Why More Americans Want to Own Guns

[God of Mr. Hanky]

We (presuming you actually live in the US, and don't think that all of it is Connecticut, Boston, or politically divided into boroughs and not counties) do not live in a country of geography where guns should be restricted to law enforcement. If you live outside of such a bubble, you may be in a situation for which the closest law enforcement personnel cannot respond in a timely manner. The fuck, this is true in the Bronx! If you and your neighbors don't want guns in your town, then you can outlaw them in your town, but please stop trying to lord your culture over geographic regions where it doesn't work!

Why are you so afraid?

Do not try and make this about me. I have already stated that I am not currently a gun owner, which has been true for over 20 years, and the obvious reason is I'm not afraid where I'm lucky enough to live. If you want to know why other Americans are afraid, then you should talk to them before you go and beat your prohibition drum over their heads, but then they should not have to make any such a case to you out where they live. Go ahead and ban guns in your town if you can get enough of your neighbors to agree on that, but leave those who live outside of your bubble alone - you are nothing short of disgustingly arrogant to go lording over people who you don't understand!

[Lemonvariable72]

It's not as crazy as it looks on the surface. First off people who hunt will commonly have different guns for different game. Maybe  .22 for rabbits, a shotgun for patriarch and 30-06 for deer. Also, well maintenaned guns, last a very long time. Its not uncommon to see guns in a family for many generations. Ex my grandfather has a perfect working order .22 that his father gave him over 50 years ago.

It's not necessarily as crazy as it looks. It can be as crazy as it looks. It is certainly as crazy as it looks around here.

Okay fair point. The key is responsible gun ownership, My grandfather and uncle both own like 8-9 guns because they both hunt and different guns have different properties that make them suitable for different game. My grandfather also is a history buff so he has 2 really cool historical pieces. One is a 1890s swiss army rifle. And he's a conservative minister. Never had a issue with them and we raised 4 kids in that house. Never a issue around us. The key is he keeps them locked up in a cabinet, and only takes them out to maintain them or when he plans to use them. I certainly don't support marching down to MacDonalds to grab a big Mac with your semiautomatic.
This is why I think that the gun problem is only one facet of much larger issue. All the countries with universal healthcare have lower incidents with guns, despite the fact that some have pretty gun ownership rates. The way I see is that we should look at and address the issues that lead people to go on shooting sprees to begin with, not the guns themselves. That said I am in favor of mandatory safety courses and background checks. Though we tried gun registeration in Canada and it was a nothing but a expensive headache.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I don't care if you kill yourself in your muscle car, but I'll probably sit up and take notice if I find it in my back seat, or in my living room. So why aren't the liberals trying to ban muscle cars?

Classic argument. Also a bad one. Guns have one purpose: to shoot. Its primary purpose is to be used as a weapon. There's no practical reason for a gun like there is a car or a knife or a bat or any other object that could be used as a weapon despite not being manufactured as one. You buy a gun because you want to either shoot things, shoot animals, shoot people, or some or all of the above. You're not using a gun to get to work. You're not using a gun to slice bread. You're not using a gun to play baseball. You're using a gun to shoot.

Wrong. Just Igorantly Wrong!

Guns have multiple purposes, including as collectors items, Rifles are handy for hunting and target practice. Pistols are good for stopping an attacker as quickly as you may need it for, at close range, and target practice. Repeating assault rifles may not be needed by most American citizens, although the further decline of our civilization may change that. Some people just enjoy their collector's hobby, and there's nothing wrong with that if they don't have ammo for it too. All of the above do come down to one thing which is shooting, but so it is no less with cars. Muscle cars are a bad breed of cars, which exist specifically to endanger and cause fear to millions of other Americans on our highways. Therefore, the argument stands.

[Lemonvariable72]

I don't care if you kill yourself in your muscle car, but I'll probably sit up and take notice if I find it in my back seat, or in my living room. So why aren't the liberals trying to ban muscle cars?

Classic argument. Also a bad one. Guns have one purpose: to shoot. Its primary purpose is to be used as a weapon. There's no practical reason for a gun like there is a car or a knife or a bat or any other object that could be used as a weapon despite not being manufactured as one. You buy a gun because you want to either shoot things, shoot animals, shoot people, or some or all of the above. You're not using a gun to get to work. You're not using a gun to slice bread. You're not using a gun to play baseball. You're using a gun to shoot.

And so? Target shooting is a great sport, so is biathlon. Also if you live in the country there is lots of practical reasons to own a gun, namely getting pests off your land and because it can take a really long time for highway patrol to get to your house. The key here isn't jumping to either extreme. If you wonna deal the gun problem itself, then you need common ground, none of this shrieking from the right or left. Also you need to deal with the gun lobby and money in politics.

[Aegon]

Classic argument. Also a bad one. Guns have one purpose: to shoot. Its primary purpose is to be used as a weapon. There's no practical reason for a gun like there is a car or a knife or a bat or any other object that could be used as a weapon despite not being manufactured as one. You buy a gun because you want to either shoot things, shoot animals, shoot people, or some or all of the above. You're not using a gun to get to work. You're not using a gun to slice bread. You're not using a gun to play baseball. You're using a gun to shoot.

Wrong. Just Igorantly Wrong!

Guns have multiple purposes, including as collectors items,  Rifles are handy for hunting and target practice. Pistols are good for stopping an attacker as quickly as you may need it for, at close range, and target practice. Repeating assault rifles may not be needed by most American citizens, although the further decline of our civilization may change that. Some people just enjoy their collector's hobby, and there's nothing wrong with that if they don't have ammo for it too. All of the above do come down to one thing which is shooting, but so it is no less with cars. Muscle cars are a bad breed of cars, which exist specifically to endanger and cause fear to millions of other Americans on our highways. Therefore, the argument stands.

Older guns as collectors items? Awesome in my book, especially because I'm a history buff. Those guns sit on a shelf. Doesn't negate my argument though, since those guns were once manufactured as weapons for the purpose of shooting. When they're bought and sold now they are meant to sit there and be appreciated...because using them like you'd use a modern gun would be a bad idea in most cases. As for the rest of your argument...you're literally supporting what I said. "Hunting" (shooting animals), "target practice" (shooting things), "stopping an attacker" (shooting people). Nothing that you've said negates my argument that guns are first and foremost deadly weapons. I never used this as a way of saying guns are bad and we should ban them. I used it to show that you can't compare things that are made to be weapons to things that are not made to be weapons.

And so? Target shooting is a great sport, so is biathlon. Also if you live in the country there is lots of practical reasons to own a gun, namely getting pests off your land and because it can take a really long time for highway patrol to get to your house. The key here isn't jumping to either extreme. If you wonna deal the gun problem itself, then you need common ground, none of this shrieking from the right or left. Also you need to deal with the gun lobby and money in politics.

Again, I was arguing against comparing guns to cars. Nothing more.

[Brian37]

I don't really give a fuck if you kill yourself....accidentally or otherwise.  It's when your "freedom missiles" come through my walls that I really take notice.

I don't care if you kill yourself in your muscle car, but I'll probably sit up and take notice if I find it in my back seat, or in my living room. So why aren't the liberals trying to ban muscle cars?

Phase them out yes, not an outright ban. It is possible to make a sports car not run on gas. Just like you can still have an antique typewriter on your shelf for decoration, but nobody uses them in mass nor should they.

Laws as far as guns should not be stuck in an antiquated past when the 2nd Amendment was written when they only had muskets. Firearm technology has changed since. But yet the gun worshiping right, just like the selfish oil industry cant understand that profit isn't enough "Just because I can"..... Doesn't mean you cling to the past. You don't have to go away, but things cant remain the way they are.

Just like climate change is killing our planet, our gun fetish is allowing too many gun deaths. And still stupidly these paranoid fucks think everyone is out to get them, when all we are saying is the status quo isn't working.

[Minimalist]

Do not try and make this about me.

But you are the one who keeps trotting out the NRA fear mantra.  "THEY'RE COMING TO KILL YOU!  TO ARMS.  TO ARMS!!"

It's horseshit.  That gun in your house is far more likely to be used against you, your family or an acquaintance.

http://www.victimsofcrime.org/docs/ncvrw...f?sfvrsn=0

2010, where the victim-offender relationship was known, 38
percent of homicide victims were killed by an acquaintance,
22 percent were killed by a stranger, 18 percent were killed by
an intimate partner (husband, wife, boyfriend, or girlfriend), 15
percent were killed by a family member, and 5 percent were killed
by a friend

38+18+15+5= 76%

76% v 22% killed by a "stranger."

[Brian37]

Do not try and make this about me.

But you are the one who keeps trotting out the NRA fear mantra.  "THEY'RE COMING TO KILL YOU!  TO ARMS.  TO ARMS!!"

It's horseshit.  That gun in your house is far more likely to be used against you, your family or an acquaintance.

http://www.victimsofcrime.org/docs/ncvrw...f?sfvrsn=0

2010, where the victim-offender relationship was known, 38
percent of homicide victims were killed by an acquaintance,
22 percent were killed by a stranger, 18 percent were killed by
an intimate partner (husband, wife, boyfriend, or girlfriend), 15
percent were killed by a family member, and 5 percent were killed
by a friend

38+18+15+5= 76%

76% v 22% killed by a "stranger."

Both the majority and minority numbers are high. That says to me there still is too much gun death from both illegal and legal guns. It does not matter if you get the gun legally or illegally. You are still far more likely to get injured or die using one. 

And there is a huge difference between target shooting, and crisis shooting where you are under assault and or getting fired at in return. The Oregon college shooter had armed civilians. The Navy Yard shooting had armed security guards and the Vegas shooting had two armed police and an an armed civilian murdered. And lets not forget the 9 dead at the Texas bar shootout. And just like a shark sneaks up on a seal, if someone wants to assault you, it is far more likely they will have the drop on you before you can draw your gun.

There is no way around it. We have far too many guns made and they are way too easy to get.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Brian, the First Amendment doesn't only apply to technology of the era.

If it did, you'd have to accept government censorship of writing done on a typewriter or computer. You'd have to accept government restricting assemblies of people to those who would arrive on foot or by horse.

Applying that standard to only guns is applying a double standard.

[abaris]

Yes, I know such policies work well enough in Britain and Europe, but the geography of the US isn't Britain, nor Europe. For one, there's a high population density throughout most of Britain and Europe. Where the real estate isn't hot, there tends to be low tree cover too.

Wow, that and the rest of what you wrote, has to be one of the most stupid arguments I've ever read in favor of gun ownership.

Do you own a passport? Did you ever, physically, visit Europe?