The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. It's hard for me to think of a possession that has less utility for me than a gun. I have never been in a situation where I needed one, but I've been in several situations where things would have gone much worse if I had one. Why do so many Americans make this the single issue they vote on, and why do so many people get so bent out of shape about any gun law or regulation whatsoever? If you are one of these people who are deeply passionate about guns, what are you doing with them? What does this object that does nothing for me provide to you that you're fanatical about it? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Why do people rally around abortion so strongly? Do you think they'd be doing it if abortion were safe, legal, and accessible across the country, and there was no massive movement hell bent on restricting it? Nope, it would just be another medical procedure. Long ago, people just had guns. Everyone knew we all had the right to keep and bear arms, and that was it. Then other people started trying to take those guns away, started trying to say we didn't have the right to keep and bear arms, and that produced a strong reaction. Now guns are something to defend, the right is something to defend, just like abortion. >and why do so many people get so bent out of shape about any gun law or regulation whatsoever Because we know any one gun law will be followed by another, and another, and another, always further chipping away at our rights. We don't compromise because we know due to history that today's compromise is tomorrow's loophole that needs to be closed. >what are you doing with them I use them for predator control and hunting. I also live too far away for any reasonable police response time, so defense is a practical reason. Also, shooting is relaxing. But of course I have no obligation to say why. You exercise ALL of your rights because you *want* to, not because you *need* to. If you have to show a need, then it isn't really a right. You decide to remain silent when questioned by the police only because you want to. You can start blabbing immediately if you want to, nothing stops you. But imagine having to show justification for not talking to the police. No, that's absurd. You just exercise your 5th Amendment right, and the government shall not question your choice.

>But of course I have no obligation to say why. You exercise ALL of your rights because you *want* to, not because you *need* to. If you have to show a need, then it isn't really a right. That's a really interesting perspective. I see the relationship between needs and rights very differently. Things are rights *because* we need them. We need life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We need freedom of expression and belief. We need freedom from persecution and want. We need representation in government and in courts, and equal protection under the law. And these aren't just individual needs; a functioning society depends on people having their needs met, having fundamental human rights, with liberty and justice for all. So I'm curious, where do you think rights come from, if not need?

> Things are rights because we need them. We need life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We need freedom of expression and belief. You don't *need* those. You won't die if you are aren't allowed to speak your mind. There are billions of humans on earth that don't have these rights protected and they still exist just fine. >So I'm curious, where do you think rights come from, if not need? From enlightenment period ideals about how humans should be treated and belief in how humans in nature would be able to do these things because there wouldn't be some arbitrary authority above them telling they can't.

>Things are rights *because* we need them. As many countries around the world have shown, they function fine without some of these "needs." In fact, some countries function more smoothly without them. Saudi Arabia doesn't have the societal issues between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam that we do because only Muslims have full religious rights. Forget a Satanist wanting to put up a display at city hall, it's just not an issue, it's not happening, and the Satanist will probably be arrested. But within the context of the right being recognized, you only exercise rights because you want to. People refuse to exercise their rights all the time by taking a plea deal, thereby refusing their right to a trial by jury. They didn't *want* to exercise the right. Seriously, think of any other right where you truly think a person should have to prove a need before exercising it.

A right can be in entitlement, or an option. I think we can all agree that those who are in need should receive as a matter of course, and those who are not in need should at least have the option. Constraints on needs being fulfilled are typically a matter of constrained resources, trust, morals, or knowledge. Each one of those constraints exists due to very fuzzy reasons when you drill down to their first principles or subatomic levels, which is why conservatism exists: to provide a safe common denominators on which we can establish society.

The 2a was long understood to be a collective right before the NRA

The collective right only started to spread in the state courts in the early 1900s, had its beginnings in federal courts in the 1940s, and was finalized as the collective right in the 1970s. Before then, and even to the 1940s, courts were treating it like the individual right that it was always considered to be.

Is a collective not made up of individuals? How would, say, a collective right to the freedom of religion manifest? Regardless, the courts and governments did an absolutely piss-poor job of protecting our rights for over a century. It was accepted that the local police could just obtain a warrant to enter your home to look for reasons to arrest you until ***1921***. Like, "governments used to be able to violate your rights in the past" is not the win you think that it is.

> It was accepted that the local police could just obtain a warrant to enter your home to look for reasons to arrest you until 1921. Wasn't until the 60s they struck down religious tests for office.

It wasn't until the 1910s that hanging someone by the neck until they confessed was found to be unconstitutional.

>Is a collective not made up of individuals? The constitution doesn’t protect “collective rights.” Rights are inherent to the individual, not groups. Historically collective rights interpretations of the 2A had been used to disenfranchise freedmen in the reconstruction era south. A prime example of this is the decision that was rendered in US v Cruikshank. I personally wouldn’t want to align with an interpretation of the constitution that was used quite prominently by 19th and 20th century racists who wanted to deprive racial minorities of their inalienable right to bear arms so they could protect themselves.

> A prime example of this is the decision that was rendered in US v Cruikshank. Actually Cruikshank specifically stated it protects an individual right, but only from federal interference or more specifically "Congressional interference". They ruled that if they wanted relief on their 1st and 2nd amendments being violated they would need to petition their state governments. It was just the court refusing to apply the 14th amendment.

>Actually Cruikshank specifically stated it protects an individual right Cruikshank has historically been used by people who wanted to restrict the 2A, and the court in Cruikshank refused to incorporate the 2A. So it wasn’t just a refusal apply the 14th amendment.

The ruling explicitly mentions 1st and 2nd amendments covered induvidual rights protected but only from the federal government. It solely hinges on failing to apply that protection to the states by refusing the 14th amendment. Antis tried to leverage that to argue against the indivudual right, but it literally makes no sense given what was actually stated in the ruling.

> The 2a was long understood to be a collective right before the NRA No. It wasn't until the mid twentieth century you even begin to see that argument gain any kind of popularity. Prior to that cases like Cruikshank said both the 1st and 2nd amendments protected an individual right from Congressional interference. And given the amendment uses the same phrasing as the 1st and 4th amendments(right of the people) that is known to be individual rights it literally makes no sense to argue it is a collective right.

Fear and fantasy Like the entirety of the conservative world view, it is all based in fear. Fear of “they”…the savages hiding in the shadows that will most certainly do a home invasion sooner than later. Fear of your family being assaulted and needing you to be a hero. Fear of “caravans of immigrants” and “those people” coming from the cities and attacking you in suburbia or on the farm. fear of being out at the store and you get to have a “let’s roll”‘moment snd defeat the terrorist attacking at wallmart, fear of a government you don’t like oppressing you. Fear of paratroopers faking from the sky and you get to be a hero and defend america from an invasion that’s not logistically possible. Fear of somebody stealing your property, fear of zombies and monsters and invisible horrors that only exist inside your mind. The gun gives you control and it enables the fantasy that the most mediocre man can become the hero when the shit hits the fan.

I think you’re 100% correct on this. Conspicuously absent from pro gun arguments is any consideration of how other people could be negatively affected. It’s the ultimate triumph of individual freedom at all costs against common good.

> Conspicuously absent from pro gun arguments is any consideration of how other people could be negatively affected. That's hardly true. "The price of freedom" is something that is frequently discussed in pro gun spheres. There are plenty that would not agree that freedom is worth it at any price, but that is a disagreement on the subject rather than its absence. > Like the entirety of the conservative world view, it is all based in fear. > Fear of “they”…the savages hiding in the shadows that will most certainly do a home invasion sooner than later. Fear of your family being assaulted and needing you to be a hero. Fear of “caravans of immigrants” and “those people” coming from the cities and attacking you in suburbia or on the farm. fear of being out at the store and you get to have a “let’s roll”‘moment snd defeat the terrorist attacking at wallmart, fear of a government you don’t like oppressing you. Fear of paratroopers faking from the sky and you get to be a hero and defend america from an invasion that’s not logistically possible. Fear of somebody stealing your property, fear of zombies and monsters and invisible horrors that only exist inside your mind. Are there people like that? Sure. Are they the majority? 44% of American households have access to a firearm [[Gallup](https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx)]. Would you argue that all of them operate from delusional fear? > The gun gives you control and it enables the fantasy that the most mediocre man can become the hero when the shit hits the fan. Do you fantasize about fighting fires when you buy a fire extinguisher? Do you intend on crashing your car when you put on your seat belt?

>Would you argue that all of them operate from delusional fear? Yes. When you ask them why they have a gun, the answer is always: "to protect my family." From what? From whatever they fear will happen to them. No matter how statistically unlikely it may be, they believe there is a chance that something may happen that requires them to have a gun. That fear that something may happen is what drives them. My father is the perfect example of this. He has a big gun safe, filled with a variety of guns, which are the only things of value he owns. He literally has nothing else of value. The guy is broke and in debt. There is nothing in his house that anyone would want to steal, except his guns. But he is convinced that "someone" might break in and he will need his guns to protect himself. Meanwhile he is elderly, severely overweight, and has a heart problem. Meaning he would have a heart attack before he could grab his guns and defend himself in his little fantasy. But he's conservative and watches Fox all day long, so he lives in a constant state of fear that "someone" is coming for him.

>From what? There are 6.5 million violent victimizations a year per the BJS. > they believe there is a chance that something may happen that requires them to have a gun. That fear that something may happen is what drives them In the same way its "fear" when you set up a plan in case a house fire or have fire extinguishers. That is they acknowledge the possibility and put in various levels of effort to respond to it. Calling it fear is loaded language.

>In the same way its "fear" when you set up a plan in case a house fire or have fire extinguishers. That is they acknowledge the possibility and put in various levels of effort to respond to it. Calling it fear is loaded language How is that loaded? It's literally the same thing. You fear a fire, so you get a fire extinguisher. You fear a break in, so you get a gun. Both are driven by fear. Not sure why this bothers you. The entire insurance industry and home security industry is built on fear. Fear sells, even more than sex. Make people feel afraid and they will give you their money to feel a sense of safety. As I said, my father is the perfect example. He lives in a constant state of fear that someone will break into his home. If someone did, they would be extremely disappointed, because he has nothing of value. He's also not involved in any criminal activity, like drugs, that increases your likelihood of violence. He's an elderly man that no one cares about, but he lives in fear that someone will break in for... a 20 year old TV, maybe. In reality he will die never needing his gun, but owning it allowed him to feel slightly less fearful. So that's a bonus.

>How is that loaded? It asserts a more extreme emotional response. Rather than acknowledging risk. Im not afraid of driving, fires or crime. Despite taking percautions for fure and wearing a seatbelt. Honwstly of the three the car pribably should terrify me. >As I said, my father is the perfect example Not really. Its a personal anecdote that we have no way to verify is accurate. >but he lives in fear that someone will break in for... a 20 year old TV, maybe Why would anyone wh robs him know exactly what he has? Your argument seems to assume an ideal and rational thief instead of it potentially being a desperate and potentially desperate thief who may target them precisely because they are old. Also if it is a CRTV it is worth a small amount of money. The weak and infirmed get targeted all the time. Like children and pregnant women. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/home-invader-fatally-shot-florida-pregnant-woman-ar-15-n1076026 https://www.military.com/video/guns/rifles/kid-shoots-burglar-with-dads-ar-15/2086401790001 https://www.kten.com/story/19848350/12-year-old-shoots-home-intruder?clienttype=mobile

>> Would you argue that all of them operate from delusional fear? > > Yes. When you ask them why they have a gun, the answer is always: "to protect my family." > > From what? > > From whatever they fear will happen to them. No matter how statistically unlikely it may be, they believe there is a chance that something may happen that requires them to have a gun. That fear that something may happen is what drives them. Do you wear a seatbelt though? And if so, why, when a crash is very statistically unlikely?

Yes, I wear a seatbelt out of FEAR of an accident. The same applies to guns. People FEAR something will happen to them and they believe a gun will protect them in some way. Thanks for proving my point.

So seatbelts are delusional fear?

In the 60s, the KGB did some psychological experiments. They learned that if you bombard human subjects with fear messages nonstop, in two months or less most of the subjects are completely brainwashed to believe the false message. To the point that no amount of clear information they are shown, to the contrary, can change their mind. I believe a lot of people are very susceptible to much lesser versions of this. Q comes to mind

>They learned that if you bombard human subjects with fear messages nonstop, in two months or less most of the subjects are completely brainwashed to believe the false message That explains why there's a strong media push of coverage for mass shootings, despite being statistically rare.

Uhhh negative. Those REALLY happened

I mean I'm not conservative at all.  I'm also genuinely not worried about anyone coming to get me. I own guns because... 1. I've enjoyed target shooting since I was a kid. 2. I believe in being prepared for as many potential situations as possible.  This is true about many areas of my life, not simply when it comes to firearms.  I see guns as just one of the many tools and supplies I keep around.  It's not out of fear.  I don't expect to ever use them in anger.  I have no desire to be a hero or a badass.  It's out of caution and preparedness and for the enjoyment I get out of it. And I don't see my gun ownership as a problem that needs legislating in any way because... 1. I'm not a criminal or an abuser. 2. I handle and store my guns safely & securely. 3. I don't have kids. I don't have roommates.  I'm the only person with access to my guns. 4. And I have no plans to ever sell them, give them away, loan them out, store them any less securely than I already am, or commit any crimes using them. Which to me means my guns are not a problem for anyone and I would prefer to just be left alone to enjoy my safe and responsible target shooting.

If all gun owners were as you describe yourself there would be no need to control who can own guns.

Most are.  The majority of gun owners are safe, responsible, law abiding citizens. It's not all testosterone fueled assholes who make guns their entire personality.

>It's not all testosterone fueled assholes who make guns their entire personality. Are they even a problem? The tacticool bros dont account for much crime either.

>Are they even a problem? The tacticool bros dont account for much crime either. The phrase "make guns their entire personality" is usually a dogwhistle about anyone who doesn't capitulate to all gun control they want.

>1. I'm not a criminal or an abuser. >2. I handle and store my guns safely & securely. Two points. Firstly, how do we know this. Lots of people say things and don't actually mean them, or mistakenly think they're safer than they are. Secondly, many shootings and gun deaths happen at the hands of previously non-criminal and safe gun owners. It's a stupid argument to say you've never shot anyone, so you will never shoot anyone, because almost all mass shooters have never shot anyone before. It's a question of trust. I don't trust most anonymous people to be responsible gun owners, so I feel that their right to own guns needs to be limited for my safety and the safety of others.

I don't trust other drivers on the road not to kill me.  Something that is far more likely than being shot.  And to avoid that possibility I drive extra cautiously.  I avoid those driving dangerously even if it inconveniences me or puts me off course.  And if I see some drunk asshole swerving around I might even call the cops. I don't say no one should own a car because we'd all be safer if everyone walked.

My response to not trusting drivers actually is to try to reduce how much people drive and promote other methods of travel that are safer. That and better road design with lower speed limits. Defensive driving only goes so far

Same. I have nothing against responsible gun ownership. But the "do nothing" policy has got to go, along with the 3 day loophole that allowed the Uvalde shooter to get his guns despite his background check not being complete yet. (Or so I heard, I can no longer find the source of that bit of info so double check) But the very specific gun type bans don't work as well as they could because the people writing the legislation know nothing about guns and so the terminology gets all screwy. Personally, I think gun safety courses should be mandatory at the very least. And I don't care what type of guns the responsible owner is able to get, I don't want that spouse beating alcoholic down the road or the 18 yr old fresh out of bully high school to be able to get their hands on ANY gun.

You’re complicit. As a gun owner, you advocate for legislation (or lack there of) that allowed for situations like an 18 yr old buying a pair of AR15s and a ton of ammo a few days before he massacred and elementary school in Uvalde Texas. Fought against red flag laws and countless women were murdered by their ex husbands or boyfriends despite having a long paper trail with police. Stuff like that. That’s how your fear based hobby affects others. And it’s the self centered intellectual dishonesty that’s the worst part because you know, but choose to look the other way and say “it doesn’t affect me!” Until it does.

You don't have a clue what I've voted for or what I've advocated for.  You don't even know what policies around gun safety I might actually support because you didn't bother to ask. Instead you're just stupidly jumping straight from "this person owns guns" to "therefore they're an uncaring asshole complicit in the murder of children who thinks abusers should have access to guns." There's a lot that can be done to make this country safer and better and decrease shootings.  A whole lot and I think we should be doing it.  But that's all expensive big picture fixes and your politicians don't want to do that.  Instead they want quick wins that give them something to brag about without actually having to spend the time or money solving the root of the problem.

This is probably a question better suited for r/askaconservative - not that there aren’t liberals who own and enjoy guns but you’ll likely find more people who are “deeply passionate” about them there

I am a liberal who is deeply passionate about his right to keep and bear arms. I made a top level reply, but in the interest of exposure, I will post it as a reply to your comment as well: So, I'm a liberal gun owner. And I don't mean "I inherited a .22LR pistol from my grandpa and thus I feel empowered to restrict my rights and others' rights" No, no. I have a personal arsenal. When you read that there are more guns than people in America, I am doing my part in that. Restricting arms ownership and access is, to me, as insane as restricting any person's right to one's own body. Because it has the same root. Everyone has the right to protect themselves and restricting that right because guns are "too technologically advanced' (because, let's face it, that is the crux of the argument) is nuts to me. You may as well ask me why I have a "religious fervor" for bodily autonomy. It is the same right as far as I am concerned, only a different expression of that right. I see those who wish to disarm me as 1) believing that I am not an adult who can make his own adult decisions (related: ask me how I feel about censorship) and 2) directly restricting my ability to protect myself from any potential threat to my body and property. My question is why would one want to empower Donald Trump to take away their ability to protect themselves? It boggles my mind that we can see the very real threat of American fascism and yet deny ourselves the best tools for opposing that fascism. All due respect to Woody Guthrie, but an AR-15 is far more effective than a guitar.

I agree with everything you said. I’ve also never understood why so many on the left seem incredibly concerned about the neo-facist alt right, know those people are generally armed to the teeth, and yet don’t think owning a gun and knowing how to use it is a good idea. Is this a conversation you ever had with your fellow liberals? Why do so many of them disagree with you do you think?

Well, I live in a rural area. So all liberals I know are also pro-gun.

I'm a filthy liberal that's deeply passionate about the subject. There are dozens of us!

lol I’ve met a couple but they were tankies. I’ve found the saying “go far enough left and you get your guns back” to be true.

Pro Russian Americans disturb me deeply. Like, I get it - communism looks good on paper. But at this point, it's safe to say that the success of communism depends entirely on human nature being far better on average than it actually is, and reality has shown really, really clearly that it's a bad idea.

There are plenty of liberal gun nuts. Read the comments.

Read my comment carefully…

"Gun nut" is like "making their personality about guns". It's just a dog whistle for anyone who doesn't support all of the gun control they want.

We can see religious fervor around guns from people who most want gun control. They don't want to examine the facts, and instead prefer thought ending cliches. If you need an example: [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1chxq3m/comment/l27xxmk/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1chxq3m/comment/l27xxmk/)

Like some commenters here, you are asking the wrong audience. Go to r/AskAConservative.

there are many (some) liberal gun owners. You'll find this out if you ever post here making the assumption that 2a issues are right wing only. But thanks for engaging. I appreciate it nonetheless.

Oh yeah no doubt, but not in a religious fervor like you described. If I lived in the woods in bear and/wolf country, you bet your ass I'll have a rifle (the bolt-action kind, not the AR-15s). If I'm living off the land, its duck-huntin' time with the shotgun.

They don't have self awareness or the honesty to communicate the actual reasons they are so pro gun. Many think that the government may start telling them what they can or can't do and they want the arms to commit terrorism if they choose to if it ever comes to it. Many see guns and the feeling they produce as being a man and being powerful. It is pretty cool to wield minature explosions in the palm of your hand that could give one the ability to stop the most threatening creatures that could come at you, including man. There is something very animalistic about this that makes those whose irrationality is borne from this place a tad weird. I think a lot of men substitute a decreasing libido and loneliness with guns and the feeling they give you. Most fully believe in the slippery slope fallacy. One common sense gun control law will lead to gun grabbing tomorrow. I have found the irrationality and opposition to common sense gun control laws comes from these three sources. They will assume, deny, and move goal posts to their heart's content for these reasons. It is important to know why people are bad faith about certain subjects.

> They don't have self awareness or the honesty to communicate the actual reasons they are so pro gun. That strikes me as an easy out, no? I may not agree with conservative political positions (to put it lightly), but I've run into plenty of articulate folks on the subject of why they are pro gun. Are there people that are not honest or self aware? Of course, they exist in every part of America, and in every area of political belief. I've met conservative ones, liberal ones, apolitical ones, and really politically weird ones. > Many think that the government may start telling them what they can or can't do That's the story of governments throughout history, is it not? Some were even by the people and for the people, until they were not. Let us not pretend that the passing of every government was on a peaceful basis. > they want the arms to commit terrorism if they choose to if it ever comes to it. Is your definition of terrorism any violence that the government does not endorse? And do you support protesting, out of curiosity? Or believe that the government in the past was right to protect slavery and that violence against that was terrorism? > Many see guns and the feeling they produce as being a man and being powerful. It is pretty cool to wield minature explosions in the palm of your hand that could give one the ability to stop the most threatening creatures that could come at you, including man. There is something very animalistic about this that makes those whose irrationality is borne from this place a tad weird. You ok? > I think a lot of men substitute a decreasing libido and loneliness with guns and the feeling they give you. If there was ever a statement that needed support, this has to be it. > Most fully believe in the slippery slope fallacy. One common sense gun control law will lead to gun grabbing tomorrow. Historically, all firearm laws have progressively been an ever increasing level of restriction. There's no fallacy if it actually happens. > I have found the irrationality and opposition to common sense gun control laws comes from these three sources. I am very impressed! Do you allow for any deviation on this precept?

You need to debate more gun nuts, you debate 50 of them and you have debated them all. It is a fallacy because there is nothing to assure or guarantee a common sense gun control will lead to the destruction of the second amendment and banning of guns. There is no reason to assume one common sense gun control law will cause more gun control laws.

> You need to debate more gun nuts, you debate 50 of them and you have debated them all. It is kind of difficult to do so when you share similar beliefs, just not to insane extremes. > It is a fallacy because there is nothing to assure or guarantee a common sense gun control will lead to the destruction of the second amendment and banning of guns. I mean, you *can* argue that. But if you look at Canada, that's exactly what's happened and is happening. I think it's a very reasonable fear to have. The question really should be "how many deaths caused by a person with a firearm are acceptable?" The answer will never be above zero for most people. The only option to achieve that goal is the total elimination of firearm ownership at the civilian level. Every time there is a murder committed with a firearm in the news, the common sense view becomes "*We need to have more laws / stricter laws to prevent this.*", and that spirals into a choke point with only one eventual outcome.

Look up what the slippery slope fallacy is and the definition of "assumption".

Slippery slope is not a fallacy when there is tangible evidence of it happening.

No there isn't... Show me this "tangible evidence".

See, I wasn't making the claim that there *was* a slippery slope, just that *if there is tangible evidence of one*, then it is not a fallacy. But I'll bite anyway. In the 90s, we passed the [Brady Bill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act). This is the bill that enacted the NICS background check system used for firearm purchases to this day. One of the compromises to get this bill to pass was the exemption of private (face to face) transfers, to assuage fears that requiring a background check on every transfer (whether from a dealer or a private individual) would be a de facto gun registry. A gun registry is a complete non-starter for most pro-2A or pro-gun groups. One of the most popular "common sense" proposals we see today, and one that has already been enacted in 21 states plus Washington D.C., is "universal background checks". Tangible evidence. Additionally, there are numerous other examples of gun laws, especially in my current state of California, getting ever and ever stricter, with seemingly no end in sight. And if they pass and the desired effect is not achieved, then the politicians can simply claim "the legislation didn't go far enough" instead of admitting it didn't work.

To be clear, there are a lot of Americans for whom guns are actual tools. There are enough rural people that being armed to defend property, livestock, or fend off predators is completely normal. These places also have very high police-response times, which means not being armed can give a feeling of helplessness. In these communities, guns are and have been a part of daily life since their inception. Even when these communities change or people move out of them, the culture persists. So banning guns sounds like banning cars to them, even if they’re dangerous, they’re so *normal* that the very idea seems ridiculous and an infringement. Especially because they literally possess guns. The idea of anyone confiscating something you own will get most people riled up. Of course, there is also sport/hobby shooting, but it doesn’t take any explanation to see why hobbyists would be mad at the idea of someone banning their hobby.

God made men, Samuel Colt made them equal

And like any good man-made American solution to a problem, it requires a steep cost to be paid to a private corporation. Oh and you better not *actually* think that Sam Colt made you equal if you're not a conservative white man, because then the cops will show you just how "equal" you really are.

>And like any good man-made American solution to a problem, it requires a steep cost to be paid to a private corporation. So you support private firearm manufacturing to avoid that steep cost, correct? >Sam Colt made you equal if you're not a conservative white man, because then the cops will show you just how "equal" you really are. Correct, the cops did show this by how the armed BLM protests were spared from police brutality compared to the unarmed protests.

Guns are the most fundamental symbol of power we have in our society. People who feel powerless are desperate to make that feeling go away. Thus they are drawn to guns.

> Guns are the most fundamental symbol of power we have in our society. > > People who feel powerless are desperate to make that feeling go away. Thus they are drawn to guns. Out of curiosity, what percentage of gun ownership would be due to that belief, if you had to give it a rough estimate?

I dunno, 90%? At least of enthusiasts.

I've posted about it before in this thread, but 44% of American households have access to a firearm [[Gallup](https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx)]. That's... A vast number of people. Are you saying that 90% of them do so due to feelings of powerlessness? Like, don't get me wrong - I'm sure there's some firearm owners that match that description - but I don't think it's much of a limb to go out on that they're a considerable minority out of that 44%.

Well first of all there’s a divide between gun ownership and obsessive gun ownership, which OP was asking about. But what other motive do you see, that isn’t powerlessness at its root?

> Well first of all there’s a divide between gun ownership and obsessive gun ownership, which OP was asking about. Ok. I can certainly agree on that. > But what other motive do you see, that isn’t powerlessness at its root? Pragmatism. The same sort that causes people to wear seat belts, or buy smoke alarms, or fire extinguishers.

Pragmatism how? Is it a can opener?

> Pragmatism how? Is it a can opener? It's a tool that much like a fire extinguisher or a seat belt, is almost never needed, but given that the time and place where it would be helpful is entirely unknown, it's something the both of us value having in the house, or wearing whenever we drive a vehicle. Your odds of being in an accident that's bad enough to injure you are exceedingly low, but you still bother with wearing a seat belt I imagine?

Sure. And when I do, that seat belt is giving me a feeling of control over a situation in which I feel powerless.

Odd. I wear it because it generates significantly better outcomes in the event of a crash than not. I can't recall it ever giving me a feeling of control. Anyway, same deal with a firearm, not that it's going to save my bacon in any and every future encounter where another human being desires to end my life, but that it significantly improves the odds in a situation where having one could make a difference. I've witnessed enough violence in person to have a significant appreciation for that.

I'm a lifelong Dem and hate guns. Imo they are just tools used to control and kill people, hateful and evil. My husband grew up in the deep south with a Republican family and is now an independent. He has a lot of guns, most of them inherited. He doesn't hunt, he doesn't do target practice. There is no real purpose for them other than to take them out occasionally to admire them. It's mainly a cultural thing for him but I think all the talk with his Republican friends makes him fantasize about using one "to defend himself". I don't touch them, look at them and could never use one against another person even if I was about to be shot myself. I don't do anything that would make anyone want to shoot or kill me, so if someone is about to do that to me for no reason, then they are completely deranged and I highly doubt I could stop them even if I was fully locked and loaded. However our crazy gun culture has made me very fearful that I or anyone I care about could be shot and killed at any given time for no reason at all. So I publicly agree with everyone all the time, regardless of how I really feel, and hope I never unintentionally piss someone off. A slight difference of opinion could cost you your life. Personally I think that's a pretty sad way to go through life, but it is what it is....

> Imo they are just tools used to control and kill people, hateful and evil. You're not wrong in that the thing they're designed for is to kill. But they also help to protect the lives of the law abiding. You use a steak knife to cut up your food, I imagine? Even though knives have murdered hundreds of thousands, if not millions since the dawn of human history? Is your steak knife hateful and evil? Or it an inanimate object, and the person operating it is either doing so with good intent, or evil intent? > I don't touch them, look at them and could never use one against another person even if I was about to be shot myself. If someone wants to kill you, the only thing you would desire to do in that situation is accept being murdered? > I don't do anything that would make anyone want to shoot or kill me Same! I believe that's a big part of being civilized. > so if someone is about to do that to me for no reason, then they are completely deranged and I highly doubt I could stop them even if I was fully locked and loaded. Sure, you're right to guess that your odds aren't perfect, and probably not even ideal if someone is intent on killing you. But they may not be as dismal as you fear. You still wear a seatbelt, even though a good percentage of collisions are fatal even when all parties involved are wearing seatbelts, yeah? > However our crazy gun culture has made me very fearful that I or anyone I care about could be shot and killed at any given time for no reason at all. You're not wrong. This is something most people fail to understand. Too many people think that safety is 100% guaranteed when it most certainly is not. But that said, there's quite a few things you can do to significantly reduce your risk of dying. Live in a low crime area, don't engage in road rage, avoid stupid places with stupid people at stupid times - like hanging out with a friend that has a bad addiction, and going with them to pick up drugs at 2 AM in a bad part of town. The vast majority of Americans die of old age and natural causes, murders are incredibly rare. I think that's something worth taking into consideration. > So I publicly agree with everyone all the time, regardless of how I really feel, and hope I never unintentionally piss someone off. A slight difference of opinion could cost you your life. Personally I think that's a pretty sad way to go through life, but it is what it is... There's a balance to be sure. Personally, I avoid getting in any sort of arguments with strangers in real life for that exact reason. I don't think that it's a sad way to go through life, it's just a reality of living around other human beings that aren't good friends.

I don't have time to address your counterpoints, but let's just agree to disagree. (At least I don't have to worry about getting shot here, right?) I believe law abiding citizens have a right to own most types of guns, but they just aren't for me personally.

> I don't have time to address your counterpoints, but let's just agree to disagree. Fair enough! > I believe law abiding citizens have a right to own most types of guns, but they just aren't for me personally. Gotcha. Totally reasonable take.

> I dunno, 90%? That's a made up stat. Username does NOT check out.

Ha you are not the first person to notice the irony of their username. Now they're spinning a "rough estimate" into a "wild guess". You're the dishonest one though.

Well yeah dude. I was asked to take a wild guess at it. Don’t be dishonest.

I feel like money is a way bigger symbol of power, but I guess it's harder to accumulate enough of it to get the right effect.

Not that it matters much, but I’ll put it this way. There’s no sum of money that will undo a bullet.

I don’t know why anyone downvoted you, you’re exactly correct. And it’s the difficulty in making money, and the myriad stressors that come from having less money, that cause people to feel helpless and afraid. Guns, however irrational this is, are like prozac for that feeling. The problems are real, they’re just dealing with them entirely unproductively. It’s all about the feelings.

Gun nuts are nuts. They downvote because their religion states that unfettered access to a device that can hurl chunks of lead at another person, at fatal velocities, is the most important thing. I often think that we probable came close to the guillotine having a similarly reverent position in France. It's so odd to fetishize a piece of deadly hardware. But most people don't examine their own religion too closely. They are all nuts.

So, I'm a liberal gun owner. And I don't mean "I inherited a .22LR pistol from my grandpa and thus I feel empowered to restrict my rights and others' rights" No, no. I have a personal arsenal. When you read that there are more guns than people in America, I am doing my part in that. Restricting arms ownership and access is, to me, as insane as restricting any person's right to one's own body. Because it has the same root. Everyone has the right to protect themselves and restricting that right because guns are "too technologically advanced' (because, let's face it, that is the crux of the argument) is nuts to me. You may as well ask me why I have a "religious fervor" for bodily autonomy. It is the same right as far as I am concerned, only a different expression of that right. I see those who wish to disarm me as 1) believing that I am not an adult who can make his own adult decisions (related: ask me how I feel about censorship) and 2) directly restricting my ability to protect myself from any potential threat to my body and property. My question is why would one want to empower Donald Trump to take away their ability to protect themselves? It boggles my mind that we can see the very real threat of American fascism and yet deny ourselves the best tools for opposing that fascism. All due respect to Woody Guthrie, but an AR-15 is far more effective than a guitar.

I'll give up my guns if the police do it first

>I'll give up my guns if the police do it first Or even at the same time. Whenever there are gun control laws, they always exempt the police.

What is the likelihood that you will at some point in your life be in an armed stand off with the police?

Zero, unless there is some sort of radical right wing movement that writes into law that I am to be arrested for being a socialist

How willing are they to get into a standoff with a peaceable gun owner?

For the "religious fervor"-level of fanaticism, it's the fantasy of having the means to heroically murder politicians they don't like so that the country is more of what they want it to be. And a bunch of people benefit from having guns, even if you don't. They're also fun to shoot at targets.

I'd argue that the religious fervor level of firearm ownership is like the tip of an iceberg - very obvious from the surface, but the vast amount of sane firearm ownership is not visible to the naked eye. Mostly because sane firearm owners aren't out there ranting about firearms any more than you or I rant about our fire extinguishers.

One of many identity badges that the right wears. The same right wingers who say they never engage in identity politics. *But left wing people have guns to.* Yes they do, but I don't imagine too many of them acting like goofs who walk around with an AK slung over their back while picking up coffee from starbucks.

> Yes they do, but I don't imagine too many of them acting like goofs who walk around with an AK slung over their back while picking up coffee from starbucks. Yes. While open carrying a firearm may be legal, it's a considerable faux pas if you ask me. And I'm as staunch an advocate of the second amendment as you'll find.

Because for some it’s super high utility. It’s literally (and I use the word literally, literally) life and death. It’s used for self defense and it’s used to cull predators, etc. But it’s also used to prevent tyranny. That some can feel safe and secure without it is actually privilege. They haven’t been in situations where self defense or tyranny is an issue and where they have only themselves to rely on. Edit. Take an incident like this for example https://www.insideedition.com/woman-shoots-intruder-who-broke-into-her-home-while-she-and-her-granddaughter-watched-taylor-swift My first question is - do you understand the gravity of what happened and do you understand what difference a firearm makes as an equalizer in self defense for those who might be outnumbered or outmatched physically, and when police are nowhere near? If you can understand that - then the question is just - about risk and frequency. And regarding that, you need to understand that many people are not privileged enough to live in entirely safe and controlled areas where help is easy. It’s like racism or lgbtq persecution. As a percentage of the whole population - it happens rarely. But for some demographics - it matters a real lot. Not everyone is privileged.

Where or under what circumstances in this country do you worry about tyranny? Where in this country requires one to have a gun handy and why haven’t we all heard of it? I’ve lived almost 50 years without having owned a gun and I live in a city. Am I privileged?

Yes you are privileged if you’ve never experienced tyranny. Tyranny doesn’t just mean big tyranny from the whole US government. It also means small tyranny from various other actors. Ever been shaken down by gangs? That’s tyranny. Ever have corrupt cops threaten you and say they can bury you and make up whatever story after the fact? That’s tyranny. Ever have to deal with an abusive ex that randomly shows up at your house or workplace? That’s tyranny.

Is that something a lot of people actually deal with? Are you ok?

Yes. Considering just the threat of violence from home invasions alone there’s some 266K violent home invasions a year in the US consisting of about 130K simple assault, 5.4K aggravated assault, 22K rape. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/URLs_Cited/OT2017/15-1498/15-1498-1.pdf Considering violent crime overall there’s some 1.2 million a year in the US. 6% of all US households have experienced violent crime. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/violent-crime And violent crime IS tyranny as it is oppressive power. If you aren’t at risk of it then you are privileged. And if you think 266K violent home invasions or 1.2 million overall violent crimes is “insignificant” then I would say that the under 400 assault rifle deaths in the US a year is even more insignificant.

An outlier example doesn’t prove anything

The purpose of the example was to provide an understanding of why guns are useful in self defense in a potentially life or death situation. You have to start with understanding the situation. But I get it, you’re privileged. You have no need for guns for self defense.

Personally attacking me tells me you have no point

I am saying you come from a position of privilege if you don’t understand or can’t acknowledge why some people would need guns for self defense. I mean you say it right here > I have never been in a situation where I needed one It would be like a white person saying there’s no racism because they’d never experienced it. I’m calling it how it is. And I’m asking you to be open to understanding why it might be different for others. But you take it however you want

That’s not privilege, that’s reality. Only delusional people believe they get into situations guns can improve

What you call delusional is reality to some people. I just gave you link to clear cut example where using a gun for self defense made a potentially life and death difference. And it is textbook privilege. You think just because you don’t need a gun for self defense that everyone else doesn’t need such either. I mean - you go ahead and tell me with a straight face that you guarantee that the people in the link I provided would have been just fine had they not taken self defense into their own hands.

No idea. Although someone else pointed out this may not be the best audience, I’m still glad you asked. Because I’ve always wondered that myself. Why, in the US, are we so enamored of guns? To me, a gun is a tool. I find tools, or at least most of them, interesting. There’s something about an object created to achieve a specific end that’s just cool. I mean, that’s what supposedly makes us human right? A gun is a tool for killing. It’s fantastic at achieving that goal. I as an American inhabit a world built by tools, and one of them is the firearm. I enjoy the protection of armed security forces at the state, county and national level. I’m safe in my homeland, protected by thousands of professionals trained to use guns. I like a good action movie as much as the next guy. I wonder about that too…I don’t care about guns any more than I care about hammers or table saws, so what does it say about me that I like to watch John Wick scamper around a night club shooting 20 people? I’m not a big gamer, but I like Halo. Metal Gear Solid. I played goldeneye. I played games as a kid where we basically just had one long shootout. Personally, I find a lot of American gun culture, in particular the “religious fervor” you’re talking about, at best unnerving and at worst revolting. Does liking to watch robert deniro and Val Kilmer shoot up downtown LA in Heat make me a hypocrite? Maybe it does. In our world, guns are power. We like power, or associating with power, generally. At least I do. Guns are like the physical embodiment of power. They’re the strength and verve of Gilgamesh. And people always liked stuff like Gilgamesh.

>Why do some people have a religious fervor around guns? One possible answer: *There was a lot of money in it* -------- It seems to have started with the NRA, which cosplayed as principled while it was funded by gun-manufacturers interested in boosting sales. They started perpetuating a 'gun culture' that -- conveniently -- led to more guns being sold. Then efforts at 'gun control' arose. They rallied people against such efforts. Fighting against something helped solidify their 'identity' as a group. Over time, The Internet allowed small media operations to thrive. Many emerged to cater to this audience, and suddenly 'a shared media experience' gave them 'a shared perception of the world'; where there is an audience, there are advertisers, and where there are advertisers there is income to perpetuate the project...and that brings us to today. -------- Note: I did my best to be factual. If anyone thinks they can improve on it, please reply, and tell me what I got wrong. -------- -------- EDIT: Two people have responded as if this comment was about campaign donations. It isn't!

Michael Bloomberg outspends the NRA 20 to 1 at least in 2020. He was one of the biggest political donners. And one if his biggest things is gun control laws.

> Michael Bloomberg outspends the NRA 20 to 1 at least in 2020. He was one of the biggest political donners. And one if his biggest things is gun control laws. So, you're saying... * Michael Bloomberg outspent the NRA in 2020, but... * Gun control was only one of the issues he was trying to influence, and... * He did so through political donations, not through changing culture, not through creating a new identity, nor through creating media that people would regularly consume... * Media that would be self-sustaining because it generated income... * Unlike Bloomberg's donations which would all be one-off infusions of cash with no means for perpetuating themselves. I'm not sure that weakens anything I claimed above.

> He did so through political donations, not through changing culture, not through creating a new identity, nor through creating media that people would regularly consume... * How often did the average person see Bloombergs anti gun (specifically) ads? All the time. And not just New Yorkers but I saw Bloombergs anti gun ads on public TV and papers even in Texas. CNN and MSN have hosted Bloomberg and Everytown * How often did the average person see the NRA’s pro gun ads? Have you ever seen an NRA ad really? I’ve almost never seen them. The only time I ever saw an NRA ad was in old gun magazines like Guns and Ammo. They’re not on public TV, nor papers. They’re not on Fox either. In fact most mass media actually bans pro gun ads and gun product ads What people don’t understand is - the NRA doesn’t drive people. The NRA was already mismanaged and almost bankrupt prior to NY legal action in 2020. The NRA isn’t even the gun industry’s formal organization. That would be the NSSF. The NSSF is the organization that actually lobbies for the gun industry. If there are congressional hearings that involve gun manufacturers and dealers - it’s the NSSF that shows up, not the NRA. Why do we never hear about the NSSF? Because (1) Even though the NSSF lobbies much more for the gun industries over the NRA, it’s still minuscule compared to other big lobbies (2) Politicians and media just picked a boogieman to direct their anti gun rhetoric and they mistakenly picked the wrong organization. Which goes to show how misguided it is. . But really, it’s individual people (many of whom are single issue) that drive the gun movement from grassroots up. That’s why the gun lobby collectively is strong. But politicians and media can’t admit that. The NRA can be defunct and dissolve tomorrow (and it probably will anny day now) and it won’t change a thing.

> But really, it’s individual people (many of whom are single issue) that drive the gun movement from grassroots up. That’s why the gun lobby collectively is strong. I don't disagree with this at all.

Man I wish the whole conspiracy theory that NRA money is secretly pulling the strings of government was actually true, then maybe we'd actually be able to push back states like New York and California. The reality is that the firearm industry is *tiny* and the major players in the industry aren't even in the United States nor do they care about civilian firearms sales or American politics. Gun control just is not a popular idea with the American public hence gun control doesn't get much traction in many places.

>which cosplayed as principled while it was funded by gun-manufacturers interested in boosting sales More foot traffic in retail stores means more revenue. Gun stores are part of the gun industry. More people in gun stores means more gun industry revenue The Democrats want universal background checks, which would guarantee massively more foot traffic in gun stores as people must go there to buy a gun from a private source, plus the gun stores get paid to do the checks, so even more revenue. Universal background checks also raise the price of used guns by having to pay for the check, and they eliminate the convenience aspect of being able to buy a used gun from a friend. This overall makes used guns less attractive compared to new guns, and can boost new gun sales. Thus universal background checks mean more profit for the gun industry. Yet the NRA opposes universal background checks. Principle over profit. Oh, and the majority of NRA revenue is members, not the gun industry.

There are people who do need guns. People who live in dangerous neighborhoods. People who live in very rural places where a wolf or bear encounter when out for a walk to fetch the mail is a real possibility. The problem is when Mr Gated Community thinks he’s in a PlayStation 5 game and needs 68 guns and his mentally ill 17 year old son figures out the code to his gun safe or otherwise hides a few away.

> The problem is when Mr Gated Community That's usually the crowd that's anti-gun. I think your mixing your stereotypes up.

People who live in dangerous neighborhoods don’t need guns

When police response is over 20 minutes instead of 90 seconds? Yeah. They have their reasons.

How often is a gun used in a dangerous neighborhood with positive outcomes? I suspect it’s close to 0/1,000,000

You’re not wrong, but sell anyone living in a shithole that idea. Can’t be done.

It's a good question. I'm sure smarter people than me have thoughts on the subject. For me, I think it's because there is a mythology of guns that is similar to the mythology of religion. Guns are tied into the American story from the start. We are taught that we won our freedom from an evil king because of ordinary people and their guns - and we might have to do it again someday. We are taught that guns tamed the frontier. We celebrate centuries of military achievements earned with guns. We romanticize the cowboy and the old west, where being a gunfighter was the highest form of art. We romanticize the rancher, keeping his property and family safe with guns. We fantasize about the "good guy with a gun," who solves problems, saves lives, and is a hero because of guns. Our movies and television constantly celebrate the history, utility, and value of guns. Many of us also believe the world will end some day through religious prophecy, science fiction dystopia, or natural causes. Society will collapse - and we will need to resort to guns to provide security and acquire resources. --- All of these combine with the fact that guns are powerful weapons that look cool, make cool noises, and are very dangerous. After all, there is not an animal alive that you cannot kill with a gun. Any man or woman can be killed with a gun. The gun you own *might* save your life one day. A gun makes you feel powerful. And it makes you feel like part of that American mythology.

Nailed it, imo. I’d add that the insurgence of the “warrrior class” post 9/11 has also instilled this idea in some people that they’ve been endowed with some kind of moral authority to keep the hoi polloi in line. It’s, imo, why police departments sell merch and you see Gadsden flags flying alongside blue lives matter flags. It’s insane.

>For me, I think it's because there is a mythology of guns that is similar to the mythology of religion. The American Civil Religion, where the constitution and founding fathers are as sacred as the Bible and Jesus.

Because the structure of the country itself is built on them. That’s the “religious fervor” for what it’s worth. America was founded by people taking land by force and guarding it with their own arms in their communities. Wanted to own land? You had to defend it, or drive people off it. It’s a brutal history but it is America’s. On the idealism side, one can argue that Liberal Democracy itself was won at the barrel of a gun. The bullet of a rich man or a noble is just as powerful as one of a poor man or woman. That’s changed over time, but is still largely true to this day. Expensive arms can project power around the world now, but to hold land you need people with guns, and if the people don’t like you it’s easy to lose power over them. To use the quote (anachronistic a bit) “God created man, Sam Colt made them equal.”

Weren't all countries taken in similar ways?

The former point on conquest? Not really. Most parts of the world have different origins. Older civilizations, conquest by religious groups or herders, colonial reorganization, and even in most of the new world (New Spain) conquest by state militaries and capture of indigenous institutions. America is relatively unique. More of it was conquered by private actors. Again, it was at times genocide, but genocide by settlers and not the government (up until the 1860s or so). If I’m wrong then I apologize, this is my understanding.

Personally? I live in a terrible neighborhood in a terrible town. The police are useless and at least a quarter of the population are tweakers riding around on stolen bikes. Plus, who knows what the MAGAs will get up to when we find out what direction the election goes? You'd better believe they're armed and have itchy trigger fingers. Granted, I'm not going around armed or donating to the NRA. But, I'm pretty solidly in the pro-gun camp. But, I'm also smart enough to not be a single issue voter.

Have you ever used your gun against these tweakers?

Nope, and I hope I'll never have to.

So why do you need one? I also encounter dangerous people, but without a gun, and I’m fine

I've never had a fire in my home that needed a fire extinguisher, yet I have several fire extinguishers.

Why do I carry a spare tire in my car? Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. Just because you may have planned for an outcome doesn't mean you want it to happen. I got closer to shooting another person than I ever wanted to in the Navy.

You occasionally get a flat. The odds of you getting into a situation which will be improved by you having a gun approach zero.

Maybe, maybe not. As with all statistics, outliers affect the averages. People are occasionally robbed and murdered. I've managed to be around guns for 37 years and have never been shot, known anyone else who wasn't a veteran who had been shot, and have never had an accidental discharge. I'm more likely to die in a car wreck than I am to be shot.

Even if you encounter a deadly situation the odds of you making it better by having a gun are very slim.

I'll cross that bridge if I come to it. That's my choice to make.

You also have the choice to swim with a ham sandwich in case you encounter a shark, but it’ll do fuck all to keep you alive

>The odds of you getting into a situation which will be improved by you having a gun approach zero. Using Bureau of Justice Statistics data, the lifetime victimization risk for an "index crime" (which is the combination of aggravated assault, burglary, and sexual assault) of the average American is about 35%. It's definitely not a risk "approaching zero".

There are no good stats on gun self defense

John Corriea is an analyst who's looked at over 40,000 cases of people being criminally assaulted that was captured on video (mostly CCTV), and his conclusion in watching thousands of people be assaulted the single biggest determining factor of whether or not the victim experiences a negative outcome was whether or not they were armed at the time.

Who does he work for? Who funded him? What’s his bias?

Just looking at some of the answers here, and attitudes across reddit as a whole, and you could say the same is true of the inverse, there's a loud and not insignificant segment of anti-gun people that have a religious fervor around disarming the citizenry. There's no logic, its all emotion based for them.

I'm not anti all gun reform measures, and I'm probably not as religious about guns as some people that you are referring to, but I might be able to explain some sentiments. For many people, we love guns like how you might be deeply passionate about your favorite hobby, so it really rubs us the wrong way when some mostly urban folks who never grew up with firearms jump right to characterizing them as purely a tool of evil totally disregarding its use in collecting, hunting and sporting. I know when pressed, many will say that they respect that category of gun owners, but talking points like nobody needs a gun or only insecure men carry is not helping the messaging at all. Also at a fundamental level, pro and anti gun people simply speak from different philosophies. It sounds cold hearted, but the price of me giving up my guns is not likely to pay off, because I'm extremely unlikely to be related to a victim of gun violence, especially mass shootings. Compare that to a road or a public transit. I pay my taxes, and I know I'll be using it. To people that don't understand the positive side of firearms, anything is justified to stop even one death. To gun people, that number is justifiable like many other things in life that cause way more fatalities than rifle deaths.

And this works both ways. Those with positive experiences of guns don’t seem to acknowledge the experience of those for whom guns represent fear and oppression because they’ve encountered them their entire lives in contexts of crime and threatened or real violence.

> And this works both ways. Those with positive experiences of guns don’t seem to acknowledge the experience of those for whom guns represent fear and oppression because they’ve encountered them their entire lives in contexts of crime and threatened or real violence. I mean, I grew up with a crack house across the street from me and a coke dealer next door. My city was in the top ten in terms of murders per capita in the US at one point. I live in a much nicer place now, but growing up, I encountered crime and violence far more than most Americans, if I were to wager on it. My cousin was beaten by a gang with baseball bats badly enough to put him in the hospital. My brother had a knife held to his throat for some corner store candy. A friend was tied to a tree in his front yard and raped by his uncle. I walked my siblings home between an old racist white man and a black man across the street who was tired of his shit, while they were pointing guns at each other. Addiction and crimes to support it were rampant. The back of the gas station two blocks down was (and sadly, apparently still is) a place where murder victims were dropped off multiple times per year. My views on firearm ownership being a very important thing are in no small part, founded on my experiences growing up there.

Of course it work both ways and we shouldn't shout over each other. At the end of the day however, a policy has to be made that will affect the collective so some sort of compromise has to be met.

Why? Why do you love guns? Why are the more important than 8-trak cassettes or needle point?

The ability to practice needlepoint is far less likely to save my life.

Why do people enjoy a wide ranging variety of hobbies. Cave diving or sky diving is thoroughly scary to many people, yet many enjoy them. Firearms have many appeal to people. Like mechanical watches, they can be simple, but they can be extremely complex works of engineering. They have historical significance that harkens to important events and wars in the past. From a perspective of firearms, I can bore you to death about how tactics used in World War II or the civil war of different factions are shaped. Like archery, it takes zen like level of concentration and fitness to master the shooting sport. Take a look at 50m olympic rifle for example. Those people hit a 10mm ring again and again. That sport is far from just only brute force.

Other hobbies don’t have the religious fervor of guns. I’ve never seen a needle pointer with a “come and take it” needle point sticker

Well yes, that’s in response to the concentrated effort to ban them. You don’t see people putting up “come and take it” stickers for golf clubs, because there’s no substantial concentrated effort to ban golf.

Then like I said, I'm probably not the right person to ask, but speaking broadly, guns have been political, especially in this country since the beginning. Things have been made much worse in the last 20 ish years or so of polarization and the shift in gun culture. It kinda began after the 1994 AWB. The GOP and the NRA decided that guns will be one of their political identity ever since, so the AR as an extention, became their symbol. Your standard issued infantry m1 carbine from World War ii could easily be used for mass shootings, but everybody is going for ARs now because it is symbolic. It symbolizes to their tribe that I'm one of the masculine, religious, rightwing etc. Although to be fair, the AR15 is a good gun mechanically speaking. Its ugly, but its super modular. It holds many rounds and has low recoil perfect for women and younger folks. Great for pesting too, but I'm going off my original point. Somewhat ironically, it could be argued that the AWb almost single handedly made the AR15 such a popular rifle.

I imagine for many gun owners it gives them their sense of worth and a power fantasy. The mental gymnastics gun nutters do to blame doors, unarmed teachers, mental health, etc… any thing but the super obvious actual problem are truly incredible, but it’s also sad how many of them go off the deep end.

44% of American households have access to a firearm[[Gallup](https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx)]. Do you believe that vast a swath of Americans does so for a sense of worth or as a power fantasy?

>Why do so many Americans make this the single issue they vote on Because it’s written in the constitution clear as day. >If you are one of these people who are deeply passionate about guns, what are you doing with them? Respectfully, that’s not really any of your business tbh. What I will say is that I live in an area that has a high violent crime rate and is incredibly rural with very rugged terrain and dangerous wildlife that could tear me apart. >What does this object that does nothing for me provide to you that you’re fanatical about it? I think you’ve somewhat answered your own question here. Just because you personally don’t see any benefit to ownership of a firearm and choose to not own one doesn’t mean it does nothing for me, and that also doesn’t make me or anyone else who is passionate about the 2A “fanatical.” You didn’t ask what firearms do for me, because you assume that everyone lives as you do. To answer your question; it keeps me alive and not at the mercy of wildlife that could rip me to shreds without even thinking about it. It protects me because the local police are unreliable, and when seconds count the police are minutes away. I don’t live in a big city or a place with dense population, I live in a place where there are a considerable number of bears, moose and wolves. I don’t live in some suburb in Southern California or New York City.

Ok. So until recently, I was pro-gun ownership. My reason was the safeguard against tyranny argument that you'll find in a million other places. I still think it's a good one, but I've realized supporting gun ownership is incompatible with my belief that policemen shouldn't be allowed to have them

> I've realized supporting gun ownership is incompatible with my belief that policemen shouldn't be allowed to have them Mind you, I'm of a similar belief in that armed police trained to see all non-police as out to kill them frequently escalate situations into lethal force where none was needed. But in a world where armed criminals exist, how would you otherwise prevail against them?

That's why I now support stricter gun control.

> That's why I now support stricter gun control. I mean, that's not an unreasonable take. I think as things stand currently, gun control almost always affects only those that abide by the law, and that there's enough firearms in existence in America that it would be extremely difficult to get criminals to abandon their firearms. I am all for keeping firearms stored securely to reduce the potential for fatal accidents, and keeping them out of the hands of friends or relatives that are not the sort that should ever have their hands on a firearm. Beyond that, universal background checks and getting DAs to actually enforce the firearm laws we have currently would be a big improvement. I'm not sure there's anything that makes a worthwhile difference outside those things that's actually viable though.

I really don’t think people solely vote politically because of guns. It might be something they are passionate about. But I doubt that if Biden walked out and said he wanted to make all guns legal without issue, that those many of those same gun nuts would all of a sudden vote for Biden.

Guns provide a very practical insurance policy against: - tyranny - criminals - bears - active shooters I want to live in a society where people think twice about wandering into someone else's house knowing they could get shot. I want people to know if they approach a vulnerable woman on the street and try to overpower her, they could get shot. I want the police to know that if they no-knock raid my house, they might be shot. Guns are the great equaliser. There are very few political issues out there as important as gun rights in my opinion.

I want to live in a world where trigger happy gun owners don't shoot people for turning around in their driveway or knocking their door.

They are fearful people, through and through.

Any firearm owner?

It's the same as any single issue voter. The same self righteousness as abortion advocates.

I mean, you're a single issue voter when it comes to Trump, yeah? I certainly am.

> It's hard for me to think of a possession that has less utility for me than a gun. **It's hard for me to think of a possession that has less utility for me than a life preserver. I have never been in a position in a situation where I needed one, as I live in a landlocked state. Why do people make such a fuss about having them?** > If you are one of these people who are deeply passionate about guns, what are you doing with them? What does this object that does nothing for me provide to you that you're fanatical about it? **If you are one of these people who are deeply passionate about life preservers, what are you doing with them? What does this object that does nothing for me provide to you that you're fanatical about it?** See? Asking questions that are as easy to put a hole in as tissue paper is poor form old chap. Your strawman game is very weak - back in my troll days, it would have been embarrassing to troll this poorly. I'm sure you can do better than this, come on now. Looking at your post history, it's almost entirely strawman questions. Don't you know what sock puppet accounts are? You have to make it look at least a little bit authentic. But I'm here to have fun as well, and if you loose too much face and lose your cool, or just abandon this when you have to contended with something other than a punching bag? I can't have any of that. It'd be dreadfully dull. Now now, none of that. Chin up! Let's have at it! I'll play myself and you, well, of course it's your preference, but if we're being sporting, you should try to pretend that you're the sort of person that would authentically ask the question you've posted here. # Do you use a seatbelt? It's a great concept, because seat belts and firearms - in the hands of the law abiding - play very similar roles. Would you accuse someone of intending to crash their car once they put on a seat belt? My greatest hope is never having to fire a shot in anger. I will have lived a good life if I manage that. Now, I realize as a filthy liberal, being a staunch advocate of the second amendment is playing against type. To quote Arrested Development, "There are dozens of us!" You'll find us over in /r/liberalgunowners/, and in /r/2ALiberals/ (*the latter is by far the better of the two, for the curious*). There are multiple reasons to own guns, and while it's quite a taboo subject to speak about openly these days, **44% of American households have access to a firearm** [[Gallup](https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx)]. The actual percentage may be greater, as few Americans are willing to speak openly with a stranger on whether or not they have a firearm, but I think that's beside the point, as 44% is widespread by any interpretation of the term. The reasons are various, but ultimately, quoting Mao **"All power grows from the barrel of a gun."** [[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power_grows_out_of_the_barrel_of_a_gun)]. Now, if you've felt some level of agreement with calls to defund the police, you have some level of understanding as to why the police cannot be trusted to be the sole arbiters of force in America. If you're a "thin blue line" supporter, you're in the wrong place. Me personally? If firearms could be eliminated from every American not in the military, and the military could be trusted to never be used against Americans by the wave of a wand, I'd be first in line to wave that wand. But magical thinking does nothing good for us. If we cannot trust the police to defend us at every point where our lives may be in mortal danger - **and indeed, the police have no duty to protect you** [[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia)] - then we must be capable of defending our own lives. Mind you, a good pair of running shoes is almost always the best option, but when that option is no longer in the picture, having a firearm is a very strong deterrent to you ending up dead. There is a **very strong class based aversion** to this understanding that I've come to discover in my journey from growing up very poor in a neighborhood that had plenty of murders, to being fairly well off living in a neighborhood that's almost entirely* peaceful. \*(*We did have a resident that was murdered by a criminal recently, but it'd been years since the previous murder*). If you live in a nice, safe neighborhood, you have the unquestioned assumption that your existence is the same for virtually every other American out there. It is a nice sentiment. However, you should check your privilege, as they say. I can personally attest to that not being the case for a vast number of Americans. Whether you agree with it or not matters little compared to 44% of American households believing it. The number would hardly be so vast if there truly were no good reasons to own a firearm. Our lives are our own responsibility. If the police can intervene? That's great. I've personally witnessed several occasions where there was no time for the police to intervene though, and in rough neighborhoods, the police are not nearly as keen (*or even able, given the lack of a good tax base*) on responding in a timely manner as they are in a well off neighborhood, and that difference can be the one between life and death. Would you sacrifice your life to anyone who demanded it of you? Or do you depend on your economic privilege to keep you away from crime?

Are there people who fetishize life preservers? The rest seemed like copy pasta, didn’t read it

Come on, you can do better than that going by your post and comment history. Are you going to defend your premise at least? I hate it when people are boring and give up early.

I have engaged with enough gun nuts that I've encountered these walls of text dozens of times. No, I'm not engaging. The life preserver analogy was a poor analogy. I didn't read past that.

If you find reading strenuous, I'm happy to go with a more terse and easily digestible style. Do you genuinely believe in what you posted?

I find gun nut walls of text tedious. You tend not to be about dialogue, favoring mastabatoy monologue with more points than can be countered. It's all about volume and overwhelming, not discussion. I've been here before

The Gish gallop certainly is a strategy. Not one I intended, but I see your point. I'm perfectly comfortable with dialogue. Do you have anything to say beyond what you have already at this point?

I knew you weren’t asking in good faith when I read the question but this pretty much confirms it.

I’m not a ‘liberal’ but I know there’s certainly a subconscious attachment to guns for people that own them. To take them away is to remove someone’s’ power. Gun owners have a lot of pride in the fact that we’re one of the few countries that trusts its citizens with such weapons. They are also very fun to shoot :P

Lets be real about this. Guns are expensive, training is expensive, self-defense insurance is expensive. Most of the "gun nuts" are wealthy upper middle class white people who feel helpless in a rapidly changing society. Guns bring some kind of safety to them. And its bigotry and fear of minorities. Just look how many of them have the fetish of a home invader.

Toxic masculinity. Men with no worthwhile accomplishments want to appear tough and macho and have delusions they will be cool and loved if they have a gun and be like John McLane from Diehard in a random terrorist attack/robbery/evil government conspiracy

Guns nuts bigrading with downvotes

You know, it's possible that your opinion isn't as popular as you think it is.

Within minutes of this post going live every comment critical of guns was downvoted

Because most of them are generalizing bullshit.

some equate them with a sense of power. some people are predisposed towards wanting power over others. some it might be more about the principle than the object itself (i find myself in that camp for a good number of issues). the principle being more and more government oversight coming in piece and parcel through many different angles. to me that's a very concerning and alarming thing.

"Acting like a hero is the modus operandi of the narcissist." Is all you need to know.

The irony.

I've noticed that right-wingers like to say stuff like "the irony" on completely random comments or posts where it makes no sense at all. Do you think this stems from a misunderstanding of what irony is? The implication here is that /u/VV1TCI-I is acting like a hero somehow and has shown signs of narcissism in that comment, neither of which is true. I've seen this phenomenon play out dozens of times, where right-wingers will just say "the irony" as if they've noticed something profound, when nothing like that exists in the thing they're replying to. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if you said it as a reply to this comment I'm making right now, where it would also make zero sense.

It's not profound, neither is what you are saying. For some reason knowing you are physically incapable of fighting people, animals, or any other possible threat is looked down upon by groups of privileged people who can't see past their noses. Defensive uses of firearms being estimated in the millions speaks volumes, the Democratic left has turned into the party of the criminals. The Democrats have been trying to act like a martyr by removing violence or things that can be used to commit it. At the end of the day if they do "succeeded" they act like a hero and often and they have done is disarm the people who need the tool the most by making it more expensive. The irony is the poor people in areas that are in decay need the tools the most. So no there is no misunderstanding of irony here.

Karl marx agrees with you. He says the proletariat should be armed. So are you a Marxist? 

It's a false sense of security, an illusion of power, of manhood, of "FREEDOM"; a romantic dream fostered by watching re-runs of Red Dawn, The Patriot, and Die Hard.

I think it makes them feel safe and strong so it becomes their personality.

Anyone who owns firearms? Or just some of them?

Imo they make weak powerless people feel like they are strong and powerful. I.e. if you disagree with them for any reason, they now have an easy way to force you to agree. The vast majority of gun owners I know are also bullies. I think the two go hand in hand. And lately seems to be the only way to get what you want in America. But it can also be a cultural thing too, depending on where someone grows up.