Do you Really Need a Gun?

[Sparks1957]

This has been an interesting read.

While we're at it, do we really need any of our constitutional rights?

[thedudeabides]

We don't need the first Amendment, the government will decide what is appropriate for us to say--just to make sure everyone is happy and no one is offended.

We don't need guns. That's what the police and army are for. And if you have extra room in your house, they're welcome to stay there.

You don't need protection from unreasonable search and seizure, I mean you're not breaking the law, are you?

And if you break the law, you're already guilty. Right?

There's no need for a jury, and I'm sure your sentence will be fair--whatever it may be.

Still, I'm sure the government knows what's best for you and your state.

[NoGun]

Sparks1957,

While we're at it, do we really need any of our constitutional rights?

I'm not really sure where you are going with this line of reasoning, but I'll play along.

Either a) You are pointing out that the constitution is our protection from government intervention. Therefore a chipping away of one right will lead to others. I would counter with "living document," etc., etc..

Perhaps b) The second Amendment helps guarantee the rest of our rights? I would counter that a gun never guaranteed anyone any more "rights" as I have seen in Africa and other countries. Nor if the government was stripping rights away would you gun prevail against its military.

Or c) I have totally missed where you're going and hopefully you tell me

[NoGun]

@thedudeabides

I don't necessarily see what that all has to do with gun control, so please enlighten me

[grizz223]

No gun

I carry a Taser and a firearm every day as I am a Deputy Sheriff. I can tell you from personal experience that A Taser does not work all the time no matter what you may have heard. If what you say about Tasers were true than I would not need a gun but we do not have a phaser set to stun yet. What you write is out of ignorance because you have never been on the pointy end of the stick as it were. I hope that you and your family never have to face the bad things that are in this world. But as for me and mine, been there done that. I will always carry a gun to protect myself and my family even when I retire from this line of work. I will tell you that criminals run in packs because they are cowardly by nature. So if you think that Tasing one of them will stop an attack you are wrong most of the time plus you will just make the rest of them angrier. However if you draw and point a gun at them all the bravado just goes away most of the time. I hope that you will not respond that because I’m a Deputy that of course I should have a gun because I have been on many a call where a citizen with a firearm ended the problem before I got here.
I do agree that if you cannot kill someone than you have no business carrying a firearm.

[4runnerman]

NoGun-You say guns are meant to kill???..Where did you come up with that Idea?. Gun's can be used to kill,but where not made to kill,They are for self defense or preservation. Gun's to me are another recreational item to pass time,accuire skill's and have lot's of fun. I carry because of a few reason's. The world is not getting better,I am over 50 with a bad back and over weight. I can not run as fast as I used too. God forbid that I ever have to use it in self defense,but I do still value my life and my Family's life very much. To this day I could have left my carry at home and it would have made no difference in my life,but someday that might not be the story. I don't know how old you are,but as I stated I am over 50 and have seen where this world is going. I still live in a town where you shake hands with the police man In church every Sunday,but lot's here do not have that comfort.
I shoot paper only with my rifles. I do not hunt any more as I have lost the intrest in it. We ( hope this is ok with all members in here) as a group of gun lovers in here are not the problem,It's the bad guy's that have guns that are the problem. Your taser means nothing when looking down the barrel of some gun with a deranged person behind the trigger. On a side note--- You taser someone with a pace maker--- you have just killed him. So your taser is a deadly weapon now.

[WeedWacker]

y. Hand grenades would not be prohibitively expensive if a general market existed, nor would fully automatic weapons, C-4, mortars, or mustard gas for that matter.

And why should the law abiding civilian population not be permitted to possess these items? (The cynical side of me secretly thinks it's a good idea based on it will further human evolution)

Re: Mustard Gas - a few household chemicals and a bit of chemistry know how and you can make your own small scale chemical weapons ("Mustard gas" can be home made), even to the point of incendiaries and aerosols. It is easier to obtain legally than high explosive destructive devices per the NFA.

[whippoorwill]

NoGun-You say guns are meant to kill???..Where did you come up with that Idea?. Gun's can be used to kill,but where not made to kill,They are for self defense or preservation.

Of course, guns were made to kill. In our modern society, however, we are fortunate enough to be able to use them for paper punching as well. It is my fervent hope that I never need my firearms for anything other than target shooting and hunting. We are also fortunate that our Constitution allows for their use for protection. By the way, bows and slings were also meant to kill.

[2damnold4this]

I'm not sure on what the claim for Taser effectiveness is based. I haven't seen any police agencies leave their firearms behind in favor of Tasers and I think they have access to better Tasers than the single shot versions available to civilians.

[MLeake]

NoGun,

In no particular order:

1) Thanks for not playing the stereotypical anti, being shrill, or blowing off reasonable answers. That's refreshing.

2) Police have, in addition to handguns (and tasers): body armor; a shotgun and/or rifle in the car; a radio in the car and a radio on their person; help at the other end of the radio, and potentially a lot of help on the way within a minute or two for an "officer needs assistance" call; a maglite, PR-24, or other impact weapon.

(Edit: Depending on the department, the officer may have a partner with him at all times when on duty; in other cases, standard practice for any stop may well be for another officer to automatically drive over preemptively in case backup becomes necessary.)

If the officer, with all those resources, needs all that gear AND still carries a handgun, then why should the rest of us feel that a taser will handle any issue? Granted, the officer is supposed to pursue and apprehend criminals, but at the point when the criminal puts up a fight - that is the same criminal against whom we may have to defend ourselves.

3) Not all tasers have multi-shot capability. Not all tasers will penetrate heavy clothing. The dart type tasers need two good dart points of contact in order to cycle current through the body. Tasers are not non-lethal, either, as they have been known to kill people with heart conditions, cocaine or PCP users, and those in generally poor health at an alarming rate (at least, at an alarming rate for what was supposed to have been a "non-lethal" weapon). Tasers are very limited in range, too. And, in many states, tasers are restricted as heavily as, or even more heavily than, handguns.

(For instance, while there are states like Florida, where with a concealed weapons permit I can carry a handgun, knife, collapsible baton, short barreled shotgun or rifle - assuming I have the stamp for that, taser, pepper spray, etc, there are also states like Tennessee, where it's specifically a "concealed handgun license," and I can only carry a handgun on that permit.)

4) On the Constitutional Rights issue, how strong do you think the First Amendment would remain, if the people allowed their teeth (the Second Amendment) to be pulled? Quite frankly, I WANT the US government to feel at least some trepidation when it considers passing some particularly onerous piece of legislation.

5) Without meaning to sound harsh, who are you to tell me what I need for defense of myself or my family? Are you going to race to our side should an attacker appear? Would you like me to decide what items in your life you really need?

[specs]

Quote:
"While I understand the "Heller" decision and all that, the constitution was framed in a different time. Firearms, and the best, were absolutely necessary then. The same is not so true today. Plus, it is accepted that the 2nd Amendment is subject to reasonable restrictions. We already cannot buy mortars, machine-guns and cruise missiles, for the public good. If, something less-lethal but more effective came along for self defense, wouldn't it be better for society to embrace it and pass semi-automatic firearms into realm of military-only use?"

The two things that come to mind deal with disparity of force and intent. On one hand you posit that non lethal force should be sufficient to prevent being killed by attackers who may be armed with lethal devices of their choice and who also may be in a group of 3 or more who are INTENT ON KILLING YOU while you are only concerned with stopping the attack. Disparity of force.

I am curious as to why you would relegate semiauto firearms to "military-only use" if they are no longer needed for self protection and are capable of subduing evil doers non lethally? Is it because the military and LEOs must deal with numerous murderous violent attackers armed with lethal devices themselves? I submit that I must be as well equipped as possible to protect myself against violent attackers equally well.

Our esteemed VP says "buy a shotgun". He is of the impression that the sound of a shotgun "blast" will cause an intruder to run. Why not just get a recording of an 870 12 ga slide being racked and then the sound of a shotgun "blast"? Foolish eh? Actually, he is partially correct in that the sound of a shotgun being actually fired AT an intruder with the smoke and 00 buck entering just 1 attacker will probably be enough to end the attack and send the others packing. Your taser will not really cause additional attackers to run, they will just tackle you and beat you to death, or stab you to death, or possibly use a lethal weapon like a HiPoint semiauto to shoot you. Meanwhile, your battery is dead and so are you.

[themalicious0ne]

I guess some facts to also point out are:

1. Tasers have a range of 15ft cords or 35ft cords. They have yet to invent one that shoots farther. As far as I know there are only one shot tasers... with three prongs that I know of, but you would have to carry extra cartriges which are very expensive. Also tasers are very prone to static discharge. I have seen many pictures as I have done many reports on tasers of someone loading a cartrige and it automatically shooting into their own hand. Or imagine if you were carrying more in a bag that could go off as well. I do however think that their effectiveness is great, but they also have major limitations. When the come out with their shotgun taser round that has been in developement for years, and if it becomes available to civilians. We would have much greater non-lethal options.

2. When the constitution was written, civillians were able to obtain any and all equipment the military had, including cannons. And they DID own them. Some that could afford it at least.

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away"

[Webleymkv]

There are a couple problems with the notion of "non-lethal" weapons. First and foremost, nearly all of them can, under the right circumstances, be quite lethal. Hit someone in the right (or perhaps wrong) place with an expandable baton, pepper spray someone with a respiratory condition, or taser someone with a heart condition and you may very well kill them. As a matter of fact, many "non-lethal" or perhaps the better term is "less-lethal" devices require just as intensive, if not more intensive, training as a firearm to be both effective and non-lethal.

Secondly, the effectiveness of most "non-lethal" devices is somewhat limited. Even a taser can fail as I can know of an incident in my own community where this happened. In the particular instance, a police officer deployed a taser against a crazed individual wielding a chair. Unfortunately, one of the leads got tangled in the legs of the chair and failed to complete the circuit. To make matters worse, the suspect then grabbed the taser wires and jerked the taser out of the officer's hands. Much chaos ensued and it was only through sheer luck that the suspect was able to be apprehended without shooting him. This is why, even in the age of tasers and pepper spray, that police officers still carry firearms. The unfortunate fact is that the most effective means of stopping a violent attck are also the most likely to be lethal.

Finally, a "less-lethal" device does not have the same deterrent effect that a firearm does. If a violent criminal knows that his intended victim may be armed with a taser or pepper spray, he can be reasonably confident that he won't be killed in the course of trying to commit his crime and, while it may be painful, he may even still be able to get away. If he knows that his intended victim may be armed with a firearm, however, then he also knows that he risks his life in commission of his crime.

The notion that eliminating guns will make us safer is based upon the flawed logic that all guns can be eliminated, they can't. Even in countries where private gun ownership is completely forbidden, there is still at least some gun crime because criminals, by definition, do no obey the law. Even if banning firearms can reduce gun crime (and such has not always proven to be the case in the U.S. as evidenced by Chicago and Washington D.C.'s longstanding gun bans), that is only one type of violent crime. Rather than focusing on the tool that the criminal chooses, I think it would be much more productive to address the overall problem of violent crime.

[Nathan]

This is where this gets funny. You set the trap and some have fallen in. I don't need a reason to own guns I have a constitutional right.


Now, it is said this is all about safety, especially children's safety. So I ask, in the interest of safety, why do you need ladders, cars and bath tubs? I mean the numbers clearly show those 3 as a much bigger risk to your safety. Why aren't the powers that be registering, restricting and working to eliminate these child killers?!


I suspect it is because none of those can be used to fight tyranny. Isn't tyranny the threat the 2A was made to protect against?

What is tyranny? Is it reducing average Americans spending power so you can direct them around by their wallet?

[Dwight55]

No Gun, . . . I looked for and may have missed the answer to a question I will pose to you:

Ever been in a fire fight, robbed at gun point, threatened to die right there, right then, on that spot?

If you answered no to the above, . . . I can easily see where you literally have been sheltered and kept from the fray of real world mayhem.

If you answered yes, . . . there is probably nothing I will ever say that will change your mind. You don't see, comprehend, or appreciate the danger or finality of dying or living in a crippled state.

For the record, there are people out in the real world, . . . and you no doubt have been within bad breath distance of them unknowingly, . . . who would kill you in a heartbeat for your wallet, your wristwatch, or to be able to rape your daughter or your wife. The time was not right for them that day, . . . or you would (if you lived through it) answer yes to my question.

Again, . . . for the record, . . . I have had firearms in my posession for the vast majority of the last 55 years of my life. I, fortunately, have not had to "fully" utilize any of them, . . . but there is no way anyone can guarantee that if they were not there, . . . I would have not been a victim.

I really, really do not want to be a victim, . . . and I really, really will use all 30 rounds in my mags if the bad guys keep coming, . . . you see, . . . they have 30 round mags too. And to pontificate "what if they didn't?" is to deny the absolute reality of the times we live in.

The reality is: we live in a dangerous time, . . . prepare to survive, . . . or prepare for something other than survival. That includes the Monday morning stroll through Wally World as well as the 2:00 am forced trip through the 'hood.

May God bless,
Dwight

[Skans]

My question is thus:

Why, with all the non-lethal self defense options out there today, do you still believe in the right to own modern (semi-automatic) firearms?

Let's use Air Tasers as an example, they are purported to have a 95% stop ratio, which is I believe better than firearms. They can fire multiple shots (3 or more?), they can be as easily reloaded as a common handgun, and they can also be used as a very effective contact weapon.

I know this example is not perfect (I've seen the youtube videos), but neither are guns, from what I'm reading here. It appears, at least to me, to be a very viable alternative to firearms, poses virtually no risk to bystanders, can't be used effectively for mass murder, and if used, will save you from most of the legal trouble most here seem to be worried about.

I am I totally wrong here?

Yes, you are totally wrong, and I do not mean any disrespect in saying this. First, the "right" to own modern firearms is a right that has nothing to do with self defense or hunting. It is a "check" against a tyrannical government that refuses to adhere to the constitution, ignore the rule of law and oppress its people. Joe Biden's 2-shot shotgun plan simply doesn't cut it. This right is every bit as important as the right to a fair trial, freedom of speech, freedom or religion (or no religion), freedom of assembly and all of the other rights guaranteed to us as citizens of the US. This means that we, the people, must be permitted to own the same kind of firearms as those that are hired by us to police us.

Second, lets address just self-defense. A taser is basically a one-shot (or two-shot at best) device that may or may not work on an attacker. They are easily defeated by certain kinds of clothing. They are useless on multiple attackers. Just ask any police officer in LA or Detroit if they would feel comfortable carrying JUST a taser. If that was a requirement, you would have no cops, because who the heck is going to risk their life with just a taser to defend them?

What about stun guns? Ever see the movie Jackass? That's what stun guns are good for - pranksters. Because, you can train (and gangs do train) to defeat stun guns.

Pepper spray might be effective, or it might not be. It is less likely to be effective against those that have experience with tear gas and/or having been sprayed with pepper spray. In other words, experienced rapists, gang-bangers, and thugs will know how to effectively defeat this stuff too.

Well, that's about it for "less lethal" means of protection in a self defense situation. If you don't believe me, do a little research and see how high violent criminal attacks have become commonplace in the UK where guns and most knives have been completely banned. Of course, criminals still have knives and other weapons, its just the law abiding citizens that can't have them. Is that the kind of society you want to live in? One where you are completely defenseless, except if/when you can find a police officer to protect you?

[kirbinster]

Taser, really? In my state they aren't legal, thus it leaves guns. Further, a taser is not going to do much against a guy in heavy winter clothing where it may not even penetrate. A gun is your best defense. Sure when the bad guys break into your house you can call 911. If you are super lucky the cops will be there in two minutes (not in the real world in most places), so what are you going to do for those 120 seconds? That's right you will bleed out so the cops can draw a nice chalk outline around you when they get there.

There are very few legal gun owners that actually ever shoot another human, they have them for insurance. Do you want to have one, maybe not, but don't tell me I can't have insurance. Do you have have homeowners insurance? You don't need to have it (unless you have a mortgage) but it is probably a good choice to have it cause you never know. The same goes for a gun - I don't expect to ever have to use it against a BG, but it is sure nice to know it is there just incase.

BTW - I use mine as a very expensive hole punch - to put lots of round holes in sheets of paper at the range

[UtopiaTexasG19]

Quote by NoGun...
"I think (unfortunately?), we are past the stage where any civilian-available weaponry will prevail against tanks, artillery, drones, air strikes, etc.."

Your quote sounds similar to the old saying that "if rape is inevitable you may as well lay back and enjoy it." All through out history freedom loving people have defended themselves with inadequate tools for defense. This is no reason to just give up and let someone oppress you. On a sheer population basis there are more people on Earth today living under political and religious oppression than in all history.

Also, you might want to look back at recent history. The whole might of the USSR and the United States military, argueably the finest military in the history of mandkind, has not been able to totally defeat the resistance in Afganistan.

I would bet $10 that if you looked back into your family history, no matter where they came from, someone refused to be made a servant of another and give up their freedoms. Without their actions you might not be here now.

[ScottRiqui]

BTW - I use mine as a very expensive hole punch - to put lots of round holes in sheets of paper at the range

Same here. If guns are "only meant for killing people", then I've been horribly misusing mine for the past 30 years!

On a more serious note - NoGun, I'm a little bit disturbed by your statement "the constitution was framed in a different time. Firearms, and the best, were absolutely necessary then. The same is not so true today."

The idea that a fundamental right, specified in the Constitution, should somehow 'expire' or no longer apply just because society has changed is absolutely wrong. It's in the same vein as people who say "the internet has made privacy obsolete", or "why are you worried about being searched, if you have nothing to hide?"

We have to protect ALL of our rights, even the ones we don't think we "need", because once they're given up, we're not likely to get them back again.

[Spats McGee]

First of all, I'd like to commend all of the posters who have participated in this thread. This is one that had great potential to turn south and head into flame-war territory, and I'm glad to see that everyone has been civil.

Welcome to The Firing Line, NoGun! Now, on to your questions:

Originally Posted by NoGun

Why, with all the non-lethal self defense options out there today, do you still believe in the right to own modern (semi-automatic) firearms?

For starters, because the Second Amendment to the US Constitution says that I have a Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The term "arms" includes firearms. In fact, it includes "all arms that constitute bearable arms," according to SCOTUS.

Second, the Right to do something is not predicated on the Need to do it. The 2A is contained in the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. If you begin predicating rights on needs, you run into a whole host of issues. In addition to looking at the rights that an individual needs, we must also look at the rights that society needs for an individual to have. For example:

1. Rosa Parks didn't need to sit in the front of the bus. She would have reached her destination just as quickly and just as effectively, had she sat in the back of the bus. She had a right to sit up front, though. Society needs for her to have that right, too.
2. I, individually, have never needed to exercise my rights to: (a) be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; (b) be free from being compelled to testify against myself; and (c) to be free from cruel and unusual punishments. Nonetheless, society needs for every individual to have that right. (A4, A5 and A8, respectively). Without those three rights, police can go kick in a few doors without warrants and begin torturing whatever unfortunate sould happens to be home into confessing to crimes which they may or may not have committed.
3. Do I, individually, need an AR-15? Probably not. At least, I hope I never have an honest-to-God need for it. Nonetheless, I would submit that society needs for me to have the right to have one. First, to defend my family. Second, to assist in the defense of my country if need be. Or maybe the other way around, and in particular, to defend my country against my own givernment, if necessary.

Third, I've heard the argument, in response to the defense-against-tyranny perspective, that it would be futile for the American citizenry to stand up against our own government. I'm not convinced that such is true, given a couple of factors. My seat-of-the-pants estimate (I'm afraid that I'm without sources on this one) is that there are some 100 million gun owners in the U.S. Michigan licensed some 600,000 hunters a couple of years ago. Presumably, hunters on the average own at least 1 gun each. A few hunters will borrow guns, and some will own more than one. Arkansas has another 130K Concealed Handgun Carry License holders. Most of them do own guns, I suspect, and many own more than one. Extrapolate that out to include all of the other States, throw in a few folks that will defect from the military if ordered to fire on American citizens (quite possibly taking equipment and arms with them), and it begins to look somewhat less far-fetched. Further, the American Revolution was not exactly a done deal. It was a hotly contested idea, whether we should declare independence against our own government, which was a European superpower at the time. Are our rights to be restricted based upon whether we are capable of succeeding at a particular goal?

Fourth:

Originally Posted by NoGun

While I understand the "Heller" decision and all that, the constitution was framed in a different time.

Yes, it was framed in a different time. I've heard it said that "the Second Amendment protects muskets." Muskets were the AR-15 of the day, though. The 2A protected those arms that were in use by the military at the time. The glib response to this is: "If the RKBA only protects muskets, then Freedom of Speech only protects screw-type printing presses." The Supreme Court is much more eloquent in addressing this issue in saying that:

Originally Posted by SCOTUS

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Finally, and while I'm sure I could go on for much further on the RKBA, the comparison to Tasers. Let me start with the caveat that I'm not a techincal guru on Tasers. I'll give Tasers the benefit of the doubt on this and base my two assumptions on things I've read in this thread. Specifically, that: (a) there's a 3-shot Taser available; and (b) that the range is 35 feet. There really is no comparison to the effectiveness of a firearm. What if an active shooter is 36 feet from me? Even if my aim is dead on, there is zero chance that I'll hit the attacker. Second, multiple attackers: If there are 3 attackers inside 35 feet, my hit ratio has to be 100% under stress to stop them all. If you read very much about gunfights, you'll see that the stress, adrenaline and the fact that attackers are moving targets makes this extremely unlikely. If I miss one shot, I'm in deep doo-doo. Third, batteries. I can put a loaded revolver in my nightstand and leave it loaded for 15 years. Should I need it, I can reasonably expect it to go bang. If it doesn't, I can just pull the trigger again. Can I do that with a Taser? I don't know, but I have my doubts. (I also have some doubts about that 95% success ratio on Tasers, but that's a debate for another day.)

[Skadoosh]

I will add to Skans excellent post by highlighting an important point, which you brushed upon earlier with:

Nor if the government was stripping rights away would you[sic] gun prevail against its military.

Don't be so sure. History is FILLED to the contrary.

Keep in mind that a rag tag bunch of colonials sent the world's #1 army/navy packing; a bunch of mountain men sent a superpower home in shame and is keeping another extremely busy. The civil wars in the middle east (Egypt, Libya, Syria) are perfect examples of how a few rifleman can overthrow a superior-armed and militarized tyrannical government.

You underestimate the resistance fighter. Even Dr Ruth Westheimer was a trained sniper and scout.

[Chris Van]

I just have to ask, if you are "anti-gun", what brings you to a firearms discussion forum in the first place?
It appears to me that you are simply here to stir up controversy. I say this with all due respect and I applaud you for sticking to your beliefs but I'm sure there are plenty of anti-firearm forums for you to visit.
I am certainly not looking for a debate from you. Just curious of your reasons.

[Skadoosh]

Did you read the original post??

[45_auto]

Why, with all the non-lethal self defense options out there today, do you still believe in the right to own modern (semi-automatic) firearms?

Most local police forces and sheriff's departments have reserve divisions made up of dedicated local civilians. I would suggest that you join one of those and get some first-hand experience with the mind set and actions of the criminals you're trying to stop from committing violent deeds against you and your family. You may change your mind about willingly giving up your right to own modern (semi-automatic) firearms.

Nor if the government was stripping rights away would you[sic] gun prevail against its military.

Recent history has many times proven the falsehood of that statement. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Chris Van

I just have to ask, if you are "anti-gun", what brings you to a firearms discussion forum in the first place?

NoGun explained in in his opening post:

Originally Posted by NoGun

I feel after a title like that, a brief explanation is in order. I am not a gun owner, in fact, I have been debating the merits of gun ownership with a member of this site! In several of our arguments he looked up information posted here, and I was intrigued for a look into your "world." Therefore, I "stalked" (believe is the proper word), you all! I was surprised, and I mean no offense by it, to find the very intelligent and articulate group of individuals that makes up this forum.

I am not here to flame or troll, but I was hoping that maybe you could provide some perspective for an "outsider." And I look forward to discussions with you all.

There may be "plenty of anti-firearms forums" for NoGun to visit, but he chose to come here for a civil discussion. Frankly, we should take thses opportunities to rationally & civilly discuss our position with those who do not necessarily share our perspective. If we cannot or will not discuss it, we will never convince others that our perspective has merit. If I've said it once, I've said it a dozen times: Right now, the gun community needs good ambassadors. This is a chance to be one.