Why do American civilians need guns?

Question

Is it simply to protect yourself from other civilians with guns?

Please dont use the old 'the government says we can' excuse; it isn't an answer.

Thanks for your replies people, you gave me some serious food for thought....

The main purpose of my question was to try and justify the loss of 50,000 American lives to guns every year.

It seems three main points were raised to justify civilian gun ownership:

1. Hobbies like hunting and collecting. This seemed to be a rather dubious reason. Hunting seems hardley necessary in this day and age whilst collecting is fun, is it socialy necesary?

2. Protection from 'crazy' civilians. To this I ask would a crazy civilian be more or less dangerous with a gun?

3. Protection from the Government. In this day and age, and in the worlds greatest democracy, what is the likleyhood of a dictator coming to power with or without an armed population. Surley a society that prides itself on the democratic process should have enough faith in the system to trust its process? If not why have most other democratic societys fared well (ie most of Europe)?

Answer 1

You're asking for a rational answer to an emotional question.

Americans don't need guns any more than anyone else, with a few exceptions. But we live in a society that sees guns as a healthy, positive way to maintain our freedom. The fact that guns do nothing of the sort is irrelevant.
Every society believes in things regardless of the evidence. For better or worse, it's part of how we are wired. Sometimes, the result is wonderful, such as music. Other times, it is not, such as the KKK or Wal-Mart.

Eventually, our society will change. We just don't know in which direction. Maybe in a few hundred years, the Swiss and the Japanese will be shooting it out in the streets and we will be decrying their barbarism.

Peace.

Answer 2

It's a hobby, like any other. Sure they can be dangerous, but then again, so can driving a car. Are we going to make that illegal? Didn't think so. Some people say it's redneckish, but I can't really think of how people can think that...a little hypocritical, IMHO, since the people who say that are usually the ones telling everybody to keep their minds open.

I enjoy shooting because it's great stress relief. I enjoy handloading ammo because it does involve some strategizing, some science, and some art. Shooting can be a family activity. There's a social aspect to it, talking with other shooters and handloaders. And of course if you're so inclined, a concealed carry weapon may come in handy some day - I only wish I'd had one when I strayed into Cicero, IL. Classic firearms and even ammunition can be collected, much like coins, lighters, shot glasses, snow globes, or practically anything else. It can even teach patience, discipline, and respect. While I don't know that we necessarily NEED guns, I would say that it would be a huge travesty to not allow respectable people to have them.

And of course to outlaw guns for law-abiding folk would be folly since criminals and convicts will get them anyway, thereby depriving many people of a dearly beloved hobby and doing nothing - absolutely nothing - for firearms involved crime. If anything, it would have an adverse effect in states where concealed carry laws are in effect. The bad guys with guns know you ain't got one. Otherwise, it's always a risk, a gamble - if I hold up that convenience store, I gotta wonder, does the guy by the milk or the lady by the twinkies have a .38?

Answer 3

We have the protected right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. The primary reason we have this right is in case the government ever decides to become too tyrannical, the people will have at their disposal the means to revolt against such tyranny and reform a new government.

There is no more helpless population than one that is unarmed, particularly when the government has all the guns. Every tyrant that ever came to power (Hitler and Lenin to name just two), enacted gun control legislation that eventually led to the disarming of the civilian populations - after which, the people had no recourse but to follow the dictates of their new dictators (Enter the SS and the KGB and GRU and raids in the night) To understand this I cite the example of what's happening in Israel. The Israeils have machine guns and the Palestinians have rocks. It's a no brainer to understand who has the upper hand, and why.

The framers of the Constitution knew that every government has the ability and tendency to decay into dictatorship. The 2nd Amendment protection is the edge that the American people hold against their government getting out of hand.

The greater question is why certain members of the Congress and Senate want to remove this safeguard of our freedoms. What might THEY have in mind if the guns are removed? Ponder on that question and you will realize the answer to your question.

Answer 4

It`s not a question of need. It is a matter of personal freedoms. If the government can take that right away from us, they have a prescedent set to remove any of the other ammendments to the bill of rights. Freedom of Speech could be next, or the right to peacably assemble. Or easily freedom of religion, in our curent anti-islamic worldview. All this set aside, a possible reason for the inclusion of the Right to Bear Arms was to keep the People from being enslaved by their government. The Founding Fathers were themselves a rebellion, fighting against oppressive and unjust laws. They were unhappy with the situation and they took up arms to fight for what was right. They made sure we could the same. That is why we need guns. Disarming the populace is just ASKING a dictator to step into power.

Answer 5

To prevent Tyrannical Governments from taking over and/or killing us.

Hitler believed in Gun Control and guess what he did with it, confiscated Guns from Jewish Civilians then others and well you know the rest.

The Armenian Genocide of 1915

The Communist take over of Russia in 1917

Nazi Germany

The Japanese take over of China

They are all reasons to keep Civilians armed.

Armed Civilians have kept Switzerland out of a War since 1815 because Armed Civilians are the 1st line in real Homeland Security.

Switzerland has had their own Dept of Homeland Security since 1815 which is the armed civilians of Switzerland.

Answer 6

Most of us don't but some need them for hunting ( considered a sport) . While others keep them to protect their property from criminals. If you live in the country you might want a gun to protect your live stock from coyotes and other wild animals. Some people want a gun just to make them feel powerfull.

Answer 7

Because the world we live in today you have to be ready at any moment to protect yourself and your family at any cost and if that means carrying a gun and having to use it so be it
With all the crazy people in the world today you stop and think about it

Answer 8

The English Declaration of Rights (1689) affirmed freedom for Protestants to "have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." When Colonists protested British efforts to disarm their militias in the early phases of the Revolution, colonists cited the Declaration of Rights, Blackstone's summary of the Declaration of Rights, their own militia laws, and Common Law rights to self-defense. While British policy in the early phases of the Revolution clearly aimed to prevent coordinated action by the militia, there is no evidence that the British sought to restrict the traditional common law right of self-defense. Indeed, in his arguments on behalf of British troops in the Boston Massacre trial, John Adams invoked the common law of self-defense.

Some have seen the Second Amendment as derivative of a common law right to keep and bear arms; Thomas B. McAffee & Michael J. Quinlan, writing in the North Carolina Law Review, March 1997, Page 781, have stated "... Madison did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment--the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions." Others offer a different view; Robert Spitzer has stated: "Nothing in the history, construction, or interpretation of the Amendment applies or infers such a protection. Rather, legal protection for personal self-defense arises from the British common law tradition and modern criminal law; not from constitutional law." Heyman has similarly argued that the common law right of self defense was legally distinct from the right to bear arms.

The potential connection between the right of self defense and the new constitutional protection of a right to keep and bear arms contained in the Second Amendment depends on the distinction whether 'keep and bear arms' is synonymous more broadly with the right of individual self defense or does 'keep and bear arms' pertain more narrowly towards use of arms in a military context, or, in the case of the Common Law while still under the British, in service of the king and country. This distinction was not subject to serious judicial notice until the first gun control laws were passed in the Jacksonian era. Judges in the ninteenth century split over how to interpret this connection; some saw the Common Law right and the protection of a right to keep and bear arms contained in the Second Amendment as identical; others viewed these as being legally distinct. Texts from the era of the Second Amendment are largely silent on this important question.

Answer 9

Protection.

Answer 10

To keep our rights intact. the first thing Hitler did was take civilians guns away along with most dictators. What keeps our government our government and not our rulers is fear of its citizens.