Why having gun is so big deal in America? You need guns for what? Hunt? You feel safer with gun? I don't have gun and not going to get one. I know only few people who have gun and some of them are police. Seriously why guns?
For me, I have a gun because I enjoy target shooting. It was something I used to do with my dad starting as a teenager. He has since passed away, so for me target shooting is a nostalgic thing as well as fun. When I'm not using my gun for target shooting it sits locked up in a gun safe. I have a license to carry, but personally I don't feel a need to carry. Others do and that's great for them. To each his own.
Each gun owner has their own reason, but since its our right, its none of your business anyway. Isn't that what this is? An attempt to find the 'crazy' reasons people want to own guns for? Perhaps not, but its our right, our reasons are irrelevant...
Target shooting, self defense, and hunting. My family mainly eats wild game, in the last dozen years have taken three elk, pronghorn antelope, oryx (gemsbok), Barbary Sheep here in NM, and about a dozen wild hogs in TX & OK. Much better than store bought factory meat, these are free-range, organic animals with no antibiotics or hormones. My most recent below.
Because in our country, under our laws, it is a citizen's right to do so and they are not required to justify that to anyone. Do you have rights in your country? Where are you from? What common lawful purposes are guns used for? Self defense, defense of property or one's fellow citizens, defense against tyranny, as part of a militia in defense of the nation, hunting, target shooting, sport competitions, personal protection (being paid to bodyguard someone essentially.), that kind of thing.
Because when seconds count, the police are minutes away. Chances are high that I'll live my entire life without being forced to defend my life. But chances are also high that if I have to defend my life, there wont be any police to help me. I am the only person I can guarantee will be there when I need protection from a violent criminal, and I intend to be prepared. Having a firearm and being proficient in its use will make me more prepared than not having one. Additionally, I also enjoy target shooting at the gun range, gunsmithing, and while the act of hunting doesn't specifically interest me, I have great interest in filling my chest freezer with the highest quality, most nutritious, environmentally friendly and ethically raised meat there is- wild game. Furthermore, here in the US we're increasingly developing political incompatabilities between the metropolitan regions that favor central planning, social conformity and economical codependence, and the rural regions that favor more local representation, social autonomy and rugged, independent individualism. The innevitable, logical conclusion to this trend, should it continue, is forceful aggression by the metropolitan regions to solidify the rural controls that they're increasingly failing to achieve politically. I believe the only thing preventing such a move from happening already is the proliferation of armament throughout the rural countryside. In short, they're eventually going to try to nationalize our resources to disperse to their loyal 'free stuff' voters, but they can't do that while we're all armed to the teeth. Armed to the teeth we intend to stay.
The obvious question of "Why not?" needs to be asked with regard to the above. What ultimate, meaningful difference does it make why anyone in the united states would make the decision to own a firearm, or even a hundred firearms?
I was thinking the very same thing! As a person who does not own or want to own a gun, I frequently ask why other folks have them. I don't challenge them - I'm just curious. Genuinely. But the answer doesn't ever include 'because I can' or 'because its my right'. I realize those things as truisms, therefore it doesn't require being said. And it certainly wouldn't be a great answer, when asked 'why'. Although I'm not a hunter - I respect those who hunt for their food. And I also respect those who want them for protection in their home. Its harder for me to understand the target shooting 'fun' - but then I've never done it, so I can't really comment upon that. I will never understand or support the legal purchase of an automatic weapon. And I'm sure I'll be shouted down for saying so, but that is my opinion, and it is my right to hold it.
It's like having insurance or a seat belt, you hope you never have to use it but if you do and don't have it, it can dramatically change your life for the worse. And most of the gun violence is in the metropolitan areas.
I look at it as being no different than being asked why I drive a truck or why I like to hike and camp. Some people are just curious.
FYI- automatic weapons require the same class of permit from the ATF as rockets, grenades and artillery. It involves extensive BGCs, is somewhat expensive and must be renewed regularly. I would hazard to guess that less than .01% of American gun owners own automatic weapons, and they are liscenced dealers, historical collectors, security contractors, LE or criminals. Automatic weapons have not been available to average joe gun store shoppers for 50 years or so.
If you are an American, or anything for that matter, not wanting a firearm is your right. Btw, for some target shooting is in part a training activity, others competition. For myself, I have never qualified it with the label of fun. For me it’s always been about achieving perfection in skill. Not much different than than for me seeking perfection in a fly cast to a rising trout. Others, do the same with golf. Seeking human perfection... is that fun? Or...
Interesting. I know civilian concealed carry permit holders commit crime at a lower rate than the police do.
First and foremost, firearms and their ownership represent individuality, self-reliance, and self-responsibility. They are also critical, in the event of criminal assault, for defense against that assault. Many people, myself included, are alive today because we had guns and knew how to use them when it mattered. In the end, there is truth in the saying: "A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject."
Maybe it's odd to me because I live in Finland and we don't even talk about guns, some people use them (hunters, police, sport) but in way we don't even notice it. One of my client is former police officer (now retired) and I asked about how often gun was needed - took only twice gun from holster (once per 15 years) and didn't shoot even once (outside of shooting range). Long time ago I was in to martial arts and some police officers was in our dojo - it was pretty fun to punch them in the face without any bad consequences America is place where you have really bad odds to change gun laws or do something else significant for common people's safety (or I'm wrong about this?). Without reducing amount of guns situation will stay as it is now (and may get worse).
Reducing the number of legally owned, legally used firearms in private circulation, will do absolutely nothing to address the countless number of firearms in illegal circulation, nor those that are being used for illegal purposes. These are firearms that have been procured through theft, drug trades, straw purchases that bypass the background check system, or just plain trafficked to the criminal element by those who care more about financial gain than abiding by the law. They are held by those who cannot legally possess them, who have no incentive to surrender them, and who will not comply with whatever restrictions will be implemented or has been implemented. Even if the problem of firearms held by the criminal element were focused on, it would make little difference. Current estimates place the number of firearms in private circulation at just under one half of a billion. Sales records released by the FBI suggest a minimum of forty one thousand more firearms are purchased on a daily basis, or slightly under two thousand firearms every single hour. Focusing on those who legally own firearms is deliberately ignoring the actual problem, because the actual problem is simply too difficult to address. It is nothing more than the notion of trying to cure the sick by providing medication to healthy individuals, while simultaneously ignoring the sick individuals who are actually in need of the medication.
Given you are from Finland, it is entirely understandable you asking the question you did. We have cities that have more population than your country, nearly 50 times your population, vastly more cultural diversity, and significantly high disparity in economic stature. Combine that with much of the History of the US being one of frontier expansion, being self reliant for food and security, a culture of the expectation of individual freedom and self determination, among other factors and there can be no real basis for comparison. I originate from Northern Ireland and have found almost no Americans that can understand the NI culture, it’s recent conflict or it’s simmering tension now, And, though born in the US, making me an American by birth, it took me years to understand the American culture... and in ways I still don’t. I found intersection in the Constitution that appeared to offer contrast to my experience of a Government that selectively enforced law, selectively recognized civil rights only to a priveledged segment of Loyalist population, and had no problem oppressing the lower classes to the point of sanctioned killings. I found the 2A here provided some protection against those intent on my harm but more importantly was symbolic of the individual civil rights I am able to enjoy here. You don’t understand Americans... believe me... they would find Finland’s cuture foreign as well. BTW, in the US, crime seems to follow the temperature. Hmm... US... Finland...Lol
