PNW Guns Forum
Go Back   PNW Guns > PNW Guns > Gun Rights

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-23-2016, 04:38 AM   #1
Newbie
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Spokane, WA
Posts: 1
Smile Teaching Europeans: Why we can/should have guns

Born and raised in Spokane, WA, I'm now teaching some classes about guns in the US at a college in France.

I would be really grateful if you could answer this question, so I can give my students some real answers from real people who have guns and support them!

Questions: Why do you own a gun (guns)? (sport, collection, protection, etc.)

Thank you all for your help!
 
Join PNW Guns


Welcome to PNW Guns, a gun and firearm community for gun owners in the Pacific Northwest. We welcome everyone and the community is free to join so register today and become part of the PNW Guns family!


Old 02-23-2016, 08:59 PM   #2
Newbie
 
Dirty Cary's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: clackamas
Posts: 2
Protection and sport, me and my wife both have ccw permits and have
multiple firearms. We go to the range every weekend she was leery of
guns 2 years ago now she has a 380, 38,9mm and a 12 gauge.

Also because MERICA!!!!!!!!
 
Old 02-29-2016, 11:42 AM   #3
Marksman
 
BigStick's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Sherwood, OR
Posts: 371
A gun is a symbol of freedom and independence. It means you don't have to rely on the government (for protection specifically, but the symbolism can be expansively applied). It also means you can say no to the government, and have the power to back that up.

From the practical side, it is also the most effective too for self defense. I believe the saying goes that God created man, Sam Colt made them equal. Without the equilizer, brute strength rules.
 
Old 03-02-2016, 06:35 PM   #4
Gunslinger
 
Trick's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: St Helens, OR
Posts: 45
My greatest need for owning firearms is my love of hunting, second would be sport, third for defense and fourth because I love the feeling of being able to exercise a right that many in this world don't have the ability to exercise themselves.
 
Old 11-21-2016, 03:29 PM   #5
Newbie
 
ShariMetoyerla's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2016
From: LOS ANGELES
Posts: 2
Freedom, Independence and rebellion

America was founded on freedom, independence and rebellion! We as Americans love the fact that we are able to defend ourselves from the government and all entities. In addition to that the right to guns is in our Constitution. Hate it or love it, the Constitution sets the tone and is a guide to the US. We need not interpret it incorrectly and draw irrelevant conclusions like liberals do.
 
Old 11-30-2016, 12:10 PM   #6
Moderator
 
sunofnun's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: s. greenlake bitch
Posts: 1,681
My dad was a gunsmith.. so we have always had them around.

I currently use most of mine for sport, a few for hunting, and a few for protection.
 
Old 11-30-2016, 03:34 PM   #7
Gunslinger
 
TINCANBANDIT's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Auburn, WA
Posts: 63
Read "Why the Gun is Civilization" by Mark Kloos

https://www.teapartycommunity.com/gaca/info/

Why the Gun Is Civilization

By Marko Kloos

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
 
Old 02-08-2017, 08:26 AM   #8
Peashooter
 
Caveman Jim's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: West of Oly
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigStick View Post
A gun is a symbol of freedom and independence. It means you don't have to rely on the government (for protection specifically, but the symbolism can be expansively applied). It also means you can say no to the government, and have the power to back that up.

From the practical side, it is also the most effective too for self defense. I believe the saying goes that God created man, Sam Colt made them equal. Without the equilizer, brute strength rules.
I'm with BigStick, Americans have a right (the 2A) to keep and bear arms that was created to rid America of oppressive rulers (the British) and that is exactly why I keep and bear arms so this does not happen again while I'm on this earth.
Progressive liberals in America (they are no longer Democrats) fear free men and women and try to whittle our 2nd Amendment at every turn. They, to me and many Americans are the British of the 21st century and they too will be dealt with soon enough if they try to disarm us. They are the enemy!!!

I find it ironic that you were born and raised in Spokane, WA and you have to ask other Americans why we have guns.... sorry just my 2 cents.
 
Old 02-08-2017, 08:31 AM   #9
Peashooter
 
Caveman Jim's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: West of Oly
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by TINCANBANDIT View Post
Read "Why the Gun is Civilization" by Mark Kloos

https://www.teapartycommunity.com/gaca/info/

Why the Gun Is Civilization

By Marko Kloos

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
Well said TCB!!!
 
Old 03-29-2017, 05:59 AM   #10
Newbie
 
Joined: Mar 2017
From: NYC
Posts: 1
I came across the same question.
 
Reply

  PNW Guns > PNW Guns > Gun Rights

Tags
can or should, europeans, guns, teaching



Thread Tools
Display Modes



Facebook @pnwguns PNW Guns RSS Feed

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2009 - 2010 PNW Guns. All rights reserved.