What do you tell people that ask the same tired question?

[LongTimeGone]

Mike1234567 wrote;

No one should ever tell anyone else that they carry so they can kill someone. That could land them in federal prison if they ever did need to shoot in self-defense or defense of others. It should only be said that it's for self-protection in the very unlikely event it should be needed and every attempt will be made to avoid its use. Never "expect" the law or those who impose their interpretation of it to have any common sense or give a rats a$$ about you.

^ this.
mizzlep has just gone on permanent record.

 

[knotquiteawake]

"The world is a dangerous place." Is my answer to those who are wondering why I am pursuing getting a CHL.

A couple years before I met my wife she was car jacked at gunpoint not more than 10min away from where we live now, and its a pretty nice part of town. The guy was actually trying to force her into the passenger seat but thankfully she is smarter and faster than that (thats why I married her!) and she was able to push past him and sprint to the inside of the gas station and call the cops while he sped away.

Just north of us in Frisco there have been shootings at two different wal mart parking lots in the last month (they were not "random" shootings though). Frisco is one of the nicer cities where the more well to do folks live.

The world is a dangerous place and in reality there is no "safe" or "nice" part of town, just "dangerous" and "less dangerous".

 

[MikeNice]

I just ask them to look in the newspaper and find one article where a cop prevented a crime.

Actually I have a lot of responses. It depends on the person and their way of asking.

 

[MikeNice]

The police will get there just in time to collect evidence and clean up the crime scene.

I work for a police department and tell this to people all of the time. Cops usually don't stop crime they investigate crime. The best a cop can hope to do is deter as many criminals with his presence as possible and figure out who did the rest.

 

[Uteridge]

Ask the officer (politely) why he feels the need to carry a gun on his hip. Nothing is more hypocritical than someone who carries a gun openly for a living challenging another person on why they own a gun. If the world is such a safe and fuzzy place that the officer's question is relevant then why does the officer need his gun. If his is for his own safety or the safety of others then that sounds an awful lot like the reason that I have mine. Guess we are on the same team.

 

[mljdeckard]

"Mostly in case I want to shoot something."

"For all legal purposes."

"Because we live in a world where bad things happen to good people."

"This is a legacy and tradition handed down through several generations. I owe it to my progeny to continue."

"We, as men, must take responsibility for our own safety."

 

[pockets]

In my four decades of owning firearms, I've never had anyone ask; "why?".

.

 

[Dnaltrop]

Because it's Hard to drop a 16 ton weight on a mugger without advance planning and a Monty Python soundtrack.

Because with my wife's job in insurance, I'd be criminally negligent if I did any less given the volume of death/bomb threats such a company receives... regardless of credibility.

Because... It's Fun!! Would you like to join us at the range sometime? I have extra ear cups in the wagon.


I don't carry to kill people, I carry to keep people I care about alive.

 

[HOOfan_1]

Firstly, it ends any kind of 'guns are dangerous' type of conversation that the person may want to force me to hear.

I'd just end that drivel by saying.

"I have owned and shot guns my entire life, you haven't. I have much more knowledge of guns than you do, so you are not qualified to lecture me about guns."

If I am in a generous mood I might add.


"Yes guns are dangerous, so are cars, planes, chain saws, lawn mowers, basically any other power tool and your shower(slip and fall). Many things you have in your house are dangerous if you do not handle them correctly"

 

[ny32182]

Not only is "to kill people" likely the worst possible response to a fence sitter, who I assume is the only kind of person who would ask this question... it is not accurate in a legal self defense shooting. The point is to stop the threat. A gun just happens to be the most effective tool to accomplish that. If death of an assailant is a result, it is an incidental side effect to the action required to stop the threat.

There is a now internet-famous video floating around right now of a shooting at a gas station in Dayton, OH a couple weeks ago. A guy is attacked by two crackheads, and is able to retrieve a gun from his car and shoot one of them twice in the gut. The other one flees. The one who is shot crawls away to the other side of the gas pump. At that point, the threat is stopped, and the victim/shooter removes himself from the situation by driving away. If his goal was "to kill people", he would have continued by shooting the other guy in the back, or by following the first shot guy around the gas pump and executing him after he was down. Or, walking into the gas station and shooting the clerk... "to kill people" doesn't really make a distinction there, either. I doubt any of those actions would have resulted with him being in the relatively happy "no charges" world he is in right now. Thinking before speaking is usually the best course of action.

 

[bcp280z]

Why not, the same reason I like sports cars, they're big boy toys, fun, and because I can.

 

[mizzlep]

Where does it say that killing anyone is the reason for the 2nd Amendment? Ad Libbing the RKBA can be a dangerous proposition.

I have never been asked, but, "to kill someone" will not be my response.

Lot's of interesting replies. I chose to quote this one for one reason:
The Constitution does not grant rights, it only protects them.

As for the others crying about being an ambassador to your sport, or whatever it is personally, I'm sorry you feel that way.

To me, gun rights aren't about false pretenses and making feel-good statements so we can entice liberals into gun ownership. I don't feel the need to sugar coat reality because the real world is too difficult for people to deal with.

@Littlebubba,
Your reply was I think the most thoughtful dissent on my stance. Again, I'll have to refer you (not trying to be condescending here) to the fact that you have no second amendment rights, only rights which are supposed to be defended by the second amendment. By making the argument for 'second amendment rights' you're already giving up half the battle IMO. The second Amendment is not written to be, nor can it be reasonably interpreted in any way, to be even the least bit restrictive on the people or the states. It is restrictive to the federal government, and the federal government only.

People can choose to interpret statements you make verbally a lot of different ways. I'm pretty sure I don't come off as the usual gun-nut psycho type, and am generally respected as a fairly knowledgeable individual. When I say 'killing people' you can take it as I mean it: Self defense, or that of others, which includes the use of force up to and including killing another individual. That's the cold hard truth, take it or leave it. Or, you can interpret it to mean I own guns so I can go on some kind of killing spree, perform hits for the mob (or the CIA presumably, who admittedly assassinate US Citizens over seas).

The problem is, it's some of the pro-gunners that let these stereotypes be cast on them; that's why I'm not a member of the NRA or any such organizations like that, they're all just sell out organizations. Everyone always tucks tail when it comes down to real rights. There always has to be some PC way to say something, so the soccer moms of America don't get upset. God forbid we're judged in even a slightly negative light by anyone, for any reason. No, I don't buy it.

 

[littlebubba]

Thank you for the complement and thank God we live in a free country. Although I still strongly disagree with your position it is yours and your are entitled to it. Best wishes.

 

[mizzlep]

There is a now internet-famous video floating around right now of a shooting at a gas station in Dayton, OH a couple weeks ago....
Thinking before speaking is usually the best course of action.

Yes, I watched the video, and yes, the guy acted correctly. His life may have been in jeopardy, and he made the right decision.

Insisting that what I said translates into purposefully killing an individual while he is laying on the ground, or running away unarmed is a bit of a stretch, IMO. As I said before, I have absolutely no desire to kill anyone. In fact, I don't support the killing of brown people on the other side of the world either (see: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya). I think it's wrong to kill people, period. But I recognize what guns are for, whether it makes people feel warm and fuzzy inside or not. They are for killing people. I just don't really see how there is any debating that.

 

[x_wrench]

i tell them that i own guns for many reasons. first, to me, they are enjoyable to shoot. target shooting is a great sport. then of course, i like to eat. and wild game is at least twice as healthy as anything you can buy in a store. that usually suprises a lot of non hunters. and of course, there is the self defense aspect. i make no bones about it, i will defend my home and familly from all intruders. i do not tell people that there is a gun in my belt. that is better off remaining my silent partner.

 

[RobNDenver]

Hello, was wondering what other gun owners tell people when they ask them why they own a gun.

Personally, I tell them I own guns so I can kill other people. Usually people laugh, because they think I'm joking, but I assure them that is in fact the reason I own guns.

Then, there's usually a follow up question: "Why do you want to kill other people?" I then politely explain that I don't want to kill other people. I have no desire to kill other people. However, the world is a dangerous place, and I want the ability to kill others if I have to.

Personally, I think that telling people guns are only for hunting, sporting, and 'self defense' purposes undermines the foundation of our rights. The modern American has become so pathetically domesticated that they cannot possibly conceive any form of political or social unrest.

So anyway, what do you all tell people, and why?

Seems to me you like to alienate those you talk with. Telling someone that you own guns so that you can kill people, regardless of how you qualify it, would offend most folks and frighten others. I guess if you like to start arguments and put folks off, you are in the zone for that.

How in the world does that advance the Right to Keep and Bear Arms? And second, how does it keep most people from thinking that you, personally are someone to be avoided, if not feared.

If I ever run into you personally, I'll just do what my grandfather used to do, and shake my head. . .

 

[mizzlep]

@RobNDenver

I honestly don't think anyone was offended or frightened by me saying that. It's not like I'm walking up to random people at WalMart saying "I own guns so I can kill people, woohoo!"
Like I said, usually people think I'm joking, and laugh at the statement. It's after that that I usually elaborate on my position, especially in clarify that I have no desire to kill people. Maybe it's just seems extra-off putting because it's being written, instead of spoken.

Anyway, despite my defending my position, this thread is about what other people tell people that ask that question. There's been some really good responses.

 

[rbernie]

My Benelli Vinci is made for killing wee little birds - not people. Yes, I have guns that are solely made for killin' folk and indeed I bought them for that purpose, but it's not really the ONLY reason for a gun to exist.

 

[jiminwa]

nice.

 

[mizzlep]

My Benelli Vinci is made for killing wee little birds - not people. Yes, I have guns that are solely made for killin' folk and indeed I bought them for that purpose, but it's not really the ONLY reason for a gun to exist.

Yes, that's true. There are definitely different types of guns for different purposes. Just so long as someone doesn't claim they (all guns) are only for such a germane purpose.

Nothing wrong with hunting or sporting IMO, but I just don't like the fact they are usually the first things mentioned. People also say 'self defense,' and while this is abundantly true, it doesn't get at the heart of the issue of having the right to take another's life in defense of your own or another's. It's this ugly, grim aspect of the right to bear arms that never gets any out-right direct support, because even in the pro-gun group it's taboo. I just don't see a need for this.

This is why there are SO MANY gun laws in places like Chicago and DC. Because, IMO, the people won't stand up and say "Yes, guns are dangerous, and they are meant to take lives, and we demand to have responsibility for our own actions and our own safety!" By denying a gun's obvious nature, a person is lending their side of the argument to fallacy.

So imagine a conversation:

Liberal: "Guns kill people!"
Gun-owner: "We know, that's why we have them."


Basically what has happened there is that pro-gunners have rejected the premise of the argument; debating the purpose of a gun is a non-issue. Now the issue has been steered towards (possibly) arguing the issue as to whether people have the right to kill others in self defense. That would only add ANOTHER layer of litigation to the removal of gun rights, a layer that does not appear to be there presently, because pro-gunners (NRA specifically) focus on the most non-polarizing aspects of guns, which still leaves the 'but guns are dangerous'-door open.

 

[Maia007]

I don't need to justify how I live my life to anyone....thus I don't indulge such questions nor do I engage in that kind of conversation.

 

[wrs840]

mizzlep: Why inflame the kooks by convincing them that you're a kook?

Pick your battles... Walk softly and carry a big stick...

etc.

 

[lynxsnare]

I like neverwinters reply, " unfounded assumption " Like there is something wrong with owning any kind of firearm in the first place.

 

[mizzlep]

mizzlep: Why inflame the kooks by convincing them that you're a kook?

Pick your battles... Walk softly and carry a big stick...

etc.

Touche, touche.

 

[NoirFan]

To the original poster: I don't want to dogpile you about this because a lot has been said already. I'd just like you to consider that you are talking to a forum full of pro-gun rights people, who are comfortable with and handle guns on a daily basis, who are all to some extent part of the 'gun culture', who understand the true purpose of the Second Amendment, most of whom are prepared to shoot an attacker if necessary to defend themselves against lethal force.

If these people are taken aback by your talk of "killing people" then how is your average man or woman on the street going to take it? People are emotional creatures who trick themselves into thinking they are rational. That includes you, me, and just about everybody. A provocative statement like that at the opening of a discussion shuts down rational thinking for most people who are listening, essentially wasting your well-reasoned follow up argument.

I like neverwinters reply, " unfounded assumption " Like there is something wrong with owning any kind of firearm in the first place.

No unfounded assumptions are being made if a person is unfamiliar with guns and didn't grow up around them.