Here is a reason to own a gun

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There are folks in this thread who haven't said that yet. They've talked about being lucky or using other methods of defending themselves or avoided the whole issue entirely.

There's no need to make a case for mass proliferation of firearms because it's guaranteed by our Constitution. Since there's already been mass proliferation, doesn't it make more sense to "take a gun, please" than try to avoid the issue entirely and/or deny it's existence?

"Oh, that'll never happen to me." Now that's hysterical! (Especially since you've already acknowledged there is a mass proliferation of firearms.)

So I ask again - is society is safer because of the wide availability of guns; or is carrying/owning a gun necessary because society is dangerous?

As I said earlier, I have not once in my entire life (living and travelling in many countries) been the victim of a violent crime or felt at any point that I need a gun to defend myself.

Needless to say, the constitutional arguments for the mass proliferation are not the same that are being used when it comes to self-defence.

Law and order is the responsibility of every member of a society, not the government we elect. As for owning a gun being a public service and patriotic, um, yes it is. Please re-read the 2nd Amendment and also read up a little on American history circa April, 1775.

Slim, all you are doing is pulling out the constitutional arguments to obscure the specific arguments you are making in regards to gun ownership in a pretty narrow context: that of self-defence. When it comes to "self-defence", "personal protection" or whatever you want to call it, owning a gun is not "public service".

And yes, I agree that law and order is everyone's responsibility. But guess what - it is also that of the government, because the government is... (big surprise!) US!

[NickD 203]

I like watching the ten best on the military channel where hand held weapons today can take out a multi-million dollar tank, helicopter, or even the latest jet fighter plane by some guy hiding behind a rock or in a tree.

With urban warfare, if even a concrete bunker does not have a door, have hand held weapons to make that door and fry anybody inside unfortunate to be there. Can only wonder why we are spending trillions making these huge weapons when they can be taken with a weapon you can literally put in your back pocket.

After watching these programs, I don't have guns, I have toys, some guy as little as a mile and a half away, or clear on the other side of the globe can vaporized me, or you.

That's not fair.

[slim 1,530]

So I ask again - is society is safer because of the wide availability of guns; or is carrying/owning a gun necessary because society is dangerous?

As I said earlier, I have not once in my entire life (living and travelling in many countries) been the victim of a violent crime or felt at any point that I need a gun to defend myself.

Needless to say, the constitutional arguments for the mass proliferation are not the same that are being used when it comes to self-defence.

Slim, all you are doing is pulling out the constitutional arguments to obscure the specific arguments you are making in regards to gun ownership in a pretty narrow context: that of self-defence. When it comes to "self-defence", "personal protection" or whatever you want to call it, owning a gun is not "public service".

And yes, I agree that law and order is everyone's responsibility. But guess what - it is also that of the government, because the government is... (big surprise!) US!

Now I see why our lines are blurred.

OK, here's the thing. "Carrying a gun" for self defense while out in public or owning one in your home "for protection" is a completely different animal than "bearing arms" for the purpose of overthrowing a tyrannical government.

Since I assume people know the difference, (and they are closely related) I don't distinguish between the two often. I apologize for that. When I post that people are being patriotic by owning firearms I'm doing so in direct relation to their obligation to overthrow the government by force if necessary. It's extremely difficult to overthrow a government that has firearms when you don't have one. Mere possession of a firearm ensures you retain the capability to exercise that Right, and that is patriotic.

Simultaneously, the firearm you could use to counter a criminal threat also fits into that category so it too becomes a "public service."

The flip side of that is armed people like me, walking the streets does make society safer because I am a safe person in this society. I do what is right, I abide by our laws, and I am accountable for my own actions. I have to be because I am legally carrying a firearm. Imagine if everyone - firearm or not - did what is right, abided by laws, and was accountable for their own actions.

If that's not something that would better society, I don't know what would be!

[justashooter 430]

That right there, is utter #######.

So we're back to the gun-owners, by virtue of owning guns are deserving of respect simply because of that fact.

Romantic rubbish is what it is.

you seem to have issues with the principles of responsibility and respect. perhaps you have neither, so do not understand that the one is a natural result of the other.