Besides protection, what are some other reasons to own guns? I've read they are a good investment and will still be worth something when society collapses.
I'm not pro or anti-gun, but the gun control people don't understand why people own guns, help them understand.
Bump
shooting is fun as hell
Because they're fun to shoot
OP here yeah they are, but is it worth the societal cost. like what happened in Vegas?
...
it's important to know how to handle a gun, you never know when you may need it, owning one is an option, like owning a boat , you may need know how to use it but no need to buy one
btw, I father have a nice knife, you can go on the street with a gun in your pants
>like what happened in Vegas
That one is kinda irrelevant as far as the gun control argument goes.
The guy was a millionaire. If guns were illegal, he could easily have bought the equipment to make his own if he pleased
Good point, but in places like Australia guns are banned for regular citizens, which means buying an illegal gun will cost you like 40 grand. Here in the States and illegal gun is what, $600? Also there are plenty of poor people committing gun crimes.
But I'd like to know the real advantages of owning guns. Like carrying on traditions, or hunting, or whatever.
Protection and hunting
Australia can pull that off because they're very geographically isolated
If the US banned guns, they'd just pour in over the Mexican border like drugs and still remain affordable for criminals
There is also a benefit to them as it would make any conventional invasion of the US suicidal.
Hello, just a quick disclaimer, I am liberal and I do not own a firearm. I'm also live in New York in an all-white town where we have one of the lowest crime rates in the US.
I think owning a firearm is a good thing. Go buy a shotgun from Walmart, throw it in a safe, and kill whoever tries to rob your house. Jizz all over their dead corpse afterwards, fuck that piece of shit. I don't see the purpose of assault weapons or attachments that allows them to be more lethal in a mass shooting.
No liberal (except maybe the retarded ones) wants to ban all guns. That is just something the RNC tells rednecks to keep them from voting democrat.
The real issue is that the gun debate includes people living in the city who have the police inches away vs people who live 20 miles from the nearest town. If I lived in the middle of nowhere, I'd want 6 cannons outfitted to my home to fire at potential threats. If I lived in the city, there would be less pressure to own a firearm.
I just like to shoot my guns. I collect antiques so my newest gun is fifty years old. I don't carry a gun. I thought about getting a cc permit but I can't really conceal a single-action revolver with a 7' barrel comfortably.
Probably true, especially with the ATF doing shit like the Fast and Furious operation.
Do any gun owners think that that owning a gun will protect them from an oppressive US administration like the 2nd amendment outlines?
Put it in your waistband, get some chicks with your massive bulge.
Good point, gun control is heavily politicized, meaning there is not much of a reasonable middle ground. It has been made into a wedge issue which is always bad for everyone as it divides us on misinformation and emotions.
While Joe and Jane citizen who are Democrat probably don't want to ban guns, the problem is those who represent that party in Congress - they do want a ban. (e.g. Schumer, Pelosi, Feinstein, et al.)
Not the worst idea I've ever heard on Sup Forums. I should just get one because transporting them would be a lot less complicated legally.
Is that true? I always took the "gun control = they're taking our guns!" was just NRA propaganda.
I feel like I'm going to cry, I got an intelligent response and I wasn't called a socialist Jew for being liberal. Thanks user. .
yes
OP here another plus to owning a gun is if you fly, the TSA agents can't steal your stuff out of you luggage because it requires a special gun lock.
same question, back to you, but about cars. they kill way more each year
I don't think a lot of them actually believe that, they just want to give an extreme demand and then compromise on a more rational solution. It is bartering 101, ask for more than you actually expect to get, settle on a price you expected to receive.
To kill people that need killin'
Yup. Internal reports suggest that 90% of the military would defect if asked to fire on Americans, so you'd be looking at 320,000,000 people with 88.7 guns per hundred people.
>inb4 "what about planes hurr durr"
Patrol a street corner with an F-35 and tell me just how cost effective you find it. Fact is they'd need to use infantry and we'd just be a better armed, better trained Afghanistan against 10% of the current military might they're facing. Govt wouldn't have a chance
...
I see it as an apples and oranges thing. Everyone pretty much needs a car these days to work and run errands, not so much a gun. Yes they are dangerous but not designed to take a life like guns are.
Honestly, even if the government did declare martial law and had citizens killed in the streets, they could just set off a nuke. Can't really do shit about that.
Just trying to be the change I want to see on Sup Forums.
You can't shove a car in your waistband and walk into classroom to start killing people. You could also kill more people with an assault weapons vs a car. With each hit you'd slow down more, you'd have body parts clogging your intake, the mangled corpses would be horrible on your shocks...
Kek. That ain't gonna happen user.
Most people would say you don't need a gun when you can call the police. For them, I'd recommend they read Warren v. District of Columbia
>en.wikipedia.org
Feinstein did say that she wants to ban all guns in the '90s. Alternatively she has had interviews about Vegas and she maintains a portion where no gun laws could have prevented it
Another trick it to buy a starter pistol. It's pretty much legal everywhere, but is treated like a firearm on a plane.
>investment when society collapses
Sorry, but that’s pipe dreams - as in crack pipe delusions.
We will not be in a Mad Max/The Road/Escape from New York type of world, unless something catastrophic happens to our electrical grid worldwide - like huge solar flare.
Some guns are a good investment - basically rare pieces that are museum grade quality and properly protected from the elements and maintained.
Other than those few pieces or NFA items, they are just fun to have for shooting sports or hunting with.
Obviously if you’re in a crime prone location, self defense too (with proper training).
Yeah it's the convenience thing that is troubling. I see a guy open carrying standing in the line at the movies or Costco, I get nervous because people can go nuts or be drunk or just angry. I've seen videos of people pulling guns just because they lost an argument. All it takes is a second to pull a gun and shoot someone. At least with a knife you can run away. You can't outrun a bullet, or 5,000 of them.
First and foremost, a deterrent against tyranny. Throughout history, governments are less likely to subjugate their citizens if their armed. Next, assuming tyranny strikes, and all political and legal processes have been exhausted to correct it, they allow for a means to re-institute a republic.
Deterrent against foreign invasion (e.g. the Japanese not invading the mainland in WWII) as well as a deterrent from a domestic insurgency (another civil war or the like).
Moving on from the heavy, and what you've already listed (protection from a criminal), shooting is a great hobby and marksmanship teaches a skill-set which requires responsibility and discipline.
Hunting, collecting, investment are all good reasons as well.
Last but not least, because you can - and not because the government permits it but because it's your right.
I work on the road and I thought it would be nice to get a cc and a small hammerless revolver to keep in my computer bag. I'm just terrified of accidentally taking it to an airport. I work a lot and I'm in zombie mode when I'm traveling. I went through a 4-leg trip with my Kershaw rescue knife in my carry-on. For some reason security never noticed. I can't imagine the shitstorm I would face if I had a gun in my carry-on; I just bet it would be expensive.
Yeah, even if I had guns and society collapsed in the USA, I'd probably end up dead at the hands of some giant armed motorcycle gang like in Day of the Dead or Road Warrior. But do guns hold their value well as an investment otherwise?
In NY with the passage of the SAFE Act, they started gun confiscations.
So yes, what was warned about is true in some places now.
This right here is the real answer.
Two things:
There's this heavily romanticized idea that having guns will enable you to be a hero. It's in just about all the entertainment coming out of the USA.
Secondly, it makes people feel powerful and safe. The statistics actually indicate it increases your likelihood of being shot, but people don't care about that because it's an emotional decision, not an intellectual one.
Sure, set off a nuke, kill your tax base, great idea, BTW, the nukes are fired by Service members, the Prez just gives the order.
I don't own a gun but I think that guns are tools just like screwdrivers, hammers and carpenter knives. How you use the tool is completely up to you.
Also if you really think about it guns don't kill people but they sure do help when the need arrives, the same can be said about anything else too like rocks, frying pans, chairs and empty whiskey bottles for example.
You're more likely to get crushed by a piano if you own one too.
Did a quick read up on that, looks like more of a law limiting large ammo clips not a gun seizing law. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>what are some other reasons to own guns?
having a very small penis
OP here thanks for the answer!
The point is people swallow up this romanticized fantasy that guns make them safer and then they get shot more often than us "defenseless" folks without one.
Like I said, it's an emotional appeal because it certainly isn't an intellectual one.
...
>mad because it is accurate
They do. Typically you can get 70-90% value out of them if they are in good condition - beat up, scratched, worn out from shooting... not so much. Maybe 20-50% what you paid.
For scares like Vegas which brings up the specter of gun control again, buying “assault weapons” (scary looking semi auto rifles) can be a good investment to resale because gun stores often sell out and it takes weeks to restock - in that window you can make 20-50% profit off the sale because no one has any. Trick to that is buy when it is calm, and keep them NIB and secured for that rainy day.
I was working as an arms dealer in a firearms store in 2008 when Obama got elected.
In 3 days we sold out of all our ARs, all the AK platforms, and anything remotely tactical. We were able to get about 20 in within 2 weeks, after that - dry as a bone for 8 months. No one had them in stock and when they did, it was a limit of 1-2 if you ordered in time.
Shit was crazy - we are JUST NOW getting over the ammo shortage in my area for .22lr and some other calibers - it’s been almost 10 years since that started.
absolutely.
God-forbid, but if it became necessary to defend from an actively tyrannical gov., with a rifle you can procure additional armaments up the force continuum.
As another user mentioned, many of the military would defect in a situation like that, but let's say they didn't. It's not like the federal government would be dropping nukes and hellfires on the very resources they would want to reacquire - so, as with all war, it would require boots on the ground - at which point having a gun, rather a rifle, is important (points of reference: Afghanistan, Veitnam)
Not to mention various states would be involved as well, like Texas.
And if for nothing else, if you do believe that in that unfortunate scenario "there's no hope and owning a gun wouldn't help you"... would you rather stand on your feet and fight with one or crawl on your knees without one?
You're right, I'm sure there are some gun owners that have as much as 4".
Some of them are pretty in their way, a few are decent investment (but far fewer than people think, same as almost anything), like you say post-apocalyptic barter if you're into that. Fun to play with.
Still, killing stuff is pretty much the core use case.
The only reason you need in a free society is because you want to own them. Full stop.
You need guns to overthrow the ruling class.
Anything that was registered with a magazine over 10 was seized, and they went full bore gung-ho on seizing firearms from anyone with a mental condition that qualified.
foxnews.com
Old Marlin Model 60 .22lr rifles with 15 round tube magazines were confiscated.
>Everyone pretty much needs a car
No. I lived 30 years without a car.
People WANT cars because they are CONVENIENT. They are still more dangerous that guns.
Didn't that change after it was pointed out no guns have a 7 bullet magazine?
Me too, but not every place has decent public transportation.
Still a car serves other purposes than killing. A gun only kills.
I bought mine just to piss off the anti gun folk, and who knows in the future I may get to shoot some niggers
Feinstein has been quoted as saying that during the last ban in the 90's, had there been enough votes, she would have said "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in".
These events where someone does a mass shooting is horrific, the reality is that less than 350 people per year in a country of 300+ million are killed by a rifle of any kind (which includes bolt actions, levers, and semi-autos).
There are numerous problems with their logic of wanting to ban something (rifles) that is used so infrequently to kill - in fact handguns are used in most mass shootings and when you look at murders performed with guns, they are all with handguns and very few with long guns (as mentioned above).
The infringement comes with them wanting to ban the very firearm the citizenry would need to defend against potential tyranny to save 350 people per year. It may sound harsh but governance should be done through logic and not feelings.
A gun can shoot paper. It's recreational. I own 88 guns, and I've never shot a person.
I live in a place with shit public transport (one bus per hour) and still made it work. Again, it's possible, but a car makes it easier. Doesn't mean anyone NEEDS a car unless their job specifically calls for one.
>A gun only kills.
Fallacious argument; guns are used for non-violent shooting all the time. I'd wager 99/100 trigger pulls in this country are done at a firing range.
Resistance to government tyranny
>I own 88 guns, and I've never shot a person.
>I also own 88 playboys, and I've never gotten laid
And statistically the McDonald's cheeseburger is more deadly than a car in this country.
Anytime!
I wrote "A gun is designed to kill" not that it was its only purpose.
So what's your point, other than neither one of you actually shot a load into a person
And yet you're flat wrong, because a gun has OTHER purposes and many guns are made with sport shooting in mind.
Your argument is one of intention. It had nothing to do with the gun and everything to do with the person using it. A car is, by your logic, designed to kill. It goes fast and will wreck any human in it's path.
>I wrote "A gun is designed to kill"
>Still a car serves other purposes than killing. A gun only kills.
You're have some shit memory pal.
Guns are fun, that's why.
True, but comparing a sport gun to a war fighting gun is like comparing a sword to a fencing foil. It does not change the fact a sword was initially designed for killing. Cars were designed for transportation. The intent is the difference here.
There are more people in my state than on the continent of Australia
I'm pretty certain the combustion engine was militarized like right away.
to be honest Sup Forums is the last place that you you should go and ask about owning guns go to /k/ and they will hook you up fam
By mounting a gun on it and calling it a tank? All technology goes into serving a war effort even medical tech.
>True, but comparing a sport gun to a war fighting gun is like comparing a sword to a fencing foil.
No, it's not. Guns used for sport are sufficiently calibered to kill a human. Even a .22 can ruin somebody, but admittedly I've heard of them bouncing off of skulls.
>It does not change the fact a sword was initially designed for killing. Cars were designed for transportation. The intent is the difference here.
And yet, every day, people use swords for sport and kill people with cars. The issue is the operator, not the thing itself.
>Me,an intellectual
I bet you watch Rick and Morty
>try to have discussion about whether or not to own guns
>show gun not legally considered a firearm in the US
>but admittedly I've heard of them bouncing off of skulls.
I've heard this too, but think it's bunk made up by size queens who think anything less than a .45 is useless.
Well this I can agree on, an asshole with a gun is just as dangerous as one driving a car.
Well it really comes down to angle for human application, and power of a round more than size. For example, a .357 Mag will penetrate far more effectively than a .38 Special, despite being interchangeable sizes for certain handguns. That said, something too small can fail to penetrate a skull if you clip the top, especially on some massive niggest with a thick skull. I know about a lot of this from researching handguns to defend against bear while hiking in Alaska when I lived up there.
Insurance doesn't serve a day-to-day purpose either.
But look-> we're required to have it.
Lefties try to equate guns to murder planning, when in reality, it's an insurance policy that is also fun to own- like a solar powered ATV, or a stockpile of dry goods (the cookouts when you replace your supplies are DOPE).
Guns are restricted in urban areas, Obama upped the background checking.
Unless we have a mass genocide and end up with a homogeneous society, guns are a necessary evil.
And if you haven't paid attention- it's the ruling class who want widespread gun bans, not your regular citizen- funny how the thing guns ensure against are already happening.
A .38 and a .357 differ in power as the former was originally a black powder round, and the latter was designed with modern power. They are not interchangeable, please don't ever put a .357 into a .38.
And I've seen a .22lr penetrate half an inch of plywood at 300 yards. Given adequate angle, at any reasonable distance a .22 should penetrate normal human (and niggers aren't human, which is why it don't apply) skull.
good way to kill children accidentally and increase the risk of unintentional death many-fold
ie, darwin effect
The "my debate opponent is stupid" tactic is so puerile. True gun accidents are a thing, but little kids are suicide machines, they walk out into traffic. Even smart parents fuck up.
>They are not interchangeable, please don't ever put a .357 into a .38
As I said, certain handguns, good reading comprehension.
The issue is adequate angle in an emergency scenario with minimal time to aim.
Nope. No official changes have been made to the SAFE act
>As I said, certain handguns, good reading comprehension.
I don't think you know what interchangeable means, buddy. A .357 can support both .357 and .38 rounds. That doesn't make them interchangeable.
Gun threads always turn into a terminology pissing contest.
Because gun nuts have small penises.
P.S. why would anyone need a 100 round clip?
Lame bait.
>clip
So close...