Need versus Want In America

[Plumber576]

During a discussion with somebody who wasn't anti but wasnt fully pro...he said to me, "I understand huting and what not, but who needs to own an M16 or an AK47? (referrign to full-auto weapons) You cannot hunt with those."

I have heard it before, but this time I brought American ideals into it. I said "Since when does need necessitate want? If I want to own A Ferrari Enzo and I can afford it, I am more than welcome to. It might not be the bast car to go grocery shopping in or pick the kids up from soccer practice, but if I want a Ferrari Enzo than i can have one. Same goes for an M16 or Ak. If I want one and can afford it, becasue they are VERY expensive and have a wait similar to trying to buy a Ferrari, why shouldn't I be allowed to own one? Sure I COULD hunt with one (local laws not withstanding), but I'm not going to, just like with kids and groceries in a Ferrari."

He looked at me, then went off in a tangent about crime and criminals, completely dismissing my point.

But when it comes to firearms, why have firearms been treated so differently? It seems so un-American according to our law and or economic ideas.

Need has never been a definitive factor in what an American wants. This can be seen in cars, houses, clothing, and just about everything else in American lives.

Sorry if this idea has been brought up before, but after work it just hit me and seemed important.

 

[cambeul41]

He looked at me, then went off in a tangent about crime and criminals, completely dismissing my point.

You responded directly to his point, and he did not directly respond to yours. Call him on it.

 

[Plumber576]

I could have...but i was not fully trying to change his opinion. I was more commenting on America than just this particular co-worker.

 

[Preacherman]

His response is best summed up as "Don't confuse me with the facts!"

It's fairly typical, though. His mind is made up. If you produce information that contradicts his mindset, he'll simply shift gears and move on to another point that buttresses his already-chosen mindset. He's not interested in rational debate.

 

[HerrWolfe]

My (stubborn) wife proclaims the same; who needs the assault type guns. I don't need one (hopefully anyway) but I want one (but cannot afford...the American way).

Anyhow, I agree with her that few folks actually need these types of weapons, and a few number actually want these either. Some do need them, if nothing more than to shoot them for fun or to have in the event bad things happen.

But, as I try to argue, when these are removed from citizens access, what is next, the semi-autos. Yes, like other countries, these too would be removed from the retail shelves. Then the guns with magazines, since the true sportsman should give game a fair advantage, or whatever, would be next; or they say to think of the number of innocent lives saved :banghead: . The coup-de-grae, final removal of all guns from society....ah, excuse....from the normal run-of-the-mill private citizen, who could not afford the probable insane tax levied on a private owner's gun to keep around just in case the staff of family body guards are having a slumber party. Did you contribute to the whatever re-election fund? Well sorry, we cannot come to your house right now...do what you can to protect yourself from the thugs....click!

Am I concerned? You betcha! I'm not paranoid, I'm mindful. If we do not protect liberty, do we deserve liberty?

Did I stray too far from the post. Well, hang me.

 

[Soybomb]

I think its also important to educate them on the 2nd amendment not being about hunting. I think alot of people may know the words but lack the sense to put it all together that the founders of our country saw a greater value in arms than just getting dinner.

 

[ctdonath]

Funny (darkly) how it's usually the grossly ignorant who differentiate "want" vs. "need" in a subject, knowing little about what constitutes either. People who insist "you don't need an assault weapon for hunting" don't realize that an AK47 or AR15 work just fine (at worst, require a little more care in shot placement) for some hunting; while they may not be suitable for certain game, neither are any hunting guns suitable for all game.

A friend hunts deer with an AR15 with entirely satisfactory results. The tool is satisfactory to the task; who are non-hunting anti-gun types to tell him otherwise?

Makes me want to start a "indicators of ignorance" thread...

 

[Brother in Arms]

Far to many people eqaute firearms with hunting. Hunting supposedly gets less popular all the time, but firearms purchases don't seem to be dropping any. If that is the case then some people realize firearms aren't only for hunting.

I have been confronted with the "need" argument several times before. Then I ask them how they would like it if the government said they couldn't buy SUV's because they don't need them? Next I ask them how they feel about socialism. Most will say socialism is bad. I also ask them if they think its right for the government to decide what they should be able to do and buy. I think most people don't "think" about what they "think".

It amazing how people like pick and choose what freedoms are important to them. I am an atheist but I defend the first ammendment just as I do the second.

Good post and a good thing to think about the "need" argument comes up alot.

Brother in Arms

 

[ctdonath]

My (stubborn) wife proclaims the same; who needs the assault type guns.

"I do, dear - anyone walks thru that door with intent to harm you, I want tools designed to stop them."

Precisely why I'm switching from a shotgun to a suppressed AR15 carbine. (And no, it's NOT about hunting.)

 

[Standing Wolf]

He looked at me, then went off in a tangent about crime and criminals, completely dismissing my point.

Without disconnections from both reality and ordinary logic, there would be no leftism.

 

[D_Burchfield]

Plumber576, you made your case with a great analogy. Your friend's mind is not completely closed to RKBA. If the topic comes up again maybe you could tell him that you hope and pray that the NEED never arises,but if it does you WANT the best equipment and tools available in order to do the job. Just like the tools we all use in our chosen profession, we want to use the tool that is best suited to the job at hand. Remind him that firearms are only tools. Just like there are many different types of hammers, there are many types of firearms designed for different purposes. Self defense is a legitimate purpose.
Military weapons are the perfect tool for that purpose. Besides, They're a lot of fun to shoot!

 

[KriegHund]

My mom asks me why i need another gun.

I usually just respond that i dont, in fact, need another gun, but i do want one.

Besides,i dont have a pistol yet, so that gives a good escuse to get a makarov (or hopefully a CZ-52)

 

[Atticus]

But when it comes to firearms, why have firearms been treated so differently?

Stick to that thought, and you will win every debate... even though the anti won't likely admit it. Guns are the ONLY tool that are blamed for the actions of the end user. The term "gun violence" is a prime example. Violence is violence is violence. When someone hits someone up-side the head with a ball bat, why isn't it called bat violence? Why do all new cars sold, go faster than 75 mph? Why don't Doctors asked parents if they have a swimming pool or a 5 gallon bucket at home, since they are a far greater threat to the well being of a child than a gun?
The first thing to run from a gun debate is logic.

 

['Card]

The only success I've ever had changing someone's mind in this type of discussion was when I took the time to explain to them how much more lethal my hunting rifle is than your average assault rifle.

I hunt for deer with a scoped Remington 7400 in .30-06. It fires a bigger bullet, more accurately at longer ranges, and hits harder than virtually any assault rifle on the market. It is also, as with all assault rifles, a semi-automatic. So if I'm allowed to own something that's much deadlier than an assault rifle, what's the justification for banning assault rifles?

If the person I'm talking to is open to reason at all, then that line of discussion is normally pretty fruitful. Then I'll go on to explain how all of this media nonsense about 'assault rifles' is just a way for the anti-gun lobby to crack the door open so they can create legal precedents to take away guns like my hunting rifle.
________________

I actually changed a guy's mind with that tack once. Nice guy, next door neighbor. Sitting on my back porch having a beer and we got into a discussion about gun control. He made the typical comments about assault rifles, so I got up, got my 7400 out of the gun cabinet, and handed it to him. He looked it over appreciatively for a few minutes, but his jaw hit the floor when I told him "That gun you're holding is deadlier than any 'assault rifle' ever invented." He was just clueless. The media have brainwashed these otherwise well-meaning people into thinking that putting black plastic on a rifle somehow transforms it into a 'magic wonder death wand' or something.

 

[Tharg]

I had a guy come at me w/ wanting to own a howitzer or some such...

to be honest i see no reason why I couldn't own one... because if i blow up someone's house w/ it... whats the dif if i do it w/ that or burn it down w/ Gas or molotov cocktails or good ol fasioned found it on the farm dynamite?

its NO DIFFERENT.

The point is what you do w/ the tool, not what you COULD do with it... many here are right... you COULD beat someone to death w/ a bat... but no one says we don't want people to have em cause they might...

<shrug> i know i'm talkin to the choir =)

J/Tharg!

 

[f4t9r]

I understand your point fully.
Really we want way more then we will ever need. My buddy is always telling me the one with the most toys wins.

 

[Zundfolge]

I'm left with a few random thoughts...

The AR-15 makes an excellent varmint gun. Not all hunting is for deer.

One of the most common deer hunting calibers is .308 ... so why not a FAL or AR-10?

Anyone who wants to shoot 3-gun will need an "Assault" rifle (same for Hi-Power competition).

I'm sure that when those Korean gentlemen in South Central LA bought their AR's they didn't feel the would ever "need" them, but boy howdy its a good thing they had 'em.



What always gets me is how many of these people will still maintain the position that the AWB (or other forms of gun control) was/is a good idea even when they acknowledge they don't reduce crime and/or firearm related death and just repeat "...well nobody needs one".

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Going to play devil's advocate here. I am not saying I do not think people should be able to buy automatic weapons. I have stated before I am undecided on that issue. What I find wrong with this argument is that if I use that same logic I could say "Bill Gates should be able to own a nuclear device or two". If microsoft could "afford" to produce them and he "wants" one why should he be stopped?

 

[Mauserguy]

Many people believe that every citizen in good community standing has a duty to be prepared to defend his or her community. An "Assault Rifle" is a good tool for home and civil defense. Would there have been any looting and armed violence in New Orleans if every honest citizen was prepared and willing to defend his or her community?
Mauserguy

 

[Old Fuff]

There are many good people in the rural areas along the U.S./Mexican border that own legal (so called) assault rifles, and if you ask them why they'll tell you it has nothing too do with hunting.

If Plumber's co-worker/friend comes down here it won't take him long to figure out the reason...

 

[Plumber576]

Old Fuff,

My co-worker is from arizona, and was telling me about his experience living so close to the border. By helping the border patrol capture 4 people known for human smuggling he got his name in the paper.

Only reason he is up here at Ohio State is family tradition...and football.

 

[Zen21Tao]

Keep in mind. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t GIVE people the right to keep and bear arms. This is a right the founding fathers felt was a natural God given right. What the 2nd Amendment does is forbid the Government from limiting this right. And at that time the intention was keep it where each citizen could own the same weapons used by the military.

Point out that the same lefties that denounce the 2nd Amendment treat the 1st Amendment like gold. Certainly there are some forms of speech that, if limited, could appear to make society safer. A long a gun-grabber doesn’t budge on their support of the other Amendments they are nothing more than hypocrites for wanting to strike away at the 2nd Amendment.

 

['Card]

I am not saying I do not think people should be able to buy automatic weapons.

That's a common error. Automatic weapons are already illegal for the average citizen. Assault rifles are semi-automatics. There's a huge difference, but one the media and the non-shooting public never seem to get a grasp on.

What I find wrong with this argument is that if I use that same logic I could say "Bill Gates should be able to own a nuclear device or two". If microsoft could "afford" to produce them and he "wants" one why should he be stopped?

We all accept the fact that there are limits, even to Constitutionally-protected rights.
- You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, even though you have a right to free speech.
- You can't engage in human sacrifice, even though you have a right to freedom of religion.
- You can't own a full-auto weapon, even though you have a right to keep and bear arms.

Most of us would agree that most of those restrictions and limits are pretty reasonable and fair. The discussion is about where you draw the line and having a consistent policy behind it. Pointing out the absurdity in 'assault weapon'-hype is not the same as saying I should be allowed to have a basement full of nerve gas if I want to.

 

[Hellenistic Riot]

Going to play devil's advocate here. I am not saying I do not think people should be able to buy automatic weapons. I have stated before I am undecided on that issue. What I find wrong with this argument is that if I use that same logic I could say "Bill Gates should be able to own a nuclear device or two". If microsoft could "afford" to produce them and he "wants" one why should he be stopped?

Does a nuclear device serve any sort of sporting purpose?

I don't believe the use of a nuclear bomb is ever justifiable, but that is just an opinion. I believe that is a definite gray area.

 

[R.H. Lee]

"I understand huting and what not, but who needs to own an M16 or an AK47? (referrign to full-auto weapons) You cannot hunt with those."

Why do hoplophobic spittle flying antigun control freak morons always make 'hunting' a prerequisite for firearms ownership?