoofe; the ability to vaporize the evidence would seriously cut down on my storage rental fees and carpet cleaning bills. I’d definitely want one of the more classically pistol-shaped phasers from the original series or movies.
I wonder what it’d do to my electric bill, though?