Actually .. nobody really "Needs" a gun ... Until they really need it!
(Criminals .. subconsciously provide Society a service in their ineptitude; they prove the concept that everybody needs to provide for their own defense!)
Witness this incident where they attempt to attack an Armed Citizen in his home ... and are foiled by an A Man With A Gun
Kentucky homeowner shoots at intruders: WARREN COUNTY, Ky. (CNN Newsource) - A violent home invasion was caught on camera when four men burst through the door of a home in Kentucky, but they soon discovered the man inside was already armed. The home security cameras caught what happened next.The consequences of this foiled "Home Invasion" was, of course, that the armed home-owner was able to interrupt their plans by the simple display of a firearm.
It's "axiomatic" that the Left should encourage the concept that "nobody needs a gun".
Perhaps the graphic evidence that a man with a gun was able to thwart the expectations of people who are bold enough to rob an occupied residence ... suggests that the Second Amendment is still pertinent.
"When seconds are important, the police are only hours away."
Anyone who expects the police to protect them from immediate threats by criminals, is naive. At best. Stupid .. at worse, because when you really need a gun, the police are minutes away.
(Their only duty is to clean up the mess when your wife and daughter have been killed because you couldn't protect them. Sorry if I seem overly critical, but they are not charged to "Protect You", regardless of the motto their car.)
There is no police force in the nation which accepts the responsibility to protect you from casual violence; the best they can do is to collect evidence and hope to find murderers "after the fact"; they are not liable to civil suit for their failure to protect you, irregardless of their common motto "To Protect ... And To Serve".
Yes, I've said almost all of this before. You need to be aware that there is NOBODY who is going to protect you.
You need to protect yourself ... and your family, and your home.
If you are not armed in your home, you need to buy a gun and learn how to use it responsibly.
Wikipedia suggests that there is approximately one gun per home in America.
(Actually https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership )
393 million guns for 326 citizensDoes this sound like "Too Much"?
I don't think so. I own a couple of dozen guns myself, and every one has a different purpose .. for varying criteria of competition, and also home defence.
(There are different needs for "home Defense" versus "Personal Defense".For people who have no experience with firearms, all of these variants seem obvious: "Why Do You Need So Many bullets?" for self-defense.
For example, I need concealability for Personal Defense, but I need high-round capacity for Home Defense. And I also shoot "competitively", which has an entirely different requirement for Match Meets.
Don't even ask me about "hunting",)
The answer is equally obvious; you never know how many bullets you will need in a self-defence situation.'
For those who would assign an arbitrary number of bullets allowable to a gun, I suggest that they don't know what they are talking about; for each specific situation where an armed citizen needs to defend him/herself, a number of rounds fired versus the number of rounds needed to reduce the threat, may vary.
Most people aren't currently proficient with their firearm. Which means they haven't gone to The Range to practice. BAD PEOPLE!
( I haven't been to the range in a month, so I'm no better than the people I talk about!)
Having the experience of armed combat (Viet Nam, 1968 - 1970) I know that the number of rounds expended versus the threats eliminated are ... phenomenal.
When you're being fired upon, the rounds expended toward a specific threat are often more intended to threaten the aggressor (keep their heads downthan to actually kill them; essential, you shoot to threaten your opponent more than to fulfill the expectation that you will kill them before they can kill you.
It's called: "incoming Fire Suppression", and it has been the primary tactical philosophy of American troops for a half of a century.
(Not that it has not been essentially effective; just "making a Loud Noise" and "Returning Fire" has been the most effective tactic of American Infantry for decades; it gives our Infantry something to do, and sometimes actually does succeed in suppressing enemy fire ... if only because they like to see us waste ammunition!)
It's usually better to drive away the guy who wants you to die NOW, than to hit him!
Which leads us to the concept of "Defensive Fire"; which is best defined as "whatever it takes to not get shot, as long as it keeps him from shooting at you ... rather than to shoot the other guy".Why?