People don't NEED guns. They WANT them.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

I was just accosted on Twitter by a couple of gun nuts. "WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME WHAT I NEED!?!?!", they blustered. I told them they don't NEED guns. They WANT them. There's a difference. And, that they needed to learn the difference. I told them they should ask *themselves* (not anyone else) why they WANT guns. Whatever their reasons, until they ask and then answer that question, no honest conversation can be had about it. They continued on playing stupid, being obtuse, and trying to drag me into a circular argument about it ie: "Well if I don't need them, why do I want them?" -- "Well can you explain the difference?" I had sent a link to a site about children and the difference between when they want something and actually need something. These gun nuts know the difference. They don't want to face themselves. They don't want to answer the question they need to ask themselves: "why do I WANT guns?". I suspect the answer might not be altogether complimentary of themselves or society. Or, it might be acceptable. Whatever the answers are, we can't have an honest conversation until and unless people are ready to ask themselves the proper question, instead of knuckle-dragging, chest-beating and demanding of others: "WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME WHAT I NEED?!?!?!".

Need? Owning guns isn't a NEED. That's a false premise. It's furthermore the wrong question, and it was posed to the wrong person. I can't tell them why they WANT guns. They have to ask themselves that question. AFTER they first admit that they only want and do not need them. That takes a level of honesty and maturity that too many of them frankly don't seem to have.

[riverbendviewgal]

1. ask them if they are Oath keepers or are

In another militia. Are they NRA members?

Anyone in these groups I stay away from.

[slackmaster]

2. Some people actually do need them. I don't presume to judge another person's needs.

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.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

8. As long as they're honest about why they want them n/t

[slackmaster]

10. Now you're encroaching on the boundaries of privacy

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.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

12. They don't mind encroaching on women's privacy

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.

[slackmaster]

16. I mind encroaching on a woman's privacy

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.

[samsingh]

3. kick

[darkangel218]

4. Wrong!

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.

[rainlillie]

18. " I'm only excercising my constitutional rights."

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.

[Lizzie Poppet]

26. +1

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

[realgreen]

77. And that is what makes your kind dangerous

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

[Lizzie Poppet]

78. False dichotomy.

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.

[MichiganVote]

33. Owning a gun and owning automatic weapons with huge magazines are not the same thing.

[darkangel218]

37. Thats not what the OP was saying. nt

[MichiganVote]

38. Well its what I'm sayin' darlin'.

[ohheckyeah]

41. Sweetie

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

[darkangel218]

49. Again, your post had nothing to do with my reply to the OP.

And I'm not your "darlin".

[Jenoch]

55. What do automatic weapons weapons

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

[XRubicon]

58. One question...

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

[darkangel218]

61. I dont need AR15s, small handguns for self defense

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.

[XRubicon]

63. I am with you

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.

[etherealtruth]

5. Americans (first world populace)

... confuse want and need all the time.

I have yet to see guns in a hierarchy of needs

[ProfessionalLeftist]

9. +1000

[Initech]

59. If this were the old west days I can see how a gun would be a need.

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.

[StayFunky]

60. Interesting, so nobody needs to protect themselves from the million+ violent crimes that occur...

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.

[Go Vols]

6. I need guns to protect my livestock

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.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

13. You need food. I got no problem w/ that. n/t

[Zorra]

7. When I was young, I needed a rifle and shotgun in order to feed my family. nt

[Pholus]

11. You know the level of "Need" based on the advertising.

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

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

[ProfessionalLeftist]

14. The first guy on twitter had asked: "why don't I need an assault weapon?"

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.

[Go Vols]

15. not what the OP said.

I said my response based on that post.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

17. people don't really need much more than food, water and air.

[ComplimentarySwine]

79. And when someone comes to cut off your air supply

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.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

82. without 2A, the others are pretty much empty statements.

Last edited Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:33 PM - Edit history (1)

[PDJane]

19. If you want a shotgun to put food on the table, fine.

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.

[Marengo]

20. How else does one become proficient with a firearm...

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.

[MichiganVote]

32. Right. Apparently Adam L. had that. Worked well don't you think?

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

[Marengo]

73. Insipid. So, every gun owner who practices to be proficient with a firearm...

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?

[MichiganVote]

75. Its my preference that they not have automatic, semi automatics or any other auto anything

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

[Marengo]

81. Do you believe "No one NEEDS to shoot targets" as the poster suggested?

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.

[PDJane]

57. You still don't NEED an exploding target, nor do you need 30 rounds in the gun

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.

[Marengo]

74. You said "No one NEEDS to shoot targets."...

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.

[Mojorabbit]

83. I want a firearm

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

[AnotherMcIntosh]

45. Ranchers who sometimes need to protect their cattle from having broken legs after stepping in

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.

[PDJane]

56. That's a really specious argument....and yeah, ok, carry more bullets than 3 - 6.

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.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

64. Yea, the ranchers can shoot 3 and then begin reloading while the rest scatter.

[PDJane]

66. I've lived on a farm.

Vermin don't come in herds.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

67. I lived on a ranch.

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.

[PDJane]

68. Oh for chrissake, nothing like doubling down on stupidity.

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.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

72. Prairie dogs are not groundhogs. I'll defer to your experience in "doubling down on stupidity."

[HereSince1628]

21. Ok that's an argument to devalue other people's interests.

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.

[MichiganVote]

29. So now we're supposed to place more value on a bear over kids in schools? Oh come on.

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.

[HereSince1628]

35. Well that equivalence is yours and I suspect intentionally absurd for its theatrics

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.

[MichiganVote]

36. Intelluctualizing gun rights that include automatic weapons w/huge magazines

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.

[HereSince1628]

39. No, it's what happens after we have acknowledged the problem and have moved on

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.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

46. Of course, the "overly broad characterizations of the mentally ill" will discourage some from

seeking help.

[HereSince1628]

48. Yes,

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.

[me b zola]

22. I mostly agree with you assertion

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.

[hay rick]

23. Where the debate ends.

"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.

[MichiganVote]

30. Right. They don't want to acknowledge there IS a difference. Because that would mean

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.

[eallen]

24. People don't need alcohol, either.

[HereSince1628]

25. Mostly true,

Last edited Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:54 PM - Edit history (1)

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

[Lizzie Poppet]

27. Humans only NEED sustenance and shelter.

Everything else is optional...

[HereSince1628]

28. sort of true, if you snip out the need for the means to secure those essentials.

[Lizzie Poppet]

42. I'd say the means are implied. (nt)

[darkangel218]

31. Shelter and SAFETY kind of go together

Don't you think that?

[Robb]

34. Like enormous trucks. Or, really, 4WD.

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.

[Hoyt]

40. The fact they covet lethal weapons is reason enough to restrict them.

[Go Vols]

43. So

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

[Hoyt]

44. No sympathy for your poor pitiful gun plight and "earnest need" for semi-autos.

[Go Vols]

47. I have no gun plight,

or a need for semi autos.

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

[Throd]

50. I own guns because I want to. So what?

[tblue]

51. Why do you want them then? nt

[Throd]

52. I own all kinds of stuff I don't need. So do you.

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.

[BeyondGeography]

53. Might as well face it

They're addicted to guns...

[rrneck]

54. Some need them. Some want them.

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.

[mokawanis]

62. a question for those who say they need a gun

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."

[X_Digger]

65. Who's the Secretary of Need these days?

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."

[Taitertots]

69. All rights are wants and not 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.

[Raine]

70. There is a difference but when someone wants something enough ... it becomes a need. nt

[Honeycombe8]

71. Depends on your definition of "need." "Need" as in you'll die if you don't have it? Maybe that's

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.

[Flabbergasted]

76. We will always gain more mileage out of common ground than any boundary. Nt

[ZombieHorde]

80. True, but the same could be said about anything.

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