Why the question "Why do you need a gun?" is malformed.

[Double Naught Spy]

While I appreciate the sentiment of the OP's argument, the argument can be turned around quite easily.

So, how does this relate to the question in the first paragraph? It relates to the question because "Why do you need a gun?" assumes that the firearm prohibition is the default position in the argument, and that gun ownership is a position that requires justification. As previously determined, the reverse the case. The real question is "Why shouldn't I be able to own a gun?"

If "Why do you need a gun?" is 'malformed' based on the philosophy in debating matters of existence and belief that the default position to take on any claim is to not believe the claim until it can be rationally justified, it would well be argued that what has been "rationally justified" is the actual heart of the debate. It could be well argued that "Why shouldn't I be able to own a gun?" is malformed and has not been rationally justified. Both sides of the gun debate have a different basis for that is rational and what is rationally justified.

As has so often been argued here, just because something is legal does not mean it is a good idea. While not often argued here but equally true, just because something is legal does not mean it is a bad idea. So the legal aspect isn't necessarily a mitigating aspect or detrimental to the question, "What do you need a gun?" Just because it is legal for you to own it does not justify that your need to own it. People often need things that are legal and need things that are illegal.

Also, the two questions of "Why do you need a gun?" and "Why shouldn't I be able to own a gun?" are not necessarily at odds to one another.

 

[Tirod]

Whether it's a valid argument in the sense of debate and logic has nothing to do with it getting asked. If logic was appreciated by the person posing the question, it would potentially never be spoken.

It's being asked by someone emotionally engaged who opposes violence. They don't understand, or have an extremely restricted view, of how humans can and will exercise dominion over one another. They are looking at it from their perspective, and it reflects a protected and limited experience with the world around them.

It's why they are compared to sheep, and don't understand the sheep dogs' view. If anything, they have a hard time seeing any difference at all between a sheep dog and predatory canine - they all look the same to them.

To them, a 2A supporter isn't much different than a thug or terrorist. They are focused on the snap and snarl, not who's protecting them.

"I carry a gun to prevent serious harm coming to the people in my life."

It makes you part of the Good Guys. It introduces the fact that some aren't, highlights what could happen to them personally, and that you will stand against it. And that they are not only doing nothing about it, but would be victimized without help.

Don't debate gun law or the Constitution. Put it in terms of quality of life, and how much better it is because of it.

 

[GBExpat]

Sorry, but after reading the original post what comes, unbidden, to my mind is the story about the guy who is stopped by the cop for some minor traffic violation ... and the cop finds that the guy has MANY (legal) guns in his car and on his person.

Cop: "What are you afraid of?"

Guy: "Not a thing, not a damned thing!"

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Why do you need a gun?

Why do you need to vote?
Why do you need to read a newspaper?
Why do you need freedom of religion?
Why do you need freedom of speech?

Those things are rights. You don't have to prove you NEED a right, any more than you have to prove you need eyes or arms and legs.

 

[JustinJ]

If "Why do you need a gun?" is 'malformed' based on the philosophy in debating matters of existence and belief that the default position to take on any claim is to not believe the claim until it can be rationally justified, it would well be argued that what has been "rationally justified" is the actual heart of the debate. It could be well argued that "Why shouldn't I be able to own a gun?" is malformed and has not been rationally justified. Both sides of the gun debate have a different basis for that is rational and what is rationally justified.

Well, said. There is no "default position" as to whether or not one should be able to own a gun as such is based entirely on preexisting values and ideologies. In fact, there is probably no default position for any type of "should" or "should not" statement as existing values determine such. One might be able to say, "the default position 'for a libertarian(political)' is that people should be able to own guns". One also wouldn't get away with misidentifying a question for a position in philosophy or assuming a question proves the asker has a specific world view. Half of philosophy is trying to deal with the imprecision of language.

That being said, a discussion in common language is not a philosophy debate or a thesis paper and if you hold just about any conversation in common language to such a level, the validity of almost every sentence can probably be easily challenged.

 

[Reloadron]

Why do you need a gun?

I don't need a gun. I don't need a gun anymore than my neighbor needs a set of golf clubs. If someone enjoys playing golf then a set of golf clubs is a nice to have and if someone enjoys the shooting sports then a gun is a nice to have.

Ron

 

[Ryanxia]

I typically don't reply with 'Why not?' because then I hear a bunch of ill informed response about how dangerous guns are and how a civilized society doesn't need them, blah blah.
I too take the question as an opportunity to share my thoughts and educate.

My answer will have something like: Because that is how I choose to protect myself and my family. Because it is my Constitutional Right, right up there with free speech and freedom to worship. Because it defends all of our other freedoms.

When someone says 'In this day and age just let the government protect you' I say, 'in this day and age, 80 people were tied up in a stadium and executed for crimes such as merely possessing the Holy Bible (North Korea), I don't intend to let that become common practice over here.'

 

[Justin]

Oh, and here I thought we were on an internet forum instead of a classroom. Criticism noted, I'll make sure to show my work next time, maybe then I'll get a passing grade from you.

If you're going to put forth the effort to make a pro-gun marketing piece, it behooves you and the pro-gun movement to stick to basic design conventions.

As it is, your graphic is working against itself.

The copy is too long-winded, there's not really a coherent color scheme, and as a typeface, Comic Sans is far too informal for the point you're trying to make.

It's like showing up to a job interview in a tank top and flip flops.

 

[barnbwt]

Nobody needs a gun...until they need it. Something also about "from each according to their ability (at the point of a gun), to each according to their need (and not a damn thing more)"

Platitudes beget platitudes, it's only fair.

TCB

 

[JFtheGR8]

I've been asked this often. I work in hospitals so there are many people that I come in contact with that don't own or want to own a firearm. I usually say I don't need a gun but I feel that my life is improved by owning various firearms for both hunting and personal protection. I also remind them that history usually repeats itself and there is a possibility that the citizens of this country could fall under oppression. Due to that possibility alone the private ownership of firearms must be preserved for future generations. Antis usually think this is just paranoia. I have helped a couple nurses get their FOID here in Illinois and steered them toward a reputable gun shop. Those conversations started with that same question.

 

[Highcaliber]

"Need" is never a metric used to determine the exercise of a right.

"Need" in this regard, is an artificial value judgment imposed by one person on another. In other words, Tyranny.

The freedom to choose things outside our "needs" is what it means to have self determination and freedom. Unless someone's exercise of that choice directly infringes on another's freedom it should not be a consideration of the State or any other person, as to what that choice might be.

"Need" is not the justification I must make to live my life !

You do not to determine what I "need" any more than I get to determine what you need. The list of items we possess, and actions we indulge in, that are un-needed and potentially dangerous is endless.

 

[Ed Ames]

I've been asked this often. I work in hospitals so ...

You have the perfect opportunity to turn it around and ask, "Why do we need immune systems?"

Avoidance isn't a 100% effective strategy. Barriers are likewise not 100% effective. When those fail you need a way to resist parasitic infection or you will sicken and die. To willfully abandon one leg of that self-defense tripod, whether by unnecessarily taking immunosuppressive drugs or unnecessarily choosing not to own a firearm, is a sign of mental health issues.

 

[GJSchulze]

"Why do you need a gun?" is not being asked as a question or inquiry, but more of a challenge

That's a good point. We get tricked because the way they ask it doesn't usually sound rhetorical. As I said in my post, if you know enough about them you can turn it around on them. Otherwise, do not try to justify it, but rather attack the question as inappropriate.

I'm sure Ayn Rand must have had something to say about this type of thing. Perhaps not guns, but certainly "why do you need..." I will look into to it and get back.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

"Need" is never a metric used to determine the exercise of a right.

My point, exactly. A right, by definition, is something you don't have to justify.

 

[MedWheeler]

I didn't read all the responses.

When asked, my response is:

"I don't need a gun. Not any more than I need a fire extinguisher or first-aid kit.

But, should that change, the change will likely be quite sudden and urgent in nature."

 

[Dframe]

When I've been asked this, my reply has always been "That isn't a valid question!" I REFUSE to fall for the bait and try to justify my desire to own a gun. I have the right and I choose to exercise it.

 

[Officers'Wife]

At the moment I don't, however, should the occasion arise that I do need one I sure as heck want it handy.

 

[Bobson]

You won't win hearts and minds (especially those of the sort of person who asks "why do you need a gun?") with a long-winded explanation about how it's an invalid question.

This is where I'm at.

The OP is factually correct and irrefutable, but that doesn't matter. Gun control is not primarily a cognitive issue, it's primarily an emotional one.

So you've managed to dismantle a question using reasonable, sound logic. Nobody cares. Worse yet, your effort to escape the question suggests you can't reasonably answer it. I know that you can (posts #4 and #19 both answer it well enough), but using this opportunity to demonstrate your intellect is, ironically, a fool's effort, as it sets you further from victory than if you had just answered the question in the first place.

 

[fanchisimo]

"Because a police officer is too big to carry around" is the funniest one in my opinion. But to a more serious point, there are numerous valid answers to this question. You could go into how technically cars aren't a need and thousands die every in them every year, you could go into it's a right and doesn't need justification, you can go into how fires are actually rare yet a fire extinguisher is the norm, and probably numerous other answers that are all perfectly valid.

The wrong thing to do as previously mentioned is to debate the merit or simply dismiss the validity of the question even if you are right. Just think, how good do you feel when a politician dances around a good question or avoids it entirely, even if their avoidance response is valid.

 

[TfflHndn]

Because a cop is too heavy to carry and I'd probably have to feed him. And because when seconds count, the police are minutes away.

 

[22-rimfire]

Why do you need a gun? I think it is a perfectly good question as far as I'm concerned and not uncommon. I need gun because I like to shoot guns.

Why do I need a fishing rod? Because I like to fish.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

I have had surprisingly good luck with on-the-fencers asking me that question by responding "Why should someone else be able to tell you what you do or don't need?"

... and with that, a tiny seed of conservatism is planted.

 

[MEHavey]

Why ?

Because Consent of the Governed requires there be an option....
And true citizens need grow up from earliest age with that as mindset.

 

[316SS]

I don't need a gun. I don't need a gun anymore than my neighbor needs a set of golf clubs. If someone enjoys playing golf then a set of golf clubs is a nice to have and if someone enjoys the shooting sports then a gun is a nice to have.

Why do you need a gun? I think it is a perfectly good question as far as I'm concerned and not uncommon. I need gun because I like to shoot guns.

Why do I need a fishing rod? Because I like to fish.

These are reasonable responses but fraught ones. I think most everyone can agree that the 2A has nothing to do with recreation. The person asking the question would love to turn the discussion toward a balance between your desire to enjoy guns as a hobby and the perceived ills guns bring to society, as if there is some valid balance to be struck.

The truth is, we don't need guns. A person threatened with rape, or robbery, or murder, doesn't need a gun. They can choose to submit to rape, or be robbed, or be murdered. The 2A protects out right to make that choice.

 

[JFtheGR8]

You have the perfect opportunity to turn it around and ask, "Why do we need immune systems?"

Avoidance isn't a 100% effective strategy. Barriers are likewise not 100% effective. When those fail you need a way to resist parasitic infection or you will sicken and die. To willfully abandon one leg of that self-defense tripod, whether by unnecessarily taking immunosuppressive drugs or unnecessarily choosing not to own a firearm, is a sign of mental health issues.

It's not avoidance. Nobody needs a gun. However, if you are going to defend your family and yourself it makes the task that much easier. The only things you need are air, water, food and shelter. Having a gun helps to guarantee you have and get to keep those items. It's basically that simple.