1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Why I need...

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by del4, Jan 23, 2013.

  1. del4

    del4 New Member

    In gun control debates the question is always asked, "why does someone need an Ar-15 or high cap magazines?" Nobody ever really answers the question. This is really frustrating for me. So I am going to inject my reasons.

    First of all, I don't have to need something to own it. If you have to justify something as a need then we should just move back into the stone age. I have a God given right as a human to use my resources how I see fit.

    Second, all of these gun debates are predicated on murderers going around on shooting sprees using "military style weapons. I should be, at the absolute very least, as well armed as any criminal. By their own admissions the criminal element have these weapons. Prohibition and the war on drugs have proven that the government cannot remove banned items off of the street. Why tie my hands?

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
  2. BHP FAN

    BHP FAN New Member

    because they want you to be more dependent on them. ever hear a song by Cheap Trick called ''I want you to want me''?
  3. gazpacho

    gazpacho New Member

    Because 60 round magazines are too expensive.
  4. Jesse 8

    Jesse 8 New Member

    Why do I need an assault rifle? Because 6 million Jews didn't.
  5. DoubleTapDrew

    DoubleTapDrew New Member

    Thankfully we have a Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs.
  6. Robert

    Robert Moderator

    Need has nothing to do with it. It is my right.
  7. HankR

    HankR New Member

    Why did Rosa Parks need to sit in the front seat? Didn't the back of the bus go to the same stops? Oh, yeah, what Robert said.
  8. Highcaliber

    Highcaliber Member

    NEED is never a metric used to determine the excercise of a RIGHT.
  9. ccsniper

    ccsniper member

    This. Because in the last one hundred years governments have killed more people than
    "assault weapons"
  10. Skribs

    Skribs New Member

    Need? It's a right. However, I believe you have a need for a viable self defense weapon.

    "Assault weapon" focuses mainly on cosmetic features. Larry Correia has a very in-depth explanation of what these features are and why they are not all that deadly. Pistol grip...a way to hold the weapon. Collapsible stock...easy customization. Flash hider...does not actually hide the flash completely, it just keeps it out of your eyes. Barrel shroud...also known as a handguard.

    Why should we have the same weapons used by the military and police? The police, because we fight the same bad guys. The military, because the heart of the second amendment is about defending against (foreign or domestic) tyrannical government, or specifically their military. So yes, we should have the military and police weapons.

    Why do we need high cap mags? I'm again going to point to THR's Mr. Correia, and use his logic: we don't need more bullets so we can shoot more of them; we need more bullets so that if we have to shoot more of them they're readily available.

    I'll also point out...
    1) Bans don't work, because criminals don't follow the laws.
    2) If criminals miraculously followed the law, they go into these things planning ahead. What's to stop a person with 10-round magazines from carrying a backpack with 30 mags, or someone from simply bringing in a dozen revolvers in a range bag? Meanwhile, the defender, who did not choose the encounter, is only "prepared enough" which usually means just the magazine in the gun, and *maybe* a spare.
    3) If we magically got rid of all guns, what's to keep a criminal from using a deadlier option, such as explosives, gas, or arson?
    4) On the other side, if nobody has guns, what is a 110 pound woman supposed to do with a 220 pound attacker? Run? He might be in better shape. Call 911? Well they'll get there eventually...but the perp and victim won't be on scene anymore, and she might already be dead. Assuming she can even get to 911 (requires fine motor skills and multiple button presses, compared with the ergonomics of a pistol). Should she comply? Well, that's about her only option left.

    Gun control doesn't stop criminals from using guns, and it doesn't really hinder them. However, it hinders the law abiding citizen. If gun control did stop criminals from using guns, they could still commit whatever atrocities they wanted to. I don't see the point.
  11. avs11054

    avs11054 New Member

    Wow jesse, extremely un-PC...and spot on!!!
  12. gbran

    gbran Active Member

    I have a really cool CJ5 setting beside my house that I really don't need, though I sometimes take it hunting. But guess what? It has a 500 horse engine. Who the hell needs that.
  13. Creature

    Creature New Member

    HankR wrote:
    Now that is an excellent way to illustrate the argument to those who are "morally superior" in regards to gun rights...
  14. youngda9

    youngda9 member

    Good enough for the cops, good enough for the rest of us, no?
  15. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Active Member

    We need to have parity with those who would take away our freedom.
  16. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Active Member

    Bill of Rights not bill of needs.

    Also, the NEED is not for hunting or sporting, it is to ensure the People have the means to overthrow our government if/when they become oppressive/tyrannical.
  17. Quick Draw McGraw

    Quick Draw McGraw New Member

    In my mind the best, most direct answer to this always-asked question is what Skribs hit on in point 2 and something that Larry Correia mentions in his article and interview.

    The law-abiding gun owner will ALWAYS be the defender and reactor in every real situation where force is justified. He or she does not get to choose the time or conditions of the engagement, and thus needs the best weapon available that is capable of dealing with the largest variety of threats.

    For ccw, this means each individual making a personal choice on the balance of size/comfort and firepower. But for defense of the home where you can use a long gun if you so desire, an AR-15 can be a great choice.

    The other reasons mentioned are of course also true and valid, but the most probable threat we will face in today's atmosphere is violent crime, and due to the inability for me to choose when/if/how I am attacked, not to mention that any such home invasion would be unexpected and thus take me by surprise, I need to counter those disadvantages by having access to an AR-15 or similar weapon.

    Again, I suggest focusing on driving home the point that we don't get to pick when a fight takes place or how much warning we have ahead of time.

    Given that, I need an AR-15 a heck of a lot more than a crazy mass-shooter does who will be attacking defenseless victims, and would be able to create plenty of mayhem using just a 10/22 or whatever. Virginia Tech is a good example. The shooter reloaded many times over an extended period of time.
  18. MedWheeler

    MedWheeler Active Member

    I don't need an AR-15, nor any other firearm. However, should that ever change, it will probably change rather suddenly.

    I don't need a smoke alarm, nor a fire extinguisher.. until I do.
  19. kazushi

    kazushi New Member

    99% of the time you will NEVER convince a gun control advocate to change their mind. They will not listen to logic, facts, or statistics. Some of the arguments in favor of guns, machine guns, high cap magazines are better than others. Since no two people's brains are identical you need a variety of arguments to defend your point of view.
    So why should you get to have an assault weapon or whatever you want to call it?
    "Because it's my God given right"
    "I dont believe in God and I don't believe it is your right"
    It's in the 2nd amendment!"
    "The 2nd amendment was written over 200 years ago and it was for members of the militia only. They couldn't imagine the high tech weapons of today"

    The best thing I can think of is just based on I need the assault rifle and magazines because governments going tyrannical and massacring its people is a very real threat. It is a lower threat than say someone mugging you on the street. If someone mugs you on the street you are either out your wallet or maybe your life. So that is 1 wallet and 1 life missing. If government goes tyrannical and oppressive it is a lower probability than a street robbery but if it happens the results are catastrophic. You are not just out 1 wallet and 1 life. You are out millions of lives and millions of dollars worth of property. So we have to be prepared to deal with this lower probabilty but highly catastrophic event. Hence we need assault rifles to fight the govt to prevent millions of lives being lost and millions of dollars of property being destroyed.
    Assault rifles also serve as deterrents to oppression. Like the 1st amendment serves as a deterrent. If people are free and able to expose the govt's crimes then the govt. will be less likely to commit them because of fear of being exposed by citizens, journalists, media who report on their misdeeds. The 2nd amendment serves as a deterrent because the govt will be less likely to get out of control if they know the populace is armed and capable of revolting and stopping their abuses.
  20. kazushi

    kazushi New Member

    "The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups." Henry Hazlitt. Basically sums up that the immediate and easy to see benefits of banning guns is to stop or reduce crime, but the smart man also sees or tries to foresee the unintended consequences that go along with banning guns. There aren't just pros to gun control but also cons.

Share This Page