Sometimes we as gun owners get a little too logical for our own good, at least when it comes to the arguments we use in defense of our rights. I’m as guilty as some and probably a worse offender than most when it comes to breaking out data points, crime rates, and legal citations to try and prove my point. Meanwhile, it seems like the vast majority of the gun control arguments are based on emotion, from “why do you need that gun? to “If you cared more about children than your guns you’d hand over your assault rifle”.
I’ve seen two excellent responses to the question of “why do you need a gun” recently, and they’re both worth highlighting. At National Review David French reminds us of some of the threats he’s had to deal with over the past couple of years and wonders why he should be outgunned by anyone who might try to carry out one of those threats.
Few things concentrate the mind more than the terrifying knowledge that a person might want to harm or kill someone you love. It transforms the way you interact with the world. It makes you aware of your acute vulnerability and the practical limitations of police protection.
If you’re wealthy, you have a quick response: Hire professionals to help. Let them worry about weapons and tactics. If you’re not wealthy, then your mind gets practical, fast. You have to understand what you may well face. And despite the constant refrain that semi-automatic weapons with large-capacity magazines are “weapons of war,” if you know anything about guns you know that what the media calls a large-capacity magazine is really standard-capacity on millions upon millions of handguns sold in the United States.
This means it’s entirely possible that a person coming to shoot you is carrying something like, say, a Glock 19 with a standard 15-round magazine.