People don't NEED guns. They WANT them.

In another militia. Are they NRA members?

Anyone in these groups I stay away from.

I collect firearms because I like them, because I know a lot about them, and I understand how they can serve as long-term investments.

I concur that I don't need one, at least not now. But I've never actually needed the fire extinguisher in my kitchen either. Things could change in ways that none of us can anticipate.

FWIW - I don't even keep a firearm deployed for home-defense purposes even though I live alone. I see the risk of being attacked in my home as extremely remote, and for that I have a short sword, a machete, a baseball bat, a golf club (pitching wedge), and many other potential expedient weapons all over my house.

All that said for context, I personally know people who are disabled and live alone in rough neighborhoods where the likelihood of a strong-arm home invasion is much higher than my genteel corner of San Diego. I don't believe it's appropriate for any person other than those individuals themselves to determine what they should own or do. Especially people who can do nothing to ensure their safety.

Who should they have to be honest with? Is it really anyone else's business?

If you have to disclose to someone else the reason you believe you need a gun for some reason, that disclosure may expose a vulnerability that you might want everyone to know about. I used the word "everyone" as opposed to anyone intentionally. Once your secret has been shared with another person, it's no longer secret.

One of the suggestions I've seen (rather than armed guards in every school) is to place photos of all the young children, mutilated and then in their caskets, on the wall of every gun store. Borrow from the Republican playbook against abortion.

Many in the US (mostly Tealiban/GOP) want to make every woman, before she has an abortion, see videos and ultrasounds of the zygote/fetus and put horrid photos of aborted babies on billboards. They want to make a woman undergo a waiting period and go through counseling before obtaining an abortion. They want to horrify and harass the shit out of any woman who dares consider an abortion for any reason.

Let's also make every person wanting to buy a gun watch videos of the young children being mutilated by guns, then being buried. Make them watch the gun violence, the needless loss of innocent lives, the horror of it all. Make every person wanting to buy a gun undergo a waiting period and go through counseling before obtaining a gun.

If they can force pregnant women wanting abortions to do it, why not gun buyers? What's happened to the oh-so-moral "pro-life" facade of the United States?

It can't be reconciled with reality, that's what.

Let's also make every person wanting to buy a gun watch videos of the young children being mutilated by guns, then being buried. Make them watch the gun violence, the needless loss of innocent lives, the horror of it all. Make every person wanting to buy a gun undergo a waiting period and go through counseling before obtaining a gun.

How about instead of playing their silly game we keep both abortion and guns available as personal choices that can be made by responsible adults without unreasonable interference by government?

Abortion is regulated even where there are not extraordinary restrictions or procedural speed bumps that make it more complicated, expensive, or time-consuming than necessary in order to get one. The sale, possession, and use of firearms is also regulated.

Let's not bog good people down by making the free exercise of their choices harder. I'm not in favor of allowing just anyone to perform an abortion, nor do I believe everyone should be allowed to own any kind of gun. But there needs to be some common boundary within which free people are able to exercise freedom to choose how they wish to live.

People need guns for self defense! I'm a small frame female, I couldn't phisically fight an attacker. I NEED a gun! Besides, most if not all home invaders carry guns while commiting their crimes, so gender doesn't even matter.

Just because you and others like you don't see the need to carry a firearm, that doesn't mean the majority of this country feels the same. BTW, I am not a " gun nut " , I'm only excercising my constitutional rights. I don't apreciate the name calling a bit.

I personally am anti-gun, that said, I do feel that people have a right to own them. I also feel and I'm sure you do too, that we need to come up with some smart passable laws that will protect innocent folks from people who would like to do harm to others using guns. I carry pepper spray, like you, I'm also a small female. Gun-owners shouldn't have to explain to anyone why they own a gun. IMO.. It's no ones business.

I don't have to explain my legal, constitutional choices about my own self-defense to anyone, thanksverymuch.

What you're really saying is that your violent hobby is more important than our safety.

My "violent" hobby involves punching holes in paper. My firearms are a threat to another human being if (and only if) that person poses a clear and immediate threat to my life (or in the very unlikely chance my firearms are stolen...and I practice proper gun security,thanks very much). Your safety is not compromised my my hobby.

Oh, and don't presume to tell me what I'm saying. I'm vastly more qualified to determine that than you are.

you changed the argument from what the OP and the poster were saying.

And I'm not your "darlin".

have to do with anythng? When was the last time an automatic weapon was used in a crime?

Do you need an AR-15 or an AK-47? Would a manual .22 hand gun work for you?

are good enough for my needs. Again, what does this have to do with the OP?
The OP is claiming we don't need " guns ", but rather we want them. People own guns for a multitude of reasons. The OP is passing judgements and insults law abiding gun owners by calling us " gun nuts ". I will no longer reply to this thread, its ridiculous.

I also think there are a lot of well meaning people posting on this site. The real answer is somewhere in this mess...

My answer is tax, tax, tax. You wouldn't have to ban any guns. Just have a tax that is small for a gun that you would need and a very large tax (200% or more) for the Ted Nugent AR-15 crowd.

... confuse want and need all the time.

I have yet to see guns in a hierarchy of needs

But we're in the information age. Besides shooting you someone can steal your identity- there's other non violent needs of protecting one's self.

each year in the US? I suppose you believe that those people should just dial 911 for help, even though most of the time cops are just filling out paperwork because they arrive on scene minutes after the crime has been committed? In fact most times the victim is unable to even dial 911 until after the crime has been committed...

Another important thing for everyone to remember is that one does not need to have a need in order to exercise a right.

I don't hunt a lot anymore,but do know people that wouldn't eat very well without a gun to kill their food due to lack of money to buy meat at the store.

Hunting and livestock protection is important but NOT what this is about.

If it is, please explain the connection to this Bushmaster ad.

That's in fact what started it all. Then, he changed it to: "Why don't I need a gun?" Two different things in some very important ways, as you've pointed out.

I said my response based on that post.

I imagine that an "assault" weapon would be pretty effective at fending them off. The right to bear arms isn't just there because guns are fun (and they are), but more so because they are what help protect our access to all of the other rights, IMO.

Rural areas do have different needs where rifles are concerned.

However, you don't need a huge cap magazine or more than 3 bullets in a gun to shoot game. No one NEEDS to shoot targets. It may be all kinds of fun, but your lead bullets harm the environment and you don't NEED to do it. You don't need a military rifle to shoot most game, either. If you think a handgun is necessary to protect yourself, understand that you are more likely to die from being shot with your own handgun.

The more guns there are out there, the more likely it is that someone gets shot. It all sounds absolutely barking mad to most people. Understand that even Switzerland and Israel have moved to having guns stored outside of homes, because of the potential for accident and suicide. Insisting on guns is just bloody batshit crazy, folks.

Other than by shooting it at target? In this regard, profiency reduces the risk of collateral damage. Using a firearm effectively is not a simply task and requires regular practice.

Which one of the 27 victims do you think he shot up the best?

civilians, soldiers, and law enforcement alike, are doing so to effectively commit mass murder?

It is preferable in your view that gun owners have no practice of any means?

that terrifies people and kills little kids. So if that makes your practice more time consuming-tough cookie.

You will notice this statement indicates no one needs to shoot targets with ANY type of firearm. Therefore, your "preference" is irrelevant to the discussion of said statement.

for target shooting. Get a grip. Go target shooting at a range where someone picks up the spent lead and casings.

You don't need to shoot something with a high capacity, nor is there any earthly reason for most urbanites or suburbanites to have a gun.

More guns means more death, and it's not necessary. You don't NEED a collection of firearms, nor is it wise to have them.

I mentioned nothing about "needing" exploding targets or 30 rounds magazines, that is your fabrication.

Do you still argue that gun owners need no practice at all?

That what you originally stated.

and I have one. I was assaulted when I was younger and it will not happen again if I can help it. I have dogs but my ultimate backup is my firearm.There are plenty of women where I am at and WE should be able to decide what we need, not someone stranger who has no idea of our circumstances. Peace, Mojo

holes made by rodents called "prairie dogs" sometimes need to shoot more than 3 prairie dogs.

For those who shoot prairie dogs instead of poisoning them (and incidentally poisoning other animals), maybe they need to have magazine that will hold more than 3 rounds.

For those who disapprove of the shooting of such rodents because they are called "prairie dogs," maybe they could help by eating less beef.

But they don't need to be in the gun. If you need more than that in the gun, you shouldn't be out shooting the damn things.

Vermin don't come in herds.

Even farmers should know that cattle come in herds. Nobody that I know has ever claimed that vermin come in herds.

If you somehow think that prairie dogs live isolated, hermit-like lives, you are mistaken.



Prairie dogs are intelligent rodents. If you think that anyone can shoot 3 and the others will not scatter while someone reloads, you are unfamiliar with the experience. And if you think that a rancher can take the time to hunt them down one-at-a-time, you are unfamiliar with the economics of ranching.

You don't need a high capacity gun for even intelligent rodents. It's not necessary, unless you get a kick out of shooting at rodents...with a high capacity magazine.

Yes, the occasional cow will fall into a prairie dog ...or groundhog...hole. You aren't going to get rid of every prairie dog. That's not how it works. And you're not going to be able to defend yourself against every danger, no matter how many guns you have.

I get that.

But in addition to such interests as 'wants' to participate in what have been traditionally legal uses of firearms, there are values from other directions that are also in play, indeed there are probably many other interests and legal rights that will get challenged.

An example of another interest...wildlife conservation. Legal ownership and use of guns provides through various fees applied to sales of ammunition and guns very large amounts of money (through Pittman-Robertson act collected under federal law and returned to the states) that states have depended upon for buying and managing lands for natural resources. I'm interested in those conservation activities even though I do not hunt. I see the loss of that funding as a bad thing even while I support reducing gun violence.

As an example of other legal rights...I don't want to see overly broad characterizations of the mentally ill used to strip them of constitutional protections to due process, or to make them vulnerable to damage by creeping expansion "in the interest of community safety" to government databases that include information that was supposed to be strictly private based on HIPAA law. I see the potential for over broad "legal" takings of rights and protections that miss 2/3s of the population it is addressed at as flawed. I see loss of due process and invasion of privacy for the 1/3 of the mentally ill who actually seek treatment as at minimum a disincentive and at worst increased risk of exposure to discrimination....bad things I don't want even while I support reducing gun violence.

The issue w/regard to guns are the automatic anything and the clips. Its that simple. When these types decide to shoot, they use rapid fire firearms which increase the likelihood of death. If they didn't, these shooters would use something else- as in the case of Tim McVeigh.

It's also one I never stated.

My point is there are many values and even legal rights that are going to come into conflict.

Negotiating effective, and what Obama himself said should be 'common sense', law is going to be required to negotiate it's way through a maze of conflicts to first get through Congress and then to survive court challenges that arise from its implementation.

in the face of dead school children, people watching movies, and drive by shootings in nearly every city in the US is a farce.

The first step is to acknowledge we have a problem. And we DO have a problem. Its not with hunters, its not w/ranchers, its not with the military, its not w/wildlife lovers, its not w/women who want a single shot for protection, its not with seniors who live in bad areas or with the disabled who also want protection.

Its a problem with specific weapons, ammunition, identification, purchasing and venues that sell guns. Its a problem with gun manufacturers/sellers who market the "fun" to kids through their parents.

to considering conflicts that proposed regulation can cause as an important part of law-making as well as consideration of the potential arguments that will or have been put forward by others.

Childish name calling is part of it.

creating false equivalencies is part of it

Just as semantic parsing of words like "want" and "need" around which to build arguments that devalue some values/interests over others is part of the rhetorical meme making that is done to support a group engaged in the process of sorting that out.

If you really think we should sacrifice the 14th amendment without contemplating the goodness of that sacrifice, I am very very glad you aren't in a position to influence law more than any other Tom, Dick or Harriet.

seeking help.

although I don't think anyone can put a number on it, any social pressure that pushes people away from treatment they would benefit from is unfortunate.

A person needing but avoiding treatment can't help improve anything.

But I do make a distinction from suburban/urban living and true country living.

I agree that people living in a suburban/rural area not only do not need a gun, but it is insane to have them around in that environment.

I understand folks living in the country having hunting rifles and a shotgun.

I see no circumstances where a citizen ever needs (or should have) a handgun or an assault weapon.

"I told them they don't NEED guns. They WANT them. There's a difference. And, that they needed to learn the difference."

But they don't WANT to learn the difference.

they are being marketed to so heavily that they don't know their ass from a hole in a tree. And since they see themselves as the rugged defenders of freedom, that image just doesn't fit.

but people with addictions who are physiologically adapted to its presence within the body, may enter dangerous DTs without it.

Some people without medical assistance to beat the DT's really do need EtOH

Everything else is optional...

Don't you think that?

Yes, some people can make a reasonable argument for needing them.

No, they are not in the majority.

And no, they're not the problem. Nor, really, is focusing on them anything but distracting from the real issue -- e.g., everyone else.

as long as you don't earnestly wish to have guns,it's cool with you for us to have them?

or a need for semi autos.

Glad we can agree that for some,guns aren't bad.

I own six cars. Nobody needs six cars.

I own 10 guitars.

I have a collection of 4000+ different beer cans.

I understand that these items don't have the lethality of firearms, but I am uncomfortable with people deciding which are the wants and needs of total strangers. Other people's hobbies often seem like a silly waste of time. Here on DU, I have been chastised that four of my cars have big-block V-8 engines, thus contributing to global warming. They tell me I should drive a Prius because that is the choice that they have made for themselves. When I counter that I wouldn't be caught dead in a Prius they usually tell me I am compensating for my tiny, tiny dick.

They're addicted to guns...

Many want more than they need. Some need more than they want. Some even need more than they can get.

Spiraling gun ownership is, as much as anything else, consumer driven. But that doesn't obviate their utility. We don't have 800,000 cops to subsidize the doughnut industry.

Have you ever had to use one?

The reason I ask is I keep reading comments from people who claim they need a gun to be safe...even though the majority of gun owners have never been in a situation where they had to pick up their gun and point it at someone.

So, to me, it ends being a weak argument. "I need a gun to protect myself, even though I've never been in a situation where I needed a gun."

Or is there a whole Department of Need?

Judge Benson Everett Legg

"A citizen may not be required to offer a ‘good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right’s existence is all the reason he needs."

No one needs to post on the internet
No one needs to be protected from arbitrary searches
No one needs to be protected from the military seeking quarter in their homes against their will
No one needs to have free religious expression
No one needs to vote....



All you need is food, water, air, and protection from the environment.

true, in some cases.

Do you NEED a cell phone, electricity, running water, gas? The Amish seem to manage without those things. So do you NEED them, really, to live? You won't die without them, unless you need to keep a medical device running.

I don't need air, but I want it because I want to live.