Why do you own a gun?

Like darksinger, I don't see why anyone should be made to feel they have to justify their ownership. But at the same time, I don't really give damn about the 2nd amendment. If we did away with it, I would be okay. 

While we live in a decent area, several years ago there were a fair amount of home invasions and robberies close enough to our home that we finally decided to get a couple of guns.

We bought a 9mm with hollow points for the protection part, and a .22 for the cheap practice ammo.
I figure it's more about peace of mind, and probably, hopefully, will never be necessary to use.

We'd been talking about it for a few years off and on, and seriously researched and educated ourselves on proper handling long before buying. She can handle the 9mm, and that was important to find something potentially effective enough to be protection, but not difficult to manipulate. We considered a shotgun for the unarguable stopping power, but she had difficulty handling them.

Also gives me comfort when I'm away that she has something to protect herself with. She keeps the case near her at those times.

And, since we bought them, we both have come to enjoy doing a little target practice, as well as the ritual processes of cleaning and maintaining them.

I live in Arizona, and the gun laws here and requirements to purchase, for all practical purposes don't seem to exist. You can go and buy a gun an hour if you want, plop it on your hip and go grocery shopping. You can buy thousands of rounds of ammo, and all you're likely to get are approving nods and maybe even some applause.

But I've gotta say, for all the potential for people to walk around like they're cowboys, I've only seen 2 people open carry in the 17 years I've been living here.

No one has a proverbial gun to the head and has to answer the question or enter discussion here at all. Anyway, I apologise if my "Well, I found it funny, maybe do a poll to see the general consensus" response seemed disrespectful or unfriendly in any way. Humour, like tastes, is very subjective, and we all have different perspectives on things.

The Dark Elf wrote: timothy leary wrote: I do not have a problem with your question. I do think "none of your business" is a viable legitimate answer and the poster should not have been disrespected and trolled by stupid comebacks about an honest answer. One wonders why a reply is necessary if one wishes to take the 5th. "None of your business" amounts to "I don't want to talk about it", which is quite ironic for a discussion forum. I am certainly happy the poster expanded on her reply after initially going off the deep end.  In any case, there was no "trolling" intended in my first reply (but then poor Timmy is being over-dramatic, being that he's still butt-hurt from a previous conversation).  "If I tell you I'll have to kill you" is a stock answer from a thousand spy/detective movies and should not have caused anyone upset, let alone confusion. Next time I will affix an emoticon at the end to assure everyone my intentions are pure. Like now.

Constipated much, it is always the other person with you. They went off the deep end. Most people see "none of your business" and leave it alone.

Deflection is a good strategy. have a go at it.

Good idea

Blacksword wrote: I don't fully understand this background check thing, that so many gun advocates seem to object to. Can someone explain it to me? What is their actual objection? Is it purely the fact they object to government interference and 'snooping'? Would I be right in assuming therefore that these folks would be quite happy if an unchecked lunatic with history of schizophrenia and violent criminality moved in next door with an arsenal of military firepower, so long as their 'right' to not be verified hadn't been infringed? Is it more complex than that? Do the rules vary state to state?

The Dalai Lama says "Gun control comes from inside."   Yeah.   No.

Thanks Lam but you seem tragically out of touch, which of course you are.   And with all due respect please take your childlike observations and shut it.   Gun control comes from controlling guns.   You wanna control people?   Good luck with that.   But thank you for your input.

I know but you can't change other people.  Nor should one try, in the end it is misled.  He is absolutely right that true gun control has to ultimately come from a personal choice against violence.  But American's thrive on individualism and generally retreat from group thinking, and it isn't plausible to control the gun-owning population with good philosophies or intentions.   Therefore if you want to reduce gun violence you reduce guns.  It's a matter of numbers.  And urgency.   His words are meaningful but almost completely useless.





Edited by Atavachron - June 21 2016 at 01:09

I accept that.

Apparently more people in the USA are killed or injured by guns than cars so perhaps just maybe there is something in this regulation lark after all. Then maybe it's just a weird coincidence like the weird coincidence that you have more guns than people and a far higher rates of gun crime, gun deaths, than any country that has even a smidgen of gun control and that it is simply a weird coincidence that there are sufficient numbers of mass-shootings and gun-related massacres in the USA to make a distinction between the two when reporting gun-death statistics.