Ok someone give me a reason why guns are legal.
 

Ok so me and my gf were talking about gun control and the point in owning guns whatsoever.

I just want to know what the legit uses of guns are and if they are really necessary.

What they were originally made for.
Hunting, defense, entertainment.

Yes they are necessary because I and many other citizens want to have them for these purposes.

This belongs in politics?

well maybe it ought to be in politics it can be moved if a mod would be so kind, im not knocking people who use guns i just want to know the legit purposes for owning them, although i'd saying owning a gun for entertainment is questionable :).

So yeah i agree hunting is an obvious one, i wouldnt say you need a gun for defense though.

If you ever went target shooting or plinking (with an open mind), you'd probably understand pretty quickly how you could own a gun for entertainment.

Other reasons are historical value, investment purposes, competition, exercise (see the writings of Thomas Jefferson for the explanation), etc.

As to defense, you may not need one, but there are folks out there that have a perceived need for a gun, and others that have a flat-out obvious need for a gun. Ask Lance Thomas about self-defense and firearms. Talk to anyone working armoured car service or armed security. Talk to anyone that lives an hour away from any other human soul, let alone a cop.

It's fairly easy to establish why guns are legal. It's much more fun to watch people argue why the internet should be legal.

I know a good way to answer this question.

Go to your walmart, buy a BB gun ... it's only about $25 and some BBs for $3. Go shoot at cans. After shooting them, if you see enjoyment in it ( as many, many , many , many people do) then you'll understand why guns are legitimate for having fun. If you don't see the fun, at least recognize that many people do enjoy shooting them.

a REALLY good reason to own a gun is because a population without guns is a population that can be easily controlled by the government.

if the population cannot defend themsleves then they are putting themselves at risk to be taken advantage of.

just look at some of histories meanest leaders (look at the obvious first of all, i.e Hitler, Mao) they took away the right to bear arms from their people before starting their massacres.

Good example, Boo.

"An armed society is a polite society"

IMHO, Guns are misunderstood and abused.

Guns are a tool:

- Personal protection from all vermin.

- To kill critters for eating.

- To keep enemies at bay or drive them off.

Unfortunately:

- Vermin and enemies also have guns.

- The NRA thinks we need machine guns for critters.

Fortunately:

- Because we can own them still applies.

Is there a way to rid the planet of guns?

Your use of the word "vermin" fills me with cold dread.
All I will say on this tired old topic is that guns are not tools. Guns are weapons. A tool is used to make something. Guns can only destroy.

Actually, a tool is anything that can complete a task. A person can be a tool (and often is). A gun is a tool. A thermonuclear device is a tool. None of these things is inherently bad or evil, because they require users. To steal a line from a bad movie, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

What about swords? A sword is 100% weapon, yet in today's world when people see swords most of them think either 'movie prop' or 'art piece.' Nobody actually thinks that someone might use it to eviscerate them.

And you should remember that personal weapons used to play a big part in society - people brought their daggers to the dining table, which is where our table knives eventually came from. Japanese samurai wore their swords at their sides at all times, and bumping into someone's sword with your own was grounds for a duel to the death. Do you think this is barbaric? It was custom. No more and no less civilized than anything we do today.

It would be naive to think that weapons are unnecessary for self defense. Laws are for the people that follow them - if you ban guns, you will make the law-abiding citizens easier targets for gun-toting criminals.

Thats one of my favorite quotes.

If I were a criminal wanting to break into a house, I would prefer that the occupants not possess guns. If I were a hopeful tyrant or dictator, I would prefer that citizens not possess guns. If I were an aggressor nation, I would prefer that the country I'm attacking not possess any firearms.

That's the reason we have guns. To thwart or hinder the plans of would-be dictators, agressors, or criminals.

Instead of posting such a request, perhaps you could maybe possibly exert some effort by using the search function? If, after searching, you still have no clue why guns would be legal, you could feel justified to ask.

I disagree. I live in a country where guns, though not illegal, are heavily controlled. People in cities don't own guns. Nobody owns assault rifles, save for the defense forces. Unless you're a cop, handguns are more or less unheard of. In fact, the only guns you commonly see are those carried by police officers and hunting rifles owned by farmers, who have a real need for them to control 'roos.

I don't know how many gun homocides we have here, but I'd be surprised if it was more than 20 a year, in the whole country.

The government finds us no easier to control than the US government finds its citizens. Just because we can't shoot people we don't like, doesn't mean we will blindly obey them.

I don't think it's an issue of government control where people blindly follow it, but rather that of a government that could easily exercise its tyranical will through force if the populace was unarmed. Firearms won't protect people from things they think they want from a government, but they can help prevent those things they know are really undesirable, like being killed. For instance, the Gestapo would have had a harder time rounding up the Jews if they had a way to effectively defend themselves.

Not really, jeebus.
A lot of you guys are armed. However, if the government went Handmaid's Tale on you and took over by military force, you'd still be down. Because even though you have guns, the military have bigger ones and they are very well trained in using them.

No, the answer to peoples' liberty is not giving them the ability to easily kill each other.

Besides which, you're assuming everyone has a gun, and everyone is willing to use it. I, for one, would honestly rather be taken by the Gestapo than kill any one of them.

Guns are legal because when the constitution was created, it was only because the population had access to guns that rebellion and popular control of the government was able to be achieved. Nowadays, it is kind of a moot point because even the largest militia armed with guns would not stand a chance rebelling against a modern technological army. Does this mean the second amendment should be repealed? Maybe. But I think there is definately an argument to be made for keeping guns legal out of respect for tradition and in memory of our heritage. However, if they become a problem on a domestic scale that seriously effects the populace than tradition must be set aside.

Re: Ok someone give me a reason why guns are legal.
 

Think that the gun issue in the USA can only be understood by non US citizens by referring to US's popular culture:

Lisa: Dad! The Second Amendment is just a remnant from revolutionary days. It has no meaning today!

Homer: You couldn’t be more wrong, Lisa. If I didn’t have this gun, the king of England could just walk in here anytime he wants and start shoving you around. [pushing Lisa] Do you want that? [pushing her harder] Huh? Do you?

Lisa: [quietly indignant] No . . .

The first move by any rising dictator has always been to dearm the populace.

Doesn't seem to apply in the United States. Could you give examples of where it does work?

2Wolves

(yes I own weapons)

Ok so i'm british, and from my experience i have only seen guns in 2 places:-

1. In the arms of soldiers
2. In the arms of police officers (not usual patrolling officers, trained armed units)

I dont understand the logic that if you don't have a gun Hitler is going to come and sodomise you or that some burgler is somehow going to be able to tell and think you are an easy target.

Have you ever thought that criminals in the US may not carry guns if they didn't have such ready access to them?

I mean yes people over here use guns for hunting, and leisure activities i'll admit, even then it is strictly controlled. You cant even legally own a handgun here anymore, why? because some guy went into a junior school and shot up the place. It seemed logical that to stop something of the like happening again all handguns were banned, so why in what is arguably the home of school shootings (this is a little low i apologise) cant you guys see the need for greater controls?

The government can come take my weapons, out of my cold dead hands.

I was a "tool" for the US govenment for many years, being well trained in the effective use of the wares, I could probably put up a good fight against a government trying to force tyranny on me.

If I would take out 3 or 4 before they got me then I did my job.

Aside from that rant, I really do feel safer being armed and knowing I will use it.

The Iraqi's have guns too. Too many guns. Did that stop the US army from exercising its will (tyranical or not is a question for further debate) on the Iraqi people? Should the US allow the Iraqi's to have the right to bear arms ( they currently don't.) to defend themselves from the rampant crime there?

so do you think that here is a problem on the domestic scale that seriously affects the populace?

Reconmike, you've been in the military. How do you think the u.s. army would stack up against an undertrained and underarmed u.s. populace?

I like guns and own several, but I'm very glad I don't live in a society that feels they need to have guns to feel safe. My guns are for hunting and recreation (plinking, target shooting) and remain locked in my cabinet at all times.
I don't buy the "an armed society is a safe society" crap, but if that's what you grew up with I guess that's what you believe. I grew up in an unarmed society, and I never felt threatened or scared….I like it that way.

Parts of the US with concealed carry laws (aka you can have a gun on you) have less gun crime then similar areas without such laws. This has been talked about before on the boards, so you can do your own google searches :)

So less crime equates to a polite society? Wanna run that by me again?

2Wolves

I don't think they take data on politeness. Perhaps you would like to do a dissertation on the subject and you can get back to us. You can work out a scale for politeness, and the field work. Perhaps you could carry a visible fire arm and see if politeness increases.

I get many impressions of the differences between nationalities and cultures just by browsing these boards. Most here are American, and I am afraid politeness can't be considered a main trait with any of the Americans I have met here...

Sorry, that was rather rude.:p

Considering that you were the individual giving that saw props...............

2Wolves

I believe alot of factors would decide any outcome if this actually happened.

But the US military would have a huge advantage, but an under armed resistance could still make things difficult.

No matter how big the weapons, the fight would still have to be on the ground sometime, and if it happened in the US this country is way too big for the government to be able to hold it all.

It seems like I've said this a dozen times on an equal number of related threads, but I'll say it again: If the government were to take such steps that there is a large public rebellion, some trained military personel would join the rebellion and bring with them locations of armories and other supplies. They wouldn't remain underarmed and undertrained for very long, if anyone with any sense is running the show.

Thanks reconmike, that's always something i've been curious about.

Fortunately I know other people from Norway or else I would draw the same conclusion.

"Power stems from the barrel of a gun" - Mao Tze Tung


It is only logical that the citizen should be armed in the United States of America.

Sounds like a fun thread: conditions under which the US military might join a rebellion in the US. My personal opinion: Short of the president literally wiping his ass with the Constitution, you'll never see large-scale defections of active duty troops.

Isn't that the very definition of democracy?;)

It's not wise to say "never" (in bold, even) when such a hypothetical is just that -- hypothetical. I don't think that many of our men and women in uniform would be too keen on the idea of attacking other Americans, on US soil.

that's why I prefaced it with 'My personal opinion' :)

As for fighting other americans, at that point the label would no longer be 'other americans', but 'Traitors'. The psychological shift is significant.