Right to protect yourself with firearms

The accessibility of guns to the public is important because of the negative situations that will arise if such accessibility is non-existent.

Legal or not, I feel that criminals can always get ahold of a dangerous weapon. Now it is hard to protect against bombs, but if somebody comes at me with anything else, I want to feel comfortable that I have a means of defense.

In psychology, we learn about Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. The most basic needs are the physiological ones (hunger, thirst), followed by having a sense of safety.

Allowing gun ownership helps provide that.

It gives the public the opportunity to equip their homes with some means of protection.
A security alarm warns, and a gun defends. Indeed, the second amendment must help many families sleep at night.

we should be able to use guns as citezens. guns dont determain our faite. god does. the world(in some places) would be a bad place with out guns. with out to protect your self. guns dont kill people, people kill people. guns are just (in a way) a tool. if we eliminate guns why not knives? why no bats... you can harm others with bats too and mabey evan kill. the educated disition would be to right to protect your self with firearms.

I'm not going to build a conterargument, merely show some flaws in response.

"I don't believe that using force will solve anything except perpetuate the use of force."

Unfortunately it is a given that without substantial social stigma attached to or political force precluding the use of force, there is no solution except deterrence.

"What I think people often overlook with the whole idea of gun control (as they automatically jump to the conclusion that their rights are being infringed upon), is the idea of the slippery slope that can ensue. ---> followed by citation of statistical correlation of firearm danger."

Statistical correlation =/= slippery slope. Also, the fact that the gun is 40 times more likely to injure you rather than a bad guy might be because the gun deters more bad guys from trespassing on your property, hence lowering encounters with such criminal elements in the first place and having a greater rate of firearm self-injury as a side effect.

The other piece of evidence could simply mean that people in more dangerous areas tend to buy more guns.

Hence it is entirely possible that:
1) The deterrence factor could reduce violent encounters enough to make a gun more likely to injure you rather than a foe.

BUT

2) The fact that deterrence is only needed in violent areas means that you are more likely to die in the first place, even though deterrence does not reduce your likelihood of death.

What you need is evidence connecting the dots, something like:

People who own guns are more likely to be robbed or have violent acts attempted upon them than non-gun-owning individuals from the same geographic area.

"A gun shot is something that can fatally harm someone in an instant pull of the trigger (unlike something like a knife that necessitates slightly more premeditation, as several stabs are usually required for fatal injuries)."

A knife stab can fatally harm someone in an instant as well (blade to jugular, instant gg no re).

"Ideally, it may be comforting for citizens to think that because they have a gun around, they will be able to protect themselves adequately. But when it comes down to it, the probability remains that the majority of the time, that trigger will be pulled either accidentally or in a fleeting and irrational act of spontaneity."

Fair enough. But unfortunately, this may be a necessary evil in order to reap the gains of deterrence.

"In going back to that idea of the use of force does nothing but perpetuate the further use of force, we see that it becomes hard to draw the line as to when enough is enough, and when two wrongs stop making a right."

Then maybe no line needs to be drawn, and we can let a non-Governmental solution form on its own in society.

I'm not so sure that two wrongs ever make a right.

Also, how do you know it's impractical? I might argue that it is practical. Take Ghandi, for example. He didn't use guns and look what he accomplished. How about Jesus? Yeah his name is used by a lot of people for a lot of bad things, but his most fundamental message is non-resistance. Even though "Christianity" is prevalent in many parts of the world, most people don't give non-resistance even a chance. Jesus said that if someone strikes us we should turn the other cheek. Maybe if someone pulls a gun on you just try to talk them. Even better, make peace with everyone before anything happens, and nobody will have a reason to pull a gun on you. I'm just saying, maybe theres more to non-resistance than people give it credit for. I guess we'll never know unless we try. Then again, nobody has ever pulled a gun on me before so I'm really talking about things I don't know about.

If you kill a guy that is about to kill you then he can't kill you or anyone else. Your thoughts are completely impractical in the real world

While I'm not sure I agree completely with the reasoning for dismissing the usage of guns (especially considering the powerful check the 2nd amendment is idealized to have on the government), I thought you used a really fitting statement: "I don't believe that using force will solve anything except perpetuate the use of force.".

What I think people often overlook with the whole idea of gun control (as they automatically jump to the conclusion that their rights are being infringed upon), is the idea of the slippery slope that can ensue. Keeping even a small gun at home for self-defense purposes endangers the safety of the members of that household in a variety of ways; I think there are statistics indicating that residents of those homes are something like five times more likely to experience a homicide or suicide, as the gun is over 40 times more likely to (whether by accident or not) kill or injure a resident or friend than an intruder.

A gun shot is something that can fatally harm someone in an instant pull of the trigger (unlike something like a knife that necessitates slightly more premeditation, as several stabs are usually required for fatal injuries). Ideally, it may be comforting for citizens to think that because they have a gun around, they will be able to protect themselves adequately. But when it comes down to it, the probability remains that the majority of the time, that trigger will be pulled either accidentally or in a fleeting and irrational act of spontaneity.

In going back to that idea of the use of force does nothing but perpetuate the further use of force, we see that it becomes hard to draw the line as to when enough is enough, and when two wrongs stop making a right.

:) I guess what I was trying to say, although maybe I didn't say very well or say it really at all, is that maybe we shouldn't defend ourselves at all, maybe we should just give this guy who robbed the store the money, he was obviously desperate enough for it, or hey maybe we could give our money away to those who need it, and then nobody would need to steal and we'd have nothing anyone could steal anyway, and there'd be no need for guns. Instead this guy gets put in prison. What good does that do anyone? If this guy resorts to robbing, then he's probably got enough problems anyway. Just a thought I guess. I don't believe that using force will solve anything except perpetuate the use of force. When you use force it doesn't matter who's "right" and who's "wrong". It just matters who is stronger or who has the most guns. And you'll never win, at least for very long. There will always be somebody stronger than you with more guns or more bombs or bows and arrows or whatever.

If no one had guns, I'd be against guns too, but then we'd be talking about spear/bow & arrow control, heh!


Here is a good example of an armed citizen doing good. The robber would've probably gotten away if it weren't for the armed citizen.
http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=7565465&nav=menu188_2

"An armed society is a polite society"

Well of course, guns don't kill people. People kill people.
It's not a question of whether or not should we be allowed to posses them, but does the person posses the education and common sense to safely and securely own the firearm.

Police are not always available to help you in a conflict and in all practicality one can only rely on one's self for protection. "If you want it done right you gotta do it yourself" definitely applies, especially in a situation where one's life is potentially at stake.


Specifically in regards to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" we as citizens are to have the right to bear arms in order to maintain a militia.
If we are prevented from arming ourselves against the threatening body that is clearly in contrast to the Second Amendment.