In my post regarding the purchase of my M44, commenter DC decries

the only thing guns are good for, is putting holes in things ( and people )

In reply, I said:

Actually, that's one thing they do.

They're also good for the enjoyment people get out of target practice. They provide a good hobby for some of us reloaders to try to get the best ammunition possible. They provide an equalizing force for people like my 98 pound mother who can take on a 300 pound linebacker. They provide an extra bit of safety against home invaders. And they serve as a reminder to our government who's really in charge.

However, if you're really against guns DC, please let's have a conversation. No snark, no name calling, no exaggerations or hyperbole. Let's get the facts out, shall we?

DC replied with:

Shawn/ Robb Allen,

I am not a marine nor am I in the army or navy, or police, so I have no need for something that might end up killing a family member. ( accidents )

And why would I call you a name?
DC

Now, I really wanted to have a decent conversation here. I have a bad habit of being snarky so I wanted to really concentrate on what I wrote since I'm not here to insult, but to teach. Commenter Thane did it for me and with such clarity that this deserves to be highlighted on the front page.

DC,

"Need" is not relegated to job descriptions, nor to combat pay. The grandmother who defends her ailing wheelchair-bound emphasymic husband from a 23-year-old burglar receives no compensation nor endorsement for her actions; nevertheless, she needs her .38 Special revolver just as much as the Marine in Fallujah needs his rifle. The single mother of four who defends her children from a pedophilic ex was not issued any weapon; yet her need for the means of defense is no less for lack of sanction. The pizza delivery driver who goes into gang-infested ghettos just to earn a meager living is not in the army, navy, or police, yet his 9mm may save his life from a strung-out coke addict.

Neither the grandmother's revolver nor the single mother's weapon nor the delivery driver's semi-auto are capable of killing anyone on their own. And so long as the owners are careful and responsible, accidents will not happen, either.

Yes, accidents are always possible, so long as people are people. Yet despite the (many) guns I own, I am many thousands of times more likely to die on the highway on my routine trip to and from work, than I am to die from any gunshot wound, accidental or otherwise. I have had two good friends killed in automobile accidents, yet none who were shot. Would it not then make sense to refuse to own a car?

I own guns, first and foremost, because the possibility of need is there. No, there has not been any immediate need, but there have been many cases where I -could- have needed one, had the situations "gone bad." I am truly fortunate, in that none of those situations did go bad - the drunk who outweighed me by 2:1 was held back by his friends, the attacking dogs have all been caught/restrained by their owners, and the muggers decided not to go after me. Yet, had the timing of events in any of those cases been off by less than a second, had I not responded "correctly," my life could have been in immediate danger, and the need for a weapon paramount.

I own guns, secondly, because I can. This is a free country, and just like there I have the freedom to speak, to vote, to pray, and to gather with others, I also have the freedom to own the means to my defense. I would not give up any of those freedoms.

And thirdly, I own guns because I want to. I find them to be enormous fun, as a hobby responsibly practiced. The challenge to self of constant improvement in marksmanship, the incredibly loud boom of a rifle, the instantaneous reaction of a milk jug filled with water to a shotgun slug - all these are rest and relaxation to my mind.

Many people in the USA do not own guns, for various reasons. For some, they prefer to defend themselves with their hands. Some choose not to as they simply don't enjoy them. And some never even think about them. Hopefully, none of these people will have need of a firearm; many are fortunate enough not to be thrust into that kind of situation.
If you choose not to own a gun, make that choice because it's what you've decided is best, not because you've written it off as "I'm not police/army/marine/etc., and therefore don't need one." If you choose not to own a gun, make that choice because you've decided you don't want one, not because you're afraid it will just go off. Make that choice, founded in good judgment and knowledge, not out of ignorance.

And if you've already done that, state so. The old "fall-back" reasons you gave are just that; if you simply don't enjoy them, most folks will respect that.

As for "name-calling," I hope you'll pardon Robb Allen's reaction; it's quite understandable, considering that a great many "anti-gunners" fall back on just that, and so make us "pro-gunners" (as one might call us) understandably leery. I believe he was simply trying to "head off at the pass" any such actions.

I couldn't have said it better. In fact, I didn't. My first reply was so borderline snark that I had to delete it.

Pass this on to your friends. Please link to it, copy it, get it out there.