Why So Passionate About Guns?

Buellxb Forum

Help Support Buellxb Forum:

I find them fun and interesting, simple as that.
Just because I like being able to go out with my kids for some fun.
Now those are honest & valid answers I can buy!

Not only are the old justifications that guns are necessary for freedom, safety, or protection statistically-questionable, but they are also humorous to the rest of the developed world which lives just as freely, safely, protected, & perhaps even less paranoid, without guns.

Nonetheless, I have great respect for the USA, I enjoy travelling there, & I love the people I meet when I visit. It's just that I feel much safer once I've returned home to a place where not everyone's packing! :D
 
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Proof positive that the number of guns per capita has almost zero correlation with murder rates.

In the USA I've been the victim of 2 burglaries. One while I was not home....sucked. second time I was home and pointed a .40 at the intruder which got him on the ground in my own home long enough for the police to arrest him. He had a knife on him and I'm glad everyday that I was armed.
 
Go-cytocis
just because you feel safer doesn't mean you are safer.

That being said, you are entitled to your opinion and I respect you more than the people here who try and abolish our freedoms saying "it's for the children" - to whom I say, find another country instead of breaking ours.
 
I own guns, and cringe when I hear about misguided ignorant politicians passing laws that restrict 2nd Amendment rights. But I also have to laugh when people say "Citizens owning guns keep the government in check." "Gun ownership is the reset to the Constitution."

Tell me, what is your AR-15, Barrett .50, or AK-47 going to do when they drop a MOAB on you, or send a Tomahawk your direction? :D The age of the armed citizen militia being able to stand up to our government to force a change in political will or mandate are LONG past.
 
I disagree, look at Afghanistan as an example. Determined men with rifles and fertilizer based bombs have held off the US military for a decade.
 
WOW 30 replies so soon! Not surprised hence when I used the word 'passion' with the word 'gun'. I could answer some posts but I wont bother. It's interesting hearing your points of view.
 
Noobuel- I disagree, There a little more than 20 million Veterans in the US after the last two campaigns in the Middle East.
My work sent me to Guatemala for a month some years ago. The country was just wrapping up a civil war. There was a soldier on about every street corner with a fully auto weapon and grenades and so forth. One of my escorts, Knowing my military background asked me if I was uncomfortable not having a gun with me. I said no, I have plenty all around me that can be mine at anytime.

We have enough Veterans that know how to operate the very same equipment, that as long as we keep some arms, the rest will come available. No one said it would be easy if that day would come, but not impossible.
 
Anyone who thinks that a well armed US citizenry cannot deter government coup is simply ignorant to how these conflicts work and the specific dynamics at play in the U.S. Sure, a squad of citizens armed with ar-15's would be obliterated by a squad of fully geared infantry from the US military but who says that is what the battle field would look like? Does anyone honestly think the second the government tried to turn military guns on its citizens that the military would not be instantly crippled from the inside due to massive defection of soldiers who want to protect their families? How many tanks and heavy artillery would go missing? How many entire bases would become part of the "rebellion". Supplement that with millions are armed citizens and you have a very viable opposition. Most countries that can effectively suppress their citizens with the use of military force do not have the same military culture that the US does. There is mass support for our troops who themselves feel a massive obligation to the people. It is not so easy to turn one on the other as it might be for a country like Syria.

If the government wanted to control the citizens of a country like the US they would have to use the police instead of the military because the police already possess an us verse them mentality with citizens due to their daily jobs. The police are also not nearly as well trained or equipped. There has been a wave of militarization recently but nothing to the extent that would be necessary to control the citizenry. They would simply be so massively outnumbered that it wouldn't matter.

You also have to consider that generally a government wants a country and people to rule and if an opposition is strong enough they don't have to actually "win" the war because the cost of winning for the government would be so great that what would be left after the conflict would not be worth ruling. There are a lot more factors at play here then Joe Blow with an AR-15 vs the navy seal with full gear.
 
^not bothering to quote.

Regardless of firearm legality, murder is still illegal. And guns do not murder people, they require operator input.

Do we blame the automobile or booze in a horrible deadly DWI crash? No, we blame the driver. When priests rape young boys, do we blame the church or the priests dick? No, we blame him. Do we blame the knife when someone gets stabbed? No, we blame the perp.

Question why the different standard for crimes committed with firearms where we blame the gun, not the person committing the crime.
 
They are a fun hobby, but most importantly they are a tool to defend life and freedom(when in the right hands).
 
What makes guns such a hot topic is that the day to day utility of them has greatly diminished. Many are also not exposed to them except in negative circumstance, like hearing about them used in violence. It used to be that many used them to harvest game on a regular basis, to the point where they could stare without guns. The vast majority of rural homes had a firearm in it. Many didn't have a way to call the police. They had to depend on themselves for security. The utility firearms has gone by the wayside with our prosperity as a country. We also have the illusion that if you call the police on your cell phone, they will instantly show up. We don't do subsistence hunting like was commonly done just a generation back. So the apparent utility of having guns around feels like it has gone away. So unlike a car, which is needed for transportation, many only see the liability of having guns around.

We also have a gun culture in the US. All 'free' men had arms in the US. The areas were gun control used to be was on the poor, minorities or in very limited urban areas. So many in the US equate having arms or the right to with freedom. So it is ingrained in many.

There has always been violence in any society. Even without guns, violence still occurs. Look at China, which has very strict gun restrictions. They have problems with knife attacks where similar number of people are killed or injured as in the 'mass shooting' in the US.

With the number of guns in civilian hands in the US, guns are here to stay. You can't even get rid of them if you wanted to. They can be easily manufactured or smuggled into the US, even if you were able to get rid of the hundreds of millions that are already in circulation. If having guns really was so dangerous, with the hundreds of millions of guns in the US, hundreds would be killed daily. The figures on gun deaths in the US include many suicides (I believe well over half), which should not be categorized the same somebody murdered in a robbery. In fact, the FBI released a study that show more Americans are killed by blunt trauma (from bats, fist, clubs, etc.). So guns are not nearly the evil thing many see it as. While there are very dangerous areas in the US, like Chicago, the vast majority of the US is extremely safe. I truly believe that gun violence get undue attention by the media as it is an easy story to cover. It sounds scary and many peoples immediate reaction is to say get rid of guns. Particularly when it is 'mass shootings' at schools & work places. It is unnerving to think you can get killed at work by a random stranger or even a known co-worker. The real gun violence problems area, like in Chicago's poor areas, is virtually ignored by the vast majority of the US and the rest of the world. Mainly because it is gang or drug related and many feel they 'deserve it'. If we really wanted to get rid of much of the gun violence in the US, we would address the poverty problem in the inner cities of our large urban centers.

So to answer the OP question, it is a long complex answer. Everything from it is a symbol of freedom to a way of life to a self-protection tool. Usually a combo of all. I believe free men have the right to possess arms. With freedom comes the burden that bad people will do bad things. But that does not remove the right of free men to continue on living free.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top