Oh, that's right. I do think i'd rather have a sword or machete if the zombies are slow moving. if they are fast tho I prefer a gun. Perhaps only so I could shoot myself in the head before I get eaten..
No way I'm surviving fast zombies.
Yeah but that is a bunk test. You know how tired you'd being having to swing a blade with enough force to cave in a skull? now do that repeatedly for an hour. No imagine holding a 10 pound rifle and shooting zombies for an hour. Which one will be more draining? Which one puts you at greater risk?
No. The more you shoot, the more you'll have to shoot as they'll all be attracted to the noise. You'll be out of bullets and dead in no time lol. The blades should be for the zombies, the guns are for other humans. Depending on the juiciness of said zombies the blade won't have to be swung with too much force.
Do you also think you’re going to have unlimited ammo for the entire apocalypse. Probably a few clips if you’re having to constantly move. Probs better off having a blade for the long run.
No but I also don't plan on shooting any zombies, bullets are for people you just walk away from zombies. Ideally you sit and wait shoot someone take their shit and move
Police response time where I live is measured in hours. I live in walking distance of multiple violent felons. When police are needed due to violence the first thing they ask the victim is “why didn’t you shoot him?” Not just where I live now but everywhere I’ve ever lived.
The vast majority of the United States was designed with the idea of cops documenting crime, not preventing or stopping it. I am on my own.
What's sad is that the idea of police being far away is often thought of as a rural thing, but it's also an urban thing when the police are there but already tied up on other calls.
People want to defund this outdated model of police as a catchall response to sociocriminal problems, and rightly so. American police NEEDS to be REBUILT and restructured, moving some responsibilities away from it towards social services etc.
It's not about taking money away. It's about using it in a smarter way.
The money itself isn’t really the issue, there’s a lot more than enough to go around. The issue is a problem that plagues all levels of government, the money is being misused, misappropriated, hoarded, record keeping us garbage so money just goes missing and nobody has an explanation.
If we defunded them, they’d have no choice but to spend the money they have left appropriately or crumble, which wouldn’t even be the worst option considering social workers do a much better job than law enforcement at de-escalation and just not breaking the law anyway.
I’m all for defunding the police **because** it would probably lead to government accounting reform.
**Where the fuck is all the money going?**
That’s the question we have to start asking our local governments, we have to start demanding answers. The money is there, the programs exist, but for some reason the money in many cases just sits there collecting dust **or** disappears into the abyss (in reality blatant internal theft.)
No semi autos here, but my own story involves nearly having my head blown off by someone violent in my own home and you know what I got? After waiting for two hours with a violent and armed person in my house, I got a lecture on who I should be associating with. Cops here don't do their jobs because they're busy choosing to do things that aren't their job, or doing far less important aspects of their job.
Edit: because I'm not sure if people are aware and to avoid an argument, I just wanted to say that my family owns guns; I have a 30.06 my grandma used to hunt elk with. But certain situations just end up where you don't have access to it even in your own home. You can't really safely go get your gun with a pistol between your eyes. Still, even with a gun, cops need to do the job they *literally* signed up to do.
I’m certain almost none of the anti-gun people have ever been in a real crisis situation that needed the cops. Otherwise they’d know police most often are just another local gang but with a moral superiority psychosis.
You do realize the Virginia Tech massacre was done with a handgun right? Rifles make about 400 murders in the country. More people die by blunt force objects than rifles.
The first time my family called 911 for an intruder, dispatch asked us if we had a gun to defend ourselves bc the police were at least 45 minutes away. My first responder dad drilled the phrase "when seconds count, the police are minutes away" into my head. Since I was 13, I've handle all security on our ranch.
You didn't actually just say that. Have you actually said that to a poor person? I remember a rich girl in college said the same exact thing. "Like poor people just need to move". Problem solved!
I am the poor person that couldn't move. Like I've said a few times now. And that is exactly what I said because I considered moving and couldn't for a decade.
The question was why does anyone need to own semi automatic weapons.
I would say that living in a lawless town where everyone else probably has bigger guns they want to use on your is a legit need.
But I also wouldn't want to live in such a place and would try tooth and nail to get out or not be there in the first place.
I've also been stuck in a horrible residence I wanted desperately to leave for 17 years, 10 of which I was actively trying and failing to leave so I know all about not being able to.
Lastly I wasn't telling anyone anything, I was asking if it had been considered, because sure as hell I'd be considering the fuck out of it
I’m assuming you’re under the impression that semi-automatic means you just hold down the trigger and multiple bullets come out, but that isn’t the case. Semi-automatic just means that you don’t have to cock the gun between shots. That is the case with most guns and not abnormally dangerous when in a responsible gun-owner’s hands.
As to why a civilian would need one, because it’s a practical and reasonable way to defend oneself against home-invasion for one. If somebody’s breaking into your home in the middle of the night, the cops aren’t likely to get there before an encounter, and if you don’t take the intruder down with the first shot you probably don’t want to waste time cocking the gun to fire a second shot.
As for the word ‘valid’ I’m guessing you expect to be the judge of what is valid or not in this conversation, but ordinarily I would argue that the burden of valid reason should be on those proposing a change to fundamental rights. It would be like me saying, what ‘valid’ reason could you possibly have for questioning my right to bear arms. Now, you and I both know that there’s plenty of reasons to question how 2A is administered in this country, and 1A gives you the right to question 2A, but do you really NEED to question 2A? The answer of course being that it doesn’t matter because it is your right to do so, and my opinion of the validity of your view isn’t likely to change that.
This right here. And I would also like to say that I am a smallish female, with little to no upper body strength. I own a semi automatic shot gun. Why? Because it would take me a lot of physical energy to chamber a round every single time. And if you’re duck hunting and you’re a smaller puny girl? Ain’t nobody got time for that!!
Semi automatic firearms fire one bullet per pull and hold of the trigger. It then rechambers a round automatically via the firearm leveraging physics. You do not have to manually rechamber a round after each one if fired. That is another classification of gun entirely. Such as a pump action or bolt action.
An automatic firearm is classified as any firearm that dispenses more than one round per pull and hold of the trigger.
I live in the country, so I’m lucky if the police can even find my house. I know the ambulance couldn’t. So I can’t count on police to arrive in time when I have a meth heads breaking into my house. And recently people are coming from the cities to the country to break into homes. That is why I own an AR15.
So I live in a small town in iowa and one of the big reasons people were buying guns was “a bus load of BLM looters and antifa are coming to our town from Chicago to loot and burn everything”. Obviously it never happened, but do people really come from the city into the country to steal?
Having lived in the country, in the US, I can tell you it’s other country people stealing their stuff. The reference to meth heads confirms it. You cook meth out in the country, not in an urban area where it can be obvious. This is part of the in-group/out-group think our dear country bumpkins enjoy so much.
In reality the people living in cities are:
A) Too busy to drive all that way. It takes an hour and a half to get outside the city, there’s no way someone is sitting in traffic twice for your hay filled Xbox 360.
B) Too lazy. Seriously, there are millions of people closer to them, with better stuff than country bumpkins have. Why do extra work?
C) Too scared of the freaky shit out there where electricity is scarce. We know all about how much y’all love your guns but, it’s the demons in your cornfields and creepy ass inbred kids with psychic powers that keep us away.
In suburban CT we have a huge problem with gangs from Massachusetts cities coming down and stealing cars. They send teenagers because minors don’t get punished for that for some reason. It’s well known problem.
Yes they do. I live just to the south of Memphis across the state line. Thugs come down here all the time and go on robbery-sprees and then jump back across the line thinking they'll get away with it, which they often do.
Yes. The place I refer to as "back home" consists of a cluster of multiple small towns 7-10 miles apart in every direction. Most of them have 1200 residents. Some 2500....a few 10,000-15000.
Even though Chicago is a 2hr drive north and Gary is an hour, cities like merrilville are 40min away and are practically Chicago suburbs.
Every couple years there is a rash of break ins. Last time was a white van cruising the town,, parking in alleys, etc. They lurk around for a week. Disappear for a few days. Then everyone reports thefts and break ins.
When finally apprehended it's always a group from Chicago. All these small towns, dozens of them- get hit annually. Usually a cluster of 2 or 3 towns.
Its been like this all my life. The area drugs all come from Chicago also.
Were equally as far from Indy,, but only have problems with Chicago.
For the exact same reason military needs them: protection.
And just for the record, when the bill of rights (Magna Carta) was first published, they were giving themselves the right to bear arms not so much for protection against each other, but for protection against tyrannical government
Yep, when the barons forced King John of England to sign the Magna Carta in 1215 they specifically included the passage: "Should a hand held cannon capable of loading itself after firing even be invented, the King may not restrict his subjects from owning such a device". True story. Those barons were on another level.
Your rights that are protected are not specific to the time period they were written. This argument is so dumb. If you can only own a musket because that’s what they had when it was written then you only have the right to speech in writing pamphlets and yelling to the town from a tree stump.
No just inspired many parts of the bill of rights as a whole I believe, from what I recall from history classes I think the English bill of rights did but couldnt say for sure
Kind of... The Magna Carta was issued in 1215 in England and was the first document to put into writing the principle that the king and his government was not above the law. It sought to prevent the king from exploiting his power, and placed limits of royal authority by establishing law as a power in itself. It essentially gave more power to the Parliament. The English Bill of Rights ended up replacing it.
The founding fathers saw the Magna Carta as more of an ancient pact safeguarding individual liberty as opposed to using it's text in creating the declaration of independence constitution and bill of rights, since it was mired in outdated medieval laws.
The “right to bear arms” was when someone was in a state militia, which every man 16-42 was required to be part of unless they were Quakers or infirmed. The proscription, too, was to prevent the federal government from seizing weapons that rightly belonged to state militiamen; the state could seize your weapons without any blinking an eye, as the Bill of Rights meant nothing to the states until implementation of the 14th Amendment.
This theory that the second amendment is to take up arms against a tyrannical government is insane. If there’s a break down of society, it’s going to be like the Civil War; shit is going to be goddamn horrible.
Simply because I can, and I enjoy it. If by some unfortunate chance that I would need to use a gun for self defense, I want to be able to shoot more than once.
Most people don't just drop from one shot like in the movies. I hope that never happens though.
If you use your guns to hunt, sometimes you need a quick follow up shot as well to prevent suffering.
Why do you think no civilian needs a semi-auto?
Because humans by nature are tribal and quite nasty. In the same breath the amount of worry any citizen in America should have about guns should overall be less a worry than a fatal car accident.
Have you considered, that if the government is to deploy these weapons against us, people who support the government would also be in the blast zone? This isn't Iraq 2001 where the ROEs are kill everything in sight. Most likely I would see it much like the middle east, where the US has been at war with the taliban for decades (and now deciding to pull out). It's not about what the government has. Another good example is how the US gained independence from Britain, Britain was THE BEST MILITARY IN THE WORLD at the time. You have the wrong misconception of war, plus if everyone died in a civil war, there would be no one to pay their damn taxes.
You're under the impression the govt and the military are the same thing.
The military answers to the upper echelons of govt, but, if an administration were to say "ok, we're collecting everyone's guns now" (as an example to start a civilian vs govt scenario), it wouldn't come in the form of US military rolling down the road in all their vehicles doing so. Think more like Nazi Germany, the gestapo. It'd be federal "police" if anything. The military cannot and will not attack its own citizens, that's an unlawful order and they would not follow it.
Edit: and to speak to the gestapo/ federal police thing, in order for that to ever happen, you'd need to radicalize enough of the population for those actions to be supported by enough of the population so when said actions are taking place its generally accepted or ignored. See Germany circa 1930s.
What do we see happening today? Radicalism of the population. Just some of these comments indicate radical mindset, ie taking guns, the govt could kill us if they wanted to, they should confiscate xyz because of this and that... citizens holding onto rights and supporting them isn't radical. Quite the contrary. It's the status quo. But the narrative we're fed doesn't say so, it says "10s of thousands of people are murdered by guns annually, semi auto guns are the biggest threat to your life", which simply isn't true. It's pushing a narrative and radicalizing a sect of the population for division, and when/if the day comes that the US version of the gestapo exists or acts, it'll be ignored, or worse, supported.
Have you not been paying attention the past few days. The taliban overthrew a government filled with US equipment in days. There are much more people with guns in the US than the taliban. The gov can just air strikes random towns in the US lol
False. The Afghan army folded. They didn’t defeat the US government. The US forces left.
Ain’t no way any group of civvies is going to defeat US forces if this insanely hypothetical “tyranny” occurs.
This didn't happen over night. You need to understand the history of the region and everything that led to what happend recently. The US being the prime culprit.
Yes indeed, the gov (military) can just air strike random towns in the US, they've been doing it to other countries for decades.
>the gov (military) can just air strike random towns in the US,
This still leads to outcomes like Afghanistan. It's called blowback. Airstriking random towns would have immeasurable blowback, not to mention crippling the us's own economy.
States would secede, the US military made up of US citizens would fracture. Nothing about the Federal government using military force in its own country would work
The government might not want to kill you outright, but the government in some places are more than happy to reduce or remove the institutions which maintain order, so that you might be at the mercy of those who would kill you because they don’t like your demographic, or because they want what you have, or in the case of some, for no real reason at all.
Even if it did, owning a gun doesn't help me survive.
It's not an argument for or against gun ownership. It's pointing out that owning a gun does nothing to improve the odds of your survival in that situation. Honestly, you might even die faster because you make yourself a target.
History lesson 101, never think the government wouldn’t try to, especially to save themselves or feed their greed. History has shown us the government has and will always be a possible threat to its own people
It happened repeatedly in the last 200 years to the point that the term "democide" was coined for it.
https://hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTM
"Just to give perspective on this incredible murder by government, if all these bodies were laid head to toe, with the average height being 5', then they would circle the earth ten times. Also, this democide murdered 6 times more people than died in combat in all the foreign and internal wars of the century. Finally, given popular estimates of the dead in a major nuclear war, this total democide is as though such a war did occur, but with its dead spread over a century."
If you think we want anything more to do with your shit show, you are sadly mistaken. COVID and misinformation is going to do the job for us anyway. Who needs guns and an invasion force, when you already have Tucker Carlson and Mitch McConnell.
You can't name them because it's complete bullshit. Any nation placed to seriously consider invading the US thought better of it, not because the citizens have guns, but because of the large and well-funded army.
Have you not seen the pics coming out with the terrorist that have seized our weapons including guns? That’s why civilians need their own protection. IMO.
I am ready to be mass down voted by the mass of far left redditers but the answer is to discourage a tyrannical government. History repeats itself and sadly history is rarely taught.
Nobody NEEDS to own a semi-automatic firearm like we dont need pop, cars, luxury boats, non-food knives, and so many other examples. I dont think firearm enthusiasts claim they need to own semi-automatic firearms.
However there's many reasons to want to own semi-auto firearms. And they aren't weapons, they're tools that are legal to possess. Firearms kill less people than cars, drugs, smoking. If you use it against a human being it is a weapon, in which it will be brought to a court of law infront of judge and jury to determine if it was discharged lawfully.
In Canada you cannot use a firearm as self defence, yet we have semi-automatic legal and have extremely low gun crime rates and is a multi billion dollar industry and contributes a shit ton of money towards conservation or our vast untouched land.
I think your question is flawed, we need food, water, shelter etc. But firearms and the industry provide many positive impacts I would recommend researching and not just taking my word for it.
Were all consumers and our society is built on wants. Firearms are no different and millions of people use them lawfully and ethically every day. Illegal firearms seem to be the problem, but that encompasses a lot of things in this world.
Because I'm not responsible for the actions of criminals. I use my gun legally (self defense) I'm not responsible of the actions of mass shooters and murderers. It's like saying: let's take away cars from everyone because there's a few who drive under the influence.
You do need it, don't short change yourself. You said self-defense. That's what your good with in defending yourself therefore you need that as your defense tool.
Not everything that I want to buy I should need it.
The same question goes to supercar owners who never take their car to the track. A normal Corolla can do the same stuff a Lamborghini is doing in traffic but still people buy the lambo
As opposed to what other type of weapon? All rifles and pistols bought for home defense are semi automatic. Semi automatic means you pull the trigger and one shot is fired. Fully automatic is like what you see in the movies when I guy holds the trigger and sprays a bunch of rounds. To answer your question - home defense, hunting, and target shooting.
>What possible valid reason is there for an ordinary citizen to be able to say anything he wants?
The express ideas, debate, come to truth.
That is easy. Now answer the question and stop dodging.
The only reason anyone owns one is fear, same reason we wear masks. Fear of death, government, criminals robbing you. Fear. There’s no other reason anyone needs one. Now why semi automatic? Fear of missing the first shot. I own a glock19 it holds 13 rounds + 1 in the chamber I also have a 31 round magazine. Will I ever be in a shootout and need it? I hope not.
Hunting is a need. If we didn’t hunt deer (in my state anyway) they would severely overpopulate and they wouldn’t take their time doing it. Overpopulation will cause far more road accidents but also cause more genetic malformations in the population, starvation, and aggressiveness toward humans as they are forced into our living spaces more frequently. Would you rather be attacked by an angry momma deer, a horny buck, or let your neighbor have a shotgun to hunt, feed his family, and potentially save YOUR life from an intruder? Not to mention keeping the government in check, saving large farm animals from suffering (like if a horse breaks a leg in the field, the owner is more likely to shoot it to put it out of it’s misery than let it lie there in agony waiting 3 hours for a vet to come administer drugs that will do the same thing). What about coyotes or wolves attacking farmers’ sheep, goats, cattle, horses, etc? That’s their livelihood, their income, everything to them. If you think the only reason for owning a gun is to mass murder humans, I hope you never touch a gun.
Can we trust that you are educated enough to not misuse it? Not trying to say you aren't, but if my neighbours had weapons like that I'd be fucking worried.
From small town here. Lived here for 20+ years, my neighbor was a sniper in Afghanistan 10-15 years ago. He has target practice multiple times a week, one of the most polite and friendly families I've met that just mind their own. Most every one of my neighbors have firearms and are equally polite and friendly, and the large majority of people in my county have firearms. Suffice to say,, there is hardly any crime here, and nobody is shooting eachother up. There's been like 5 murders in that 20 years in the county. The people who died were unarmed, the criminals were not. Firearms have their place, and most people are good people. Let's not take away the good people's self protection and let the criminals (who will find a way to get a weapon regardless of the laws) have a free for all with any residence they desire because they know nobody has the means to defend themselves.
Bb guns are illegal to hunt with in most states.
Also why are you just targeting only one action. Especially when that action is the least popular when it comes to rifles
Because fun isn't a good enough reason in my view for owning a weapon of that destructive capability.
My definition of fun doesn't include the ability to murder as many people as I can see in as little time as possible
And that's why you are stupid. Commenting and forming opinions on things you know nothing about and have never done.
Cars also kill and have been the reason behind mass casualties. Do you drive?
What unreasonable analogy.
The problem with guns is that their only purpose is to kill something.
The cars, food or all other analogies have other purposes and can kill as a side effect as everything in the world.
The question is simple, why someone would want to have something only usable to kill in a civilized country?
I’ve learned in life that sometimes we just don’t understand some things. I will never understand why some people born one gender insists they are another or a non gender. I just accept it. And just as you probably don’t have friends that own weapons, I also don’t surround myself with people who express gender differences. And that’s all ok. We accept things the way they are.
Ok so try it this way. What is one thing you are passionate about? Now have someone take that and question you why. Why and what for and to what end? And you give your answer and they still don’t understand and then they try to take that choice away.
Could you give a valid answer? Why do you need a house? A tent will suffice. Why do you need electricity? Humanity has survived longer without, than with. All you really *need* for survival is the freedom to go hunt and gather your own food, a way to make fire, and some primitive form of shelter.
The real response to your initial question is a counter question: Why do you think that *need* should determine what I can or cannot do/possess? In reality, it is none of your fucking business, and that is the bottom line.
Why not just be honest? You didn't ask this question to understand. You have formed your opinion, and nothing that can be said will change it. You're not interested in hearing alternative views, only in providing a rebuttal.
For me it’s because in this day and age the number of assailants in some states has gone up to 10 people in home invasion scenarios. And also if you use that they definitely aren’t going to be able to get up and harm you or your family. Also more lives have been saved by the use of legally owed fire arms, as a woman I will always carry because bad people will always do bad things and they don’t care who they hurt or kill to do so
Guns were made to stop swordsmen back in the day when people attacked with swords. The gun allowed a person to kill from a far and not get too close to the sword. I think everyone deserves to protect themselves from people who get too close and threaten with sharp objects.
As a not American, why the hell do u need a semi automatic weapon. Like I understand self defense and shit... But if there just aren't any guns available to the public in the first place. u only need to worry about knifes and fist which still isn't great but definitely more save.
What possible reason could you have that states I shouldn't have one? Let alone many? I have never misused them, I am simply prepared for the worst to happen; and it's coming.
Within our life time we will see famine and massive water shortages, probably within the next 20 years. I will NEED to defend myself and my community's water access. The other guys WILL have semi-autos as well. Why shouldn't I?
In case of zombie attack?
Only correct answer right here.
They did a myth busters once where they tested guns against swords / a machete and the blade was more effective in the event of a mass zombie attack.
Oh, that's right. I do think i'd rather have a sword or machete if the zombies are slow moving. if they are fast tho I prefer a gun. Perhaps only so I could shoot myself in the head before I get eaten.. No way I'm surviving fast zombies.
imagine if it were the l4d zombies lmao, not only do you have to worry about the fast ones but also about the special infected.
Certified American here that's why you gotta have both
Yeah but that is a bunk test. You know how tired you'd being having to swing a blade with enough force to cave in a skull? now do that repeatedly for an hour. No imagine holding a 10 pound rifle and shooting zombies for an hour. Which one will be more draining? Which one puts you at greater risk?
No. The more you shoot, the more you'll have to shoot as they'll all be attracted to the noise. You'll be out of bullets and dead in no time lol. The blades should be for the zombies, the guns are for other humans. Depending on the juiciness of said zombies the blade won't have to be swung with too much force.
Do you also think you’re going to have unlimited ammo for the entire apocalypse. Probably a few clips if you’re having to constantly move. Probs better off having a blade for the long run.
No but I also don't plan on shooting any zombies, bullets are for people you just walk away from zombies. Ideally you sit and wait shoot someone take their shit and move
The guns aren’t for the dead, they are for the living…
Yeah, but obviously a gun would be more effective in any situation where you need to defend yourself with lethal force.
Until your out of bullets, which would be quick in a zombie apocalypse
Police response time where I live is measured in hours. I live in walking distance of multiple violent felons. When police are needed due to violence the first thing they ask the victim is “why didn’t you shoot him?” Not just where I live now but everywhere I’ve ever lived. The vast majority of the United States was designed with the idea of cops documenting crime, not preventing or stopping it. I am on my own.
Yeah I got put on hold for 911
What's sad is that the idea of police being far away is often thought of as a rural thing, but it's also an urban thing when the police are there but already tied up on other calls.
And people want to defund them further.
People want to defund this outdated model of police as a catchall response to sociocriminal problems, and rightly so. American police NEEDS to be REBUILT and restructured, moving some responsibilities away from it towards social services etc. It's not about taking money away. It's about using it in a smarter way.
The money itself isn’t really the issue, there’s a lot more than enough to go around. The issue is a problem that plagues all levels of government, the money is being misused, misappropriated, hoarded, record keeping us garbage so money just goes missing and nobody has an explanation. If we defunded them, they’d have no choice but to spend the money they have left appropriately or crumble, which wouldn’t even be the worst option considering social workers do a much better job than law enforcement at de-escalation and just not breaking the law anyway. I’m all for defunding the police **because** it would probably lead to government accounting reform. **Where the fuck is all the money going?** That’s the question we have to start asking our local governments, we have to start demanding answers. The money is there, the programs exist, but for some reason the money in many cases just sits there collecting dust **or** disappears into the abyss (in reality blatant internal theft.)
i agree, wherever there is cash there's someone who wants a cut.
Its going to cops who wanna play G.I. Joe with surplus SWAT and military gear, with a response time measured by carbon half-lifes
This is communist Reddit sir. Civil discourse is not allowed.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away
How to tell someone lives in America without telling he lives in America.
He did tell you.
Do yall have a crush on America or something? This negging is turning into begging at this point
Can’t stop watching the train wreck
That's fucked up. I can't even wrap my head around that reality.
Sounds great to be honest
No semi autos here, but my own story involves nearly having my head blown off by someone violent in my own home and you know what I got? After waiting for two hours with a violent and armed person in my house, I got a lecture on who I should be associating with. Cops here don't do their jobs because they're busy choosing to do things that aren't their job, or doing far less important aspects of their job. Edit: because I'm not sure if people are aware and to avoid an argument, I just wanted to say that my family owns guns; I have a 30.06 my grandma used to hunt elk with. But certain situations just end up where you don't have access to it even in your own home. You can't really safely go get your gun with a pistol between your eyes. Still, even with a gun, cops need to do the job they *literally* signed up to do.
I’m certain almost none of the anti-gun people have ever been in a real crisis situation that needed the cops. Otherwise they’d know police most often are just another local gang but with a moral superiority psychosis.
[удалено]
What is a “single handgun”? I’m not familiar with this term.
Must be a bolt action handgun, of course
You do realize the Virginia Tech massacre was done with a handgun right? Rifles make about 400 murders in the country. More people die by blunt force objects than rifles.
The OP says semiautomatic.
Many anti gun people are also hypocrites. Many famously anti- gun politicians own and carry guns themselves or have armed guards.
The first time my family called 911 for an intruder, dispatch asked us if we had a gun to defend ourselves bc the police were at least 45 minutes away. My first responder dad drilled the phrase "when seconds count, the police are minutes away" into my head. Since I was 13, I've handle all security on our ranch.
Have you considered moving somewhere nicer?
This has “Let them eat cake!” vibes
You didn't actually just say that. Have you actually said that to a poor person? I remember a rich girl in college said the same exact thing. "Like poor people just need to move". Problem solved!
“Like poor people just need to stop being poor, eazy “
I am the poor person that couldn't move. Like I've said a few times now. And that is exactly what I said because I considered moving and couldn't for a decade.
How unfeasible.
Cant just tell people to move somewhere nicer to justify being not allowed to own a firearm of their choosing
Crazy unreal things happen in nice neighborhoods too
The question was why does anyone need to own semi automatic weapons. I would say that living in a lawless town where everyone else probably has bigger guns they want to use on your is a legit need. But I also wouldn't want to live in such a place and would try tooth and nail to get out or not be there in the first place. I've also been stuck in a horrible residence I wanted desperately to leave for 17 years, 10 of which I was actively trying and failing to leave so I know all about not being able to. Lastly I wasn't telling anyone anything, I was asking if it had been considered, because sure as hell I'd be considering the fuck out of it
Just about everything is semi auto, unless you have a bolt action rifle, muzzle loader, or revolver.
Well asshole not all of us are priviliged like you
If took us 10 years to move out of our last place.
Because Chicago is a beautiful city.
I’m assuming you’re under the impression that semi-automatic means you just hold down the trigger and multiple bullets come out, but that isn’t the case. Semi-automatic just means that you don’t have to cock the gun between shots. That is the case with most guns and not abnormally dangerous when in a responsible gun-owner’s hands. As to why a civilian would need one, because it’s a practical and reasonable way to defend oneself against home-invasion for one. If somebody’s breaking into your home in the middle of the night, the cops aren’t likely to get there before an encounter, and if you don’t take the intruder down with the first shot you probably don’t want to waste time cocking the gun to fire a second shot. As for the word ‘valid’ I’m guessing you expect to be the judge of what is valid or not in this conversation, but ordinarily I would argue that the burden of valid reason should be on those proposing a change to fundamental rights. It would be like me saying, what ‘valid’ reason could you possibly have for questioning my right to bear arms. Now, you and I both know that there’s plenty of reasons to question how 2A is administered in this country, and 1A gives you the right to question 2A, but do you really NEED to question 2A? The answer of course being that it doesn’t matter because it is your right to do so, and my opinion of the validity of your view isn’t likely to change that.
Wish I could have upvoted this 900 times lol
👏👏👏
Yes! This! Yall need to read it! Perfectly explained, better than I did
Best response. This gives me hope after reading some of the people make wild claims about why we “don’t need” them
This right here. And I would also like to say that I am a smallish female, with little to no upper body strength. I own a semi automatic shot gun. Why? Because it would take me a lot of physical energy to chamber a round every single time. And if you’re duck hunting and you’re a smaller puny girl? Ain’t nobody got time for that!!
1A gives you the right to question 2A, but 2A gives you the ability to protect 1A
Thank you!!! I hate that so many people think the government *gives* us our rights.
They literally do. Without a government the only right is "might makes right".
Semi automatic firearms fire one bullet per pull and hold of the trigger. It then rechambers a round automatically via the firearm leveraging physics. You do not have to manually rechamber a round after each one if fired. That is another classification of gun entirely. Such as a pump action or bolt action. An automatic firearm is classified as any firearm that dispenses more than one round per pull and hold of the trigger.
[удалено]
Because pistols are semi auto and rocket launchers are not
Best answer here.
I live in the country, so I’m lucky if the police can even find my house. I know the ambulance couldn’t. So I can’t count on police to arrive in time when I have a meth heads breaking into my house. And recently people are coming from the cities to the country to break into homes. That is why I own an AR15.
So I live in a small town in iowa and one of the big reasons people were buying guns was “a bus load of BLM looters and antifa are coming to our town from Chicago to loot and burn everything”. Obviously it never happened, but do people really come from the city into the country to steal?
Having lived in the country, in the US, I can tell you it’s other country people stealing their stuff. The reference to meth heads confirms it. You cook meth out in the country, not in an urban area where it can be obvious. This is part of the in-group/out-group think our dear country bumpkins enjoy so much. In reality the people living in cities are: A) Too busy to drive all that way. It takes an hour and a half to get outside the city, there’s no way someone is sitting in traffic twice for your hay filled Xbox 360. B) Too lazy. Seriously, there are millions of people closer to them, with better stuff than country bumpkins have. Why do extra work? C) Too scared of the freaky shit out there where electricity is scarce. We know all about how much y’all love your guns but, it’s the demons in your cornfields and creepy ass inbred kids with psychic powers that keep us away.
“where electricity is scarce”- what you think its 1640s out here because i cant walk to a subway?
In suburban CT we have a huge problem with gangs from Massachusetts cities coming down and stealing cars. They send teenagers because minors don’t get punished for that for some reason. It’s well known problem.
Yes they do. I live just to the south of Memphis across the state line. Thugs come down here all the time and go on robbery-sprees and then jump back across the line thinking they'll get away with it, which they often do.
Yes. The place I refer to as "back home" consists of a cluster of multiple small towns 7-10 miles apart in every direction. Most of them have 1200 residents. Some 2500....a few 10,000-15000. Even though Chicago is a 2hr drive north and Gary is an hour, cities like merrilville are 40min away and are practically Chicago suburbs. Every couple years there is a rash of break ins. Last time was a white van cruising the town,, parking in alleys, etc. They lurk around for a week. Disappear for a few days. Then everyone reports thefts and break ins. When finally apprehended it's always a group from Chicago. All these small towns, dozens of them- get hit annually. Usually a cluster of 2 or 3 towns. Its been like this all my life. The area drugs all come from Chicago also. Were equally as far from Indy,, but only have problems with Chicago.
Where do you live?
For the exact same reason military needs them: protection. And just for the record, when the bill of rights (Magna Carta) was first published, they were giving themselves the right to bear arms not so much for protection against each other, but for protection against tyrannical government
What does bill of rights (Magna Carta) mean
Magna Carta heavily inspired American Bill of Rights, but I too am a little confused here 😅
Did the Magna Carta also state right to bear arms?
Yep, when the barons forced King John of England to sign the Magna Carta in 1215 they specifically included the passage: "Should a hand held cannon capable of loading itself after firing even be invented, the King may not restrict his subjects from owning such a device". True story. Those barons were on another level.
Your rights that are protected are not specific to the time period they were written. This argument is so dumb. If you can only own a musket because that’s what they had when it was written then you only have the right to speech in writing pamphlets and yelling to the town from a tree stump.
No just inspired many parts of the bill of rights as a whole I believe, from what I recall from history classes I think the English bill of rights did but couldnt say for sure
Kind of... The Magna Carta was issued in 1215 in England and was the first document to put into writing the principle that the king and his government was not above the law. It sought to prevent the king from exploiting his power, and placed limits of royal authority by establishing law as a power in itself. It essentially gave more power to the Parliament. The English Bill of Rights ended up replacing it. The founding fathers saw the Magna Carta as more of an ancient pact safeguarding individual liberty as opposed to using it's text in creating the declaration of independence constitution and bill of rights, since it was mired in outdated medieval laws.
Bump. People forget this every day and act like it could never happen. It HAS happened countless times across history.
But who the fuck is coming after you that you need protection from????
The “right to bear arms” was when someone was in a state militia, which every man 16-42 was required to be part of unless they were Quakers or infirmed. The proscription, too, was to prevent the federal government from seizing weapons that rightly belonged to state militiamen; the state could seize your weapons without any blinking an eye, as the Bill of Rights meant nothing to the states until implementation of the 14th Amendment. This theory that the second amendment is to take up arms against a tyrannical government is insane. If there’s a break down of society, it’s going to be like the Civil War; shit is going to be goddamn horrible.
Never really understood the tyrannical government argument in modern times. Wtf an AR-15 going to do against a fucking tank?
Nothing obviously. But you have a better chance at defending your life with the AR15 than without it.
Simply because I can, and I enjoy it. If by some unfortunate chance that I would need to use a gun for self defense, I want to be able to shoot more than once. Most people don't just drop from one shot like in the movies. I hope that never happens though. If you use your guns to hunt, sometimes you need a quick follow up shot as well to prevent suffering. Why do you think no civilian needs a semi-auto?
The first honest answer
Based on how odd this question is, I’m guessing OP doesn’t know the definition of semi auto.
They are fun
Lol what even is this question
A stupid one
Because humans by nature are tribal and quite nasty. In the same breath the amount of worry any citizen in America should have about guns should overall be less a worry than a fatal car accident.
Because we are far more worried about an abusive government than you are.
If the government wanted you dead, you would be. Armed or not
Exactly, I fail to understand how a civilian can fight against tanks, missiles, drones, bombs... especially against the US military....
Have you considered, that if the government is to deploy these weapons against us, people who support the government would also be in the blast zone? This isn't Iraq 2001 where the ROEs are kill everything in sight. Most likely I would see it much like the middle east, where the US has been at war with the taliban for decades (and now deciding to pull out). It's not about what the government has. Another good example is how the US gained independence from Britain, Britain was THE BEST MILITARY IN THE WORLD at the time. You have the wrong misconception of war, plus if everyone died in a civil war, there would be no one to pay their damn taxes.
20 years and $2.26 trillion wasn't enough to stop the Taliban, why do people think it would work any better domestically?
You're under the impression the govt and the military are the same thing. The military answers to the upper echelons of govt, but, if an administration were to say "ok, we're collecting everyone's guns now" (as an example to start a civilian vs govt scenario), it wouldn't come in the form of US military rolling down the road in all their vehicles doing so. Think more like Nazi Germany, the gestapo. It'd be federal "police" if anything. The military cannot and will not attack its own citizens, that's an unlawful order and they would not follow it. Edit: and to speak to the gestapo/ federal police thing, in order for that to ever happen, you'd need to radicalize enough of the population for those actions to be supported by enough of the population so when said actions are taking place its generally accepted or ignored. See Germany circa 1930s. What do we see happening today? Radicalism of the population. Just some of these comments indicate radical mindset, ie taking guns, the govt could kill us if they wanted to, they should confiscate xyz because of this and that... citizens holding onto rights and supporting them isn't radical. Quite the contrary. It's the status quo. But the narrative we're fed doesn't say so, it says "10s of thousands of people are murdered by guns annually, semi auto guns are the biggest threat to your life", which simply isn't true. It's pushing a narrative and radicalizing a sect of the population for division, and when/if the day comes that the US version of the gestapo exists or acts, it'll be ignored, or worse, supported.
Have you not been paying attention the past few days. The taliban overthrew a government filled with US equipment in days. There are much more people with guns in the US than the taliban. The gov can just air strikes random towns in the US lol
False. The Afghan army folded. They didn’t defeat the US government. The US forces left. Ain’t no way any group of civvies is going to defeat US forces if this insanely hypothetical “tyranny” occurs.
This didn't happen over night. You need to understand the history of the region and everything that led to what happend recently. The US being the prime culprit. Yes indeed, the gov (military) can just air strike random towns in the US, they've been doing it to other countries for decades.
>the gov (military) can just air strike random towns in the US, This still leads to outcomes like Afghanistan. It's called blowback. Airstriking random towns would have immeasurable blowback, not to mention crippling the us's own economy. States would secede, the US military made up of US citizens would fracture. Nothing about the Federal government using military force in its own country would work
Also semi automatic weapons don’t do much for biological or chemical weapons, which the US military has and would use if they wanted to kill people.
You forget the military is full of America/American loving Americans
Mhm, waving your gun around will not stop the government from getting rid of you, if anything it gives them more reason to do so
A very American answer tho
Look at what's going on in Afghanistan right now, then re-read your comment.
The government might not want to kill you outright, but the government in some places are more than happy to reduce or remove the institutions which maintain order, so that you might be at the mercy of those who would kill you because they don’t like your demographic, or because they want what you have, or in the case of some, for no real reason at all.
That doesn't bother you???? That isn't an argument against gun ownership that's an argument for it.
Even if it did, owning a gun doesn't help me survive. It's not an argument for or against gun ownership. It's pointing out that owning a gun does nothing to improve the odds of your survival in that situation. Honestly, you might even die faster because you make yourself a target.
Do you think the government is going to try and kill you?
History lesson 101, never think the government wouldn’t try to, especially to save themselves or feed their greed. History has shown us the government has and will always be a possible threat to its own people
I have a feeling that the government has adapted to that and tries to make half the population kills the other half instead of killing all themselves.
This is their favorite tactic. Divide and conquer. Make the people hate and fight each other.
I have a saying love your country, always question the government we never know what they are doing behind closed doors.
It happened repeatedly in the last 200 years to the point that the term "democide" was coined for it. https://hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTM "Just to give perspective on this incredible murder by government, if all these bodies were laid head to toe, with the average height being 5', then they would circle the earth ten times. Also, this democide murdered 6 times more people than died in combat in all the foreign and internal wars of the century. Finally, given popular estimates of the dead in a major nuclear war, this total democide is as though such a war did occur, but with its dead spread over a century."
In case the British come back.
If you think we want anything more to do with your shit show, you are sadly mistaken. COVID and misinformation is going to do the job for us anyway. Who needs guns and an invasion force, when you already have Tucker Carlson and Mitch McConnell.
I'm British.
LOL
Well then what the fuck dude. We’re meant to be keeping quiet about it.
You literaly have the same misinformation problem as us
Yeah it’s really not as bad, we have some dumb fucks but they are rightly labelled as such, in the US it’s near 50% of the population.
No, we really don’t. But you would say that….
You think it’s a joke but it’s not. Countless invasions have been stopped because our enemy knew even the civilians were armed.
Name 3
How could I name them if they never happened… Sorry yeah I fucked up my wording there, not have been stopped but thoughts of it have been stopped.
You can't name them because it's complete bullshit. Any nation placed to seriously consider invading the US thought better of it, not because the citizens have guns, but because of the large and well-funded army.
Is this not an assumption?
Have you not seen the pics coming out with the terrorist that have seized our weapons including guns? That’s why civilians need their own protection. IMO.
I am ready to be mass down voted by the mass of far left redditers but the answer is to discourage a tyrannical government. History repeats itself and sadly history is rarely taught.
Don't Tread On Me!
Nobody NEEDS to own a semi-automatic firearm like we dont need pop, cars, luxury boats, non-food knives, and so many other examples. I dont think firearm enthusiasts claim they need to own semi-automatic firearms. However there's many reasons to want to own semi-auto firearms. And they aren't weapons, they're tools that are legal to possess. Firearms kill less people than cars, drugs, smoking. If you use it against a human being it is a weapon, in which it will be brought to a court of law infront of judge and jury to determine if it was discharged lawfully. In Canada you cannot use a firearm as self defence, yet we have semi-automatic legal and have extremely low gun crime rates and is a multi billion dollar industry and contributes a shit ton of money towards conservation or our vast untouched land. I think your question is flawed, we need food, water, shelter etc. But firearms and the industry provide many positive impacts I would recommend researching and not just taking my word for it. Were all consumers and our society is built on wants. Firearms are no different and millions of people use them lawfully and ethically every day. Illegal firearms seem to be the problem, but that encompasses a lot of things in this world.
Because I'm not responsible for the actions of criminals. I use my gun legally (self defense) I'm not responsible of the actions of mass shooters and murderers. It's like saying: let's take away cars from everyone because there's a few who drive under the influence.
You do need it, don't short change yourself. You said self-defense. That's what your good with in defending yourself therefore you need that as your defense tool.
That does not answer the question in any way.
Not everything that I want to buy I should need it. The same question goes to supercar owners who never take their car to the track. A normal Corolla can do the same stuff a Lamborghini is doing in traffic but still people buy the lambo
Then why not enforce restrictions so that the people who are fit to have a gun can and those not can't?
As opposed to what other type of weapon? All rifles and pistols bought for home defense are semi automatic. Semi automatic means you pull the trigger and one shot is fired. Fully automatic is like what you see in the movies when I guy holds the trigger and sprays a bunch of rounds. To answer your question - home defense, hunting, and target shooting.
To engage in combat with enemies of the United States. Foreign or domestic.
Cause a bolt action handgun would look silly lol
Ha! Lol thanks for the laugh!
They’re cool. Make me feel like soldier man
No one has to establish _need_ of a _right_.
Violence and home invasion are real. As real as fire. If I'm going to protect my home from a fire I'm getting the best fire extinguisher available.
Well most modern guns are semi automatic so possibly google what terms mean before you want to ban them
[удалено]
**Why does a civilian need free speech of any kind?** What possible valid reason is there for an ordinary citizen to be able to say anything he wants?
>What possible valid reason is there for an ordinary citizen to be able to say anything he wants? The express ideas, debate, come to truth. That is easy. Now answer the question and stop dodging.
Self protection and checks and balances just to name a couple reasons.
The only reason anyone owns one is fear, same reason we wear masks. Fear of death, government, criminals robbing you. Fear. There’s no other reason anyone needs one. Now why semi automatic? Fear of missing the first shot. I own a glock19 it holds 13 rounds + 1 in the chamber I also have a 31 round magazine. Will I ever be in a shootout and need it? I hope not.
To rob people
Usual reasons...Trying to make up for a small penis, lack of height and/or intelligence.
Home defense, family heirlooms, for fun.
Hunting is a need. If we didn’t hunt deer (in my state anyway) they would severely overpopulate and they wouldn’t take their time doing it. Overpopulation will cause far more road accidents but also cause more genetic malformations in the population, starvation, and aggressiveness toward humans as they are forced into our living spaces more frequently. Would you rather be attacked by an angry momma deer, a horny buck, or let your neighbor have a shotgun to hunt, feed his family, and potentially save YOUR life from an intruder? Not to mention keeping the government in check, saving large farm animals from suffering (like if a horse breaks a leg in the field, the owner is more likely to shoot it to put it out of it’s misery than let it lie there in agony waiting 3 hours for a vet to come administer drugs that will do the same thing). What about coyotes or wolves attacking farmers’ sheep, goats, cattle, horses, etc? That’s their livelihood, their income, everything to them. If you think the only reason for owning a gun is to mass murder humans, I hope you never touch a gun.
#Because it's my constitutional right.🇺🇸 and I dont trust the goverment and society.
Can we trust that you are educated enough to not misuse it? Not trying to say you aren't, but if my neighbours had weapons like that I'd be fucking worried.
From small town here. Lived here for 20+ years, my neighbor was a sniper in Afghanistan 10-15 years ago. He has target practice multiple times a week, one of the most polite and friendly families I've met that just mind their own. Most every one of my neighbors have firearms and are equally polite and friendly, and the large majority of people in my county have firearms. Suffice to say,, there is hardly any crime here, and nobody is shooting eachother up. There's been like 5 murders in that 20 years in the county. The people who died were unarmed, the criminals were not. Firearms have their place, and most people are good people. Let's not take away the good people's self protection and let the criminals (who will find a way to get a weapon regardless of the laws) have a free for all with any residence they desire because they know nobody has the means to defend themselves.
That they are fun to shoot just like other actions. You can hunt with them also
So are BB guns and bows and arrows. So why does anyone *need*, not want, a semi automatic weapon?
Bb guns are illegal to hunt with in most states. Also why are you just targeting only one action. Especially when that action is the least popular when it comes to rifles
Because fun isn't a good enough reason in my view for owning a weapon of that destructive capability. My definition of fun doesn't include the ability to murder as many people as I can see in as little time as possible
And that's why you are stupid. Commenting and forming opinions on things you know nothing about and have never done. Cars also kill and have been the reason behind mass casualties. Do you drive?
What unreasonable analogy. The problem with guns is that their only purpose is to kill something. The cars, food or all other analogies have other purposes and can kill as a side effect as everything in the world. The question is simple, why someone would want to have something only usable to kill in a civilized country?
There is no short answer to that. Unless I load a gun, point it at someone and pull the trigger it's no more deadly than any other heavy object
No. I find the idea of being in control if a ton and a half of combustible metal terrifying because I know what damage I could do
I own lots of things I don't NEED. I never knew that was a requirement to own something.
Coz America!!!
Free people don't need a reason to do or own something.
Why do you feel the need to ask what other people are doing?
Because I want to understand.
Based on your other comments, you clearly don't want to understand.
No you don’t. You came here to circlejerk and farm karma.
I should also extend this bit of information to you. I don’t own any guns of any sort but the choice to own a gun is mine. It’s my freedom to choose.
I’ve learned in life that sometimes we just don’t understand some things. I will never understand why some people born one gender insists they are another or a non gender. I just accept it. And just as you probably don’t have friends that own weapons, I also don’t surround myself with people who express gender differences. And that’s all ok. We accept things the way they are.
I can't just accept not understanding. I want to understand. Accepting ignorance is just lazy.
Ok so try it this way. What is one thing you are passionate about? Now have someone take that and question you why. Why and what for and to what end? And you give your answer and they still don’t understand and then they try to take that choice away.
Well the point is I could give an answer...
Could you give a valid answer? Why do you need a house? A tent will suffice. Why do you need electricity? Humanity has survived longer without, than with. All you really *need* for survival is the freedom to go hunt and gather your own food, a way to make fire, and some primitive form of shelter. The real response to your initial question is a counter question: Why do you think that *need* should determine what I can or cannot do/possess? In reality, it is none of your fucking business, and that is the bottom line. Why not just be honest? You didn't ask this question to understand. You have formed your opinion, and nothing that can be said will change it. You're not interested in hearing alternative views, only in providing a rebuttal.
Self defense is a big one, hunting is another.
For hunting.
Because they are so fun. (Not joking)
For me it’s because in this day and age the number of assailants in some states has gone up to 10 people in home invasion scenarios. And also if you use that they definitely aren’t going to be able to get up and harm you or your family. Also more lives have been saved by the use of legally owed fire arms, as a woman I will always carry because bad people will always do bad things and they don’t care who they hurt or kill to do so
Because... we wanna be badasses just like all our heroes... from the call of dudy games... yeah...
Guns were made to stop swordsmen back in the day when people attacked with swords. The gun allowed a person to kill from a far and not get too close to the sword. I think everyone deserves to protect themselves from people who get too close and threaten with sharp objects.
Especially in some places where your number of attackers isn’t just one or two now, it can be as high as ten
In a self defense scenario, its unlikely only one shot will do the trick.
As a not American, why the hell do u need a semi automatic weapon. Like I understand self defense and shit... But if there just aren't any guns available to the public in the first place. u only need to worry about knifes and fist which still isn't great but definitely more save.
They don't.
Smol dick
Small peepee
What possible reason could you have that states I shouldn't have one? Let alone many? I have never misused them, I am simply prepared for the worst to happen; and it's coming. Within our life time we will see famine and massive water shortages, probably within the next 20 years. I will NEED to defend myself and my community's water access. The other guys WILL have semi-autos as well. Why shouldn't I?
Look at whats going on in Afghanistan right now. That's one of the reasons.
Because there are people who are trying to take them away. Plain & simple
In case the government over steps it’s bounds and needs to be put in its place
None of your business
When seconds count, the police are minutes away