Personally, I have to say that I object to the question. To me, being asked why I “need” to own a gun is like being asked why I “need” to own a book. I probably don’t “need” either one.
The question, in other words, puts the burden of proof where it does not belong. The proper question to ask is, why does the state need to ban a particular book? Or, why does the state need to ban, or restrict access to, a particular kind of firearm?
Hitler was never personally elected to any public office. He lost the 1932 Presidential election. The Nazis never won an actual majority in the Reichstag in any election.
Hitler was appointed to the office of Chancellor, not elected.
Since your name contains the word logic, I thought I’d venture this little tangent (especially since it helps us flush out the debate). This is not intended to be anything except my own attempt to understand these three questions.
The original post was written by someone pro-gun control, and while it was only asked why “we” need guns, it can be assumed that that the arguement for gun control would have all guns removed from society 9except those mentioned for sport, etc).
Now, if all the guns were removed from society, how effective would brandishing a fake firearm be?
_
As an American, I can tell you a few things about how I feel about this issue, although as most who have come before me in this thread, none of it can be backed up by any data, scientific or otherwise.
I feel my country has it completely backwards with regards to what we find acceptable and what is considered wrong. We can see actual footage of somebody being shot on television, but heaven forbid that we see a breast. One of those two seems much more likely to corrupt young minds, and I feel my country has these two things backwards.
I own guns, I’ve fired them many times, I don’t know, they don’t freak me out. That probably has a lot to do with the fact that they have always been in my life. I just keep thinking about the old saying that states ‘if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns’. Logically though, I don’t know if I agree with that because many other countries have outlawed guns, and it seems to have worked. I don’t really know what to tell you, other than the fact that the NRA has most of us convinced that we need them.
That may be true. However, seeing as the OP was Australian, I don’t think that the post should be judged in quite the same way as if written by a US citizen; it might be seen as a genuine question by someone who grew up with a different cultural attitude toward guns. If the OP had been American, then I would agree that the post was biased. I think that most of the posters here took the OP as a genuine request for opinions.
I agree. To be fair and balanced, there should be many more breasts on television. “If breasts are outlawed, only outlaws will have breasts.” That would be really… hot… because I like bad girls. 
I have never owned or fired a gun and, in fact, with my history of depression it would be dangerous for me to do so. However, I’ve known several responsible gun owners, nearly married one, and I know, understand, and agree with their reasons for doing so. There are several. The two gentlemen I knew best collected guns. Both of them had pieces dating back to the Civil War. They appreciated the history behind them, just as I assume other antique collectors do. They’ve also told me that shooting targets is just plain fun, and I can see why. I also know people who hunt for food as well as fun.
As I said, I don’t own a gun, but I can see circumstances under which I would. If I’m ever unfortunate enough to acquire an abusive ex-husband or boyfriend or a stalker, to the point where I get a restraining order, I would buy a gun. I’d enlist the help of one of these responsible gun-owners, talk to him and the owner of the gun shop, and then spend time at the range until I could be certain I hit what I was aiming at. I’ve read too many newspaper stories about women with restraining orders who were killed while they were waiting for the police to show up. Given my current situation, a scenario like that’s looking increasingly unlikely, but I prefer to be honest with myself.
I fence for a hobby, now and then. There’s no need for me to own the various and sundry pieces of iron-mongery I do, and it’s going to be pretty hard to kill someone with a blunted epee, so perhaps I’m comparing apples and oranges. Still, while there’s no need for me to own the fencing swords I do, I own them because owning and using them gives me pleasure, including pleasure drawn from knowing I know what to do with them when I pick one of them up. They are, if anything, less practical than guns since they can’t be used for hunting or effective self-defense, other than shock value. Still, I’d be highly upset if someone tried to outlaw them.
CJ
Or would want to. The instance of Hitler which was cited is silly. Hitler was a very popular leader in Germany and had the German’s been armed with tanks he wouldn’t have been in any danger from them.
Unfortunately this is a common misperception. The NRA could care less whether you want or need a firearm. The NRA is concerned with allowing the individual the means to protect oneself and family with the most expedient tool available, and currently that is a firearm.
I don’t know. If I was a burglar and you came at me with a Norman broadsword or a Scottish claymore, I’d run away REAL fast. I would not stick around to see if the blade was dull or not. Besides, a sharp one can do massive damage.
The RealID Act. The act creates a standard for a “federal ID” which is what you will be required to present to do such things as fly on an airplane, open a bank account, or buy a firearm. It is an attempt to make both forging IDs and obtaining IDs under false pretenses (“social engineering”) more difficult.
The right to self defense is a basic right of humanity IMHO, a gun is a very effective tool to use to exercise that right.
No IMHO about it. In fact, the right to personal self-defense is accrues to every biological organism. All organisms have evolved mechanisms to ward off threats to itself—from the lowliest virus to the highest mammal. A species failing to develop effective self-defense mechanisms is doomed to a quick extinction. Us humans, however, just happen to employ technology, rather than purely biological mechanisms, against their most potent predators—other humans. Technology isn’t, of course, our only means of self-defense; there is, after all, a very intricate immune system to thwart the attacks of lower order organisms.
To deny the validity of an organism the right of self-defense through the most efficacious means it can develop is to deny the causa causans of evolution itself. Seen in this light, self-defense could very well be considered an obligation, rather than a mere right, in order to perpetuate and develop the species.
How’s that for injecting a metaphysical argument in favor of gun rights?
I own guns for lots of reasons: