Why would anyone need several handguns?

[Toronto]

I observed one poster on this site that mentioned that they already had several handguns, but was planning on buying three more. The poster did not indicate that they were a collector. So why would a person with only two hands, need 5 or 7 or 10 handguns? The term "gun nut" is bandied about frequently. Would a person owning multiple handguns be a "gun nut"? What is a gun nut. I could understand guns with different purposes, but multiples of the same purpose - what end does that serve? I invite gun owners to respond. For anti-gun posters, I would ask that you confine your comments to rational cogent arguments, and not rude and insulting comments which serve no purpose other than to polarize opinion.

[gejohnston]

1. collectors perhaps?

Some collectors specialize in specific things. But then, why does anyone need most of the junk in garages and storage units? There are people with more cameras than they have use for. I think it is part of the same thing. Materialism. Personally, I have what I can uses with as little redundancy as possible. I'm not a stuff person. The only exception is something unusual or unique. Have no use for a Walther TPH, but they are rare and Walthers, so I would make an exception. Other than that, I have a couple of rifles and a couple of pistols, and I don't plan on shopping anytime soon. But, that's me.
Ultimately, because they can and they want to. As long as they are secured and and responsible, so what?

[Toronto]

2. That's the problem, this person didn't state that they were a collector.

I question whether these are the people who are causing problems for others. Simply amassing large quantities of guns for no purpose. Having one gun stolen is bad enough, but having many stolen is worse. So many on this site are not weapon owners. I get the impression that many Americans do not own weapons. So are there hoards of weapons in the hands of the few?

[krispos42]

5. I think the average gun owner owns about 4

Spread out over rifles, shotguns, and handguns.

I have at least one of all three. Two were given to me.

[gejohnston]

9. depends on the poll you see

about one in three households. Maybe one if four. About the same as Canada and Norway. Maybe a few percentage points higher. We have more people too. They say 300 million. I don't know how many guns there actually are or how it was calculated. Some rust away in attics, get melted down, etc. Are those still counted as being in circulation? Don't know. That includes antiques that are passed down. Harriet Tubman's guns are still in her family, so I understand. Ultimately, the issue isn't how many there are, the issue is who has them.
Some of the pro control people are gun owners, but think there are should be stronger regulations. Other gun owners disagree. Of course, people are not always honest with pollsters. If someone phoned me out of the blue asking about "do you own valuable items that would sell on the black market and could be used to kill people" I'd lie to them. Many people would. ATF is the same way. If you ask them how many registered machine guns there are, they will give you a total number. If you ask how many are registered to police departments, privately owned, or inoperable museum pieces, they won't tell you. They know, but won't release it.
I'm more concerned with keeping mine secured, educating others to keep theirs secured, and fixing the root causes of our social ills instead of using band-aids and duct tape.
Brady and the NRA are talking band-aids and duct tape. I would like to see grown ups from all sides, esp those not connected with the gun issue either way, work together. Unfortunately, the conversation on TV is among extremists and idiots. The extremists are mentioned above and the idiots are TV pundits ranting on subjects they know nothing about. If there is an argument to be made for or against arming teachers, for example, they should made by people who are knowledgeable in security and firearms training. Instead, talking heads who have no such qualifications (I wonder if many of them are actually qualified to be journalists) using personal attacks as their only argument. No, I have little to no respect for pundits left or right.

[Toronto]

22. I agree with you

The media is polarized and doesn't do much to contribute to the solution. That will only come from civilized dialogue from rational people.

[Eleanors38]

45. Respectfully, the media is not "polarized." Most is stridently anti-gun.

Even a cursory review of MSM's role on the issue of guns will reveal an almost uniform editorial stance, and news "story" slant hostile to civilian gun-ownership; even Fox must deal with its authoritarian anti-gun owner. In a way, the poor fortunes of gun banners have fallen along with the influence of their chief political action committee: MSM. This is why MSM will feature the extremes. They are caught up in the issue.

NPR has an on-going angle of post-shooting coverage in which (just last night) they featured the actions of reporters interjecting themselves recklessly into the gun issue.

One guess as to which side.

[Toronto]

67. OK. I stand corrected.

Main stream media is polarizing the issue, rather than offering each side a chance to contribute to the debate.

[Eleanors38]

82. It would be nice if MSM would check in with someone else other than the NRA. nt

[echo216610]

100. well stated

[Lizzie Poppet]

3. I can see a couple of reasons.

Heck, I suppose I embody a couple reasons: I own three handguns. Here's why:

One of my handguns is a large one, at least for my fairly small hands, a 1911-pattern semiautomatic (think: classic GI "Colt 45 auto," although mine's actually a Les Baer). It holds 10 rounds in its magazines and is chambered for the .38 Super, a cartridge that in the loads I use is more powerful than a 9mm but not as powerful as a .357 Magnum. This is my primary home defense weapon and the pistol I enjoy practicing with the most. It can be used for concealed carry, but really only under heavier winter clothes for a small person like me. It's too big and bulky under lighter clothing (and it's heavy).

I also have a small concealed carry Smith and Wesson 908, a thin handgun that holds 8 9mm rounds. This is my usual concealed carry pistol. It's much lighter than the 1911 and fits under lighter clothing.

The third handgun is a .22LR rimfire target pistol. That cartridge isn't considered nearly enough for self-defense purposes (although no one would ever enjoy being shot with it); that gun is just for "plinking" at a considerably reduced cost compared to the other two (.22lr ammunition is very cheap). It's actually a pretty nice one, suitable for competition use...but the only competition shooting I've ever been into was with rifles.

I suppose in some eyes that makes me a "gun nut" (I hate terms like that, which include an element of disparagement, but sometimes they come into such common use that you just have to deal with them). But each of these pistols serves a distinct purpose...and if I got into other types of pistol shooting, none of them might suit, either. Handgun hunting, for example...although I have no interest in hunting with any type of gun (or anything other than a camera, actually).

Thanks for the politely-stated, honest question. Hope the thread stays civil!

[krispos42]

4. Several reasons.

A .22 is a good training gun. Low recoil, low noise, cheap ammo. Great to practice with, to introduce somebody to shooting, or just relax with a few tin cans and a brick of ammo.

A compact handgun is something you carry when you carry concealed. Think a classic stubby .38 Special or Walther PPK in .32 ACP. Such a gun is optimized for small size and light weight, so it can be carried unobtrusively. If you carry concealed, you might have a couple of different types for different seasons or combinations of clothing. Maybe in the summer you need a really small handgun that can be tucked in the small of the back under a t-shirt, but in the winter you can get something a bit larger and gloved-hand friendly that you can carry on your hip.

A full-size handgun is something you'd want to keep near the bed. Think Glock 17 or a Model 1911. Longer barrel means more velocity as well as better accuracy with iron sights. More size means more rounds, which means less chance of running out, as well as room to add accessories like flashlights and laser sights. And the extra weight means less felt recoil and/or more powerful cartridges.


That's the general run of "serious" guns. If you have a big house, maybe you'd keep a gun by the front door in case the delivery guy isn't really a delivery guy as well as gun by the bed. And maybe you want "his and hers" guns by the bed anyway.



Recreationally, you can have guns for cowboy action shooting (think of a pair of 6-shooters), or for competitive shooting (race guns). You can also use them for hunting; this is popular for hunting wild boar (fast shots at close range in dense vegetation) and deer from a deer stand (handgun is easier than rifle).




Like any tool, you can get by with a couple of general-purpose ones, but you can specialize for better results.

Maybe you can keep the deer/boar handgunnext to the bed for self-defense (loaded with reduced-power rounds, not hunting rounds), and carry a pistol that somebody makes a .22 conversion kit for. And if your deer/boar gun is also a single-action cowboy-style gun, then you can also do some cowboy-action shooting.



Remember, at best you can only shoot two at a time, and even that's kinda questionable.

[Toronto]

6. To the last two posts,

If you are keeping guns bedside at night, are you securing them in a gun safe by day?

[sarisataka]

11. Though I was not one of the last two

yes, if the gun it not physically on me, it is locked up. At night I use a electronic safe with a simple finger push button combo. It keeps the gun out of curious hands but can be accessed in 2-3 seconds.

[gejohnston]

12. ideally,

http://www.gunvault.com/handgun-safes/biometric-gun-safes.html
something like this. Especially if you have small kids.

[Toronto]

39. Should this type of gun safe or something meeting the same

standard be mandatory to prevent theft?

[Eleanors38]

48. The discussion of security/legal liability was discussed yesterday in...

In a thread. One the posters evidently could not be satisfied by any of the gun safe solutions proffered, holding to a position that ANY stolen gun would make the owner liable.

This country is a punishment culture, no matter how liberal and compassionate some think they are.

[Lizzie Poppet]

52. I advocate such measures.

It might suffice to simply institute penalties should an unsecured weapon fall into the hands of a criminal, harsher if the weapon is used to cause harm. The specific security steps could be left up to the gun owner. However, after a few cases in which the courts ruled over what was and was not adequate security, a de facto standard would arise anyway. It's probably best to just establish that standard up front.

[Lizzie Poppet]

51. Yes.

Unless a firearm of min is in my immediate possession or observation, it's locked in my safe.

[krispos42]

134. I don't do that.

If I did, though, I'd keep them in a quick-access safe by the bed. I've got a kid, after all.

[Toronto]

7. To the gun owners only,

who, in your opinion, is responsible for guns ending up in the hands of criminals?

[Clames]

15. The obvious answer...

...and also the most complete is: criminals.

[Toronto]

40. So you don't believe

that unsecured weapons in people's homes contribute to the weapons available to criminals?

[Clames]

57. Criminals breaking into peoples' homes and businesses...

...contribute to that. Safes are far from full proof and many common gun safes on the market are not designed for more than a few minutes against destructive opening. Something you might want to research yourself.

[Toronto]

62. Should there be a mandatory standard

for gun safe security?

[PavePusher]

102. Only if you want to reduce the Right to the hands of the extremely rich.

But that's the intent of some people.

[Toronto]

131. Isn't that the same as saying

that there shouldn't be a minimum standard for car ownership i.e. people should all abide by the same driving standard; a miminum amount of liability coverage etc.

[PavePusher]

136. The "driving standard" doesn't cost money.

As for insurance coverage for driving, this gets us back to the point that driving on public roads is not a Consstitutional Right.

Putting a poll tax on a Constitutional Right is not an option in the U.S.

[oldhippie]

133. I would say ....

... that "responsible for" and "contribute to" are two different things. The thief is responsible for the theft. Everyone contributes to crime merely by owning things to steal. The amount of effort needed by the thief to steal something is variable.

I keep most of my firearms in a safe. Most of them are not even touched for years, other than to wipe them down with oil once a year if I remember. But I have several guns scattered around the house in strategic locations that stay there all the time. I have no children in the house. None ever come to visit. I have very few visitors or guests. I have lived in this house in this neighborhood for 15 years. Some of my neighbors are cops and I am fairly well plugged into the LEO community in my city. As far as I know, there have been no reported burglaries or robberies in my neighborhood in the 15 years I have lived here.

So I see no need to lock up my nightstand or "behind the bedroom door" guns when I leave the house. Like most everything else, including the possibility of even needing a firearm, it is a matter of probabilities, which have to be evaluated and acted upon in accordance with one's own criteria.

[alpine44]

24. Gun control: A theory, that people who disobey laws against murder, rape, etc. do care about gun law

Obviously, a criminal will do anything, including criminal acts (duh), to get what he/she wants. This also includes getting guns. No law can change that. If you make guns ownership illegal, only criminals will have guns. Is that what we want?

[Toronto]

41. So would you support any form of legislation

that makes securing legally owned weapons in a theft proof safe, mandatory?

[Glassunion]

54. There is no such safe.

[Toronto]

63. OK. I understand what you're

saying. By the same token there is no safe anywhere that can't ultimately be breached given a sufficiently dedicated thief, but for opportunistic thieves who have neither the time or the requisite intellect to do much more than smash and grab, so to speak, is it possible that there could be a standard that would deter most thieves.

[Glassunion]

69. Absolutely.

There are some that are better than others.

There are some safes that actually pass the California safe storage requirements that can be broken into in under 2 minutes using nothing but a crow bar an pry bar. The trick is don't go too cheap, bolt it to the floor if you can, and put it somewhere a thief would have a hell of a time working on it.

[Botany]

104. USA vs Japan

in 2008 we had 12,000 gun related deaths
" " Japan had 11 gun related deaths



It is the # of guns, the type of guns, and the high capacity magazines.

?w=640

This is not a sporting weapon or a personal defensive weapon but a killing machine that
you can buy at WalMart, Gander Mt., or your local gun show.

[gejohnston]

109. post hoc ergo propter hoc

and at best shows a complete lack of knowledge of Japan's our our culture, history, and socio economics. You would also have an equally valid point to say it had something to with Japan's lack of a fourth and fifth amendments as well.

[Botany]

110. no it is the guns IPSO FACTO

more guns = more gun deaths. Anything else is pure b.s..

BTW it was not the Japanese who wrote their very restrictive gun laws but
"good old Americans" post WW II.

BTW part deux what a weak ass argument. Because if our culture w/its history and social economic
components cause us to be more violent then Japanese (forgetting Japan's history and bushido
warrior stuff) then why have more guns available?

BTW part teil drei ....... American History; In the good old days of the wild west one of the
very first things towns did to clean up all the problems was to stop people from walking
around inside town limits with guns. Do the google on the Earp Brothers.

[gejohnston]

111. actually no

dates back to the 17th century. The government put strict controls on the manufacturing end. Gun ownership was never widespread in Japan.
I studied Japanese history and culture while living there. Your grasp of the Bushido code is little at best. It also has nothing to do with violent crime. It is a code of conduct for soldiers. It did lead to some Imperial Navy pilots committing suicide after Pear Harbor because war had not been official declared.
Tombstone did do that, but it wasn't common. Carrying concealed in cities like Baltimore, Boston, New York, etc. was more common among the middle and upper classes.

[Botany]

112. I keep forgetting that Doug MacArthur and the Americans that helped write the post WW II

Japanese Constitution were around in the 1600s. And how do you know anything about
my knowledge or lack of knowledge of the Bushido code? And what about what
Australia did after a multiple murder gun attack in the 1990s?

The more guns that are available and the more high capacity magazines that are
also available = more gun deaths. Country after country that have sensible gun laws
have less gun deaths per capita then the USA. The #s and stats are there just like
the data for global climate change if one wants to ignore them that is their right but
ignoring the totally unneeded gun deaths in this nation is just like saying "global warming
isn't real" so we can just go on and pretend everything is fine and dandy.

BTW I own guns and I hunt too.

[gejohnston]

113. I was speaking of gun laws in general

Japanese Constitution were around in the 1600s. And how do you know anything about
my knowledge or lack of knowledge of the Bushido code? And what about what
Australia did after a multiple murder gun attack in the 1990s?

Their gun laws in the 1600s had nothing to do with the second constitution. Because you would know that Bushido had nothing to do with violent crime, but simply a code of conduct for soldiers. Australia's murder rate continued to drop at the same rate it it was before the law was passed. Suicide rates did not drop.

The more guns that are available and the more high capacity magazines that are
also available = more gun deaths. Country after country that have sensible gun laws
have less gun deaths per capita then the USA.

You mean like Mexico, Brazil, and Jamaica? Just for a start. British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, and USVI all have "sensible gun laws". They all have higher murder rates too. USVI makes Chicago look like Vermont. Out of the OCED countries, we are number three for murder rates. One and two have stricter gun laws than we do. Worldwide, we are close to the bottom.

The #s and stats are there just like
the data for global climate change if one wants to ignore them that is their right but
ignoring the totally unneeded gun deaths in this nation is just like saying "global warming
isn't real" so we can just go on and pretend everything is fine and dandy.

Criminologists disagree with you. Gun control groups have economists doing their research, just like climate science deniers. Speaking of economists, game theory is only able to predict the actions of two types of people, sociopaths and economists.

[Botany]

115. Gun control groups have economists doing their research .....

..... so it is the economists' fault.

[gejohnston]

116. fault for what?

besides being more mercenary?

[Botany]

117. thanx for playing ..... pick up your lovely parting gifts on the way out

[Lizzie Poppet]

53. First and foremost, the criminals of course.

However, I think failure to properly secure a weapon constitutes complicity. I consider proper security measures to be an intrinsic responsibility of weapon ownership.

[Starboard Tack]

91. +100

[Toronto]

118. How do you codify that responsibility or can you codify that responsibility?

Given that the federal government and in particular the ATF, would be unable to enforce any federal legislation to that effect, how do you achieve uninimity of all of the individual states, keeping in mind their various different stances with respect to personal liberties.

[Lizzie Poppet]

119. You probably don't...

...at least not in the current 50-state, coast-to-coast Union. As you say, there is a huge range of policies vis a vis personal liberty. Those variances are somewhat regional, so what I see as an inevitable breakup of the current Union into 6-to-8 regional polities might make a greater standardization of such laws possible (within each polity, that is).

For now, any legally-mandated security requirements are going to have to be state-by-state, I'd say. Less than ideal...but better than nothing.

[Toronto]

120. Do you think that a national gun control campaign along the lines

of the anti-smoking or mothers against drunk drivers compaigns would have an eventual impact on the population?

[Lizzie Poppet]

122. Depending on the content, yes, very possibly.

I particularly think a campaign for something like proper gun security would be effective, in no small part because it would be largely non-controversial. No one's going to argue for poor gun security. If it's a campaign against having firearms at all, it would face far rougher sailing.

[Toronto]

124. I agree. But campaigns can evolve over time.

It could begin with with gun security - as you said, not controversial. Later perhaps the concept of gun ownership could be gradually de-romanticized i.e. with images and testimonials. This more so for those who own multiple weapons for less than practical reasons. But none of this would have much impact if there wasn't some concerted effort made to deal with the root causes of criminal activity in America and thus the cause of fear, namely poverty. If people can't feel safe in their homes, the concept of gun control is likely over before it starts. Without converting to a socialist state, more can be done to address the issues of social inequity, and more can be done to identify children at risk to prevent catastrophic outcomes. Militarily speaking, it should be an attack on multiple fronts. Perhaps there could also be a National anti-poverty campaign educating people that the elimination of poverty will lead to a much safer society.

[bobclark86]

56. The guy who breaks into my house...

and breaks my gun safe. I secure my crap. They have to work to steal it (and it's bolted to the floor in my closet, so they can't just take it).

[ileus]

75. I'm gonna go with criminals for 200.

I invested in a gunsafe after my home was broken into in 2001.

Who was responsible for leaving my wifes purse on the kitchen counter that night? Or rather who was responsible for taking my wifes purse from the kitchen counter that night?

[Jenoch]

8. If someone has 10 handguns

that makes them a collector whether they said so to you or not. It's a collection of handguns. That does not necessarily mean they will acquire more handguns.

I have a brother who happens to be a cop. He also is a gun collector. I suppose he has 20 or more handguns and more long guns. He also has a gun safe 6' x 4' x 4'. He has never shot anyone while on the job and as far as I know he has only taken his weapon out of his holster one time in 25+ years of duty. The interesting thing I have observed is that most cops are not interested in guns any more than the average person. I am sure he would collect guns whether or not he was a LEO. the reason he has them? I suppose it's the same reason why anyone collects anything. He does not shoot competitively. He does not 'fondle' his guns. He simply has them and occasionally shoots them. He is the range officer and the armorer for his department. That means he went to various classes to learn how to maintain the weapons used by the department.

[spin]

10. My ex wife asked me that question one time ...

and pointed out that I only had two hands so why would I need more than two handguns.

I pointed out that she had only one pair of feet so why would she need more than one pair of shoes.

I could ask you why does a golfer own more than one club. The obvious answer is that the clubs are used for different purposes. A driver makes for a poor putter. I could ask you why a person who enjoys fishing often owns a number of fishing rods. Fishing in a stream for trout requires a different rig than fishing for tarpon in the Gulf of Mexico.

When I go to the range I usually fire 50 rounds through one of my .22 caliber target pistols to warm up. I then move on to one of my other revolvers and shoot a box or two of ammo. Usually I will finish off by firing a couple of cylinders full of ammo through my .38 caliber snub nosed revolver (which is my carry weapon) at close range to maintain my proficiency with this weapon.

Occasionally I will bring out one of my 1911 Colt .45 acp pistols for a change of pace. One is a family heirloom which I inherited from my step dad and one is a highly accurate target pistol.

One of twice a year I will bring my S&W .44 magnum revolver to see if I can still handle strong recoil without flinching. I will fire half a box of ammo thorough this weapon and then offer fellow shooters the chance to try it in exchange for trying their handgun.

In the 40+ years that have enjoyed target shooting and reloading ammo I have only punched holes in paper and a few tin cans. I have never shot an animal or another person with one of my weapons and I have no desire to do so.

The majority of the revolvers that I own are .38 or .38/.357 Magnum. Some are small and compact while others are medium sized and a couple are larger. I own S&W revolvers in J, K, L and N frame sizes. Some have a barrel length of less than 2", a couple have 3" or 4" barrels, one has a 6" barrel and is extremely accurate and one has an 8 3/8" barrel but I rarely shoot it.

If absolutely necessary I could live with one of my .22 caliber target pistols, a 4" .38/357 revolver and my snub nosed .38. While that would cover my needs, I see no reason to do so and I am very careful who I sell my firearms to. Anyone who buys a firearm from me has to be a person I personally know and he/she has to have a valid Florida concealed weapons permit.

[Toronto]

47. Are there any gun control

measures that you think would be worthwhile?

[tortoise1956]

68. Yes

1. Limitations on magazine capacity. (I suggest using the capacity as originally designed - for an AR-15, that would be 20 rounds. I'm flexible on this, though)
2. All weapons purchases must be recorded on a form 4473, including private sales.
3. No plea-bargaining of gun crimes - let them serve federally mandated minimum sentences.
4. one purchase a month limit.

I had some other items, but I'm in the throes of a allergy attack, and I still haven't finished my morning coffee yet, so I'm really not very functional...

[pipoman]

101. I have never understood

the "one purchase a month limit."..If people can be trusted with one, why does it matter if they buy more? There are auctions of gun collections. I see no reason if I go to such an auction that I can't buy as many as I want for my own collection. (I am certainly not a gun collector, just a collector of various junk)

[tortoise1956]

135. Point taken

I can see permits to buy more than one at a time.

On second thought, the word "permit" implies having to get consent. I'd rather go with a declaration of intent, to be filled out at the time of purchase and filed in a manner similar to a form 4473. As long as you already are in good standing, the government would have no say in preventing you form purchasing multiple weapons.

[spin]

81. Yes. ...

1) Expand the NICS background check system to require a background check for ALL firearm sales.

2) Better finance the states so that they can input the names of violent felons and those legally adjudged as having serious and potentially dangerous mental conditions to the NICS database in a timely fashion.

( For more information on this subject visit 'Badly flawed background check system fails to contain firearms sales' at
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/06/23/4982/badly-flawed-background-check-system-fails-contain-firearms-sales)

3)Improve the ATF so they can better fight the straw purchase and smuggling of firearms to other countries and to the streets of our inner cities.

ATF’s Institutional Weaknesses

The ATF has only 5,025 total employees, of which, only 2,508 are special agents, 624 are investigators and 1,726 are support personnel. Compare that with 128,849 active federal firearms licenses in the United States and it is obvious that the ATF is woefully understaffed to serve its mission. Further consider that many of the records the ATF must sift through are not computerized and we can see the sheer labor hours involved make the task nearly impossible (there are some digitized systems; see ATF website).
http://blog.chron.com/bakerblog/2012/08/why-the-atf-should-be-bigger/

4) Increase the penalties for the straw purse of a firearm and make them mandatory.

Top penalty rarely given

Although the maximum federal penalty for participating in a straw purchase is a 10-year prison term, in practice sentencing guidelines call for only 2 to 2 1/2 years' imprisonment for someone caught providing as many as a dozen guns to a convicted felon. That's half the mandatory (5-year) minimum for possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine.
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=319

5) Violent turf wars between competing drugs gangs are a LARGE cause of gun violence in our nation. Treat drug gangs as terrorist organizations (which they are) and sue pro-active policing to address this problem.

More Than 2X as Many Gang Related Drug Murders in Chicago This Year As Casualties in Afghanistan
Tuesday, June 19, 2012

(CBS News) -- "There are 228 dead: That's the number of murders this year in Chicago. It's nearly twice as many as the number of Americans lost on the battlefields of Afghanistan over these last six months. And the number of deaths is up 35% over the same period last year.

Chicago police Superintendent Gary McCarthy believes most of the violent crime in the city is "absolutely" gang-related. He said the problem has a lot to do with drugs, guns and gang wars.

McCarthy says the data doesn't always show it, but the police are making progress through increasing undercover operations and greater infiltration of the gangs, as well as a crackdown against the narcotics traffic which is the fuel that keeps them going."
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/06/twice-as-many-gang-related-drug-murders.html

6) Our War on Drugs is a total failure and was lost years ago. We should consider taking some of the profit motive out of this trade by legalizing some drugs. If we don't the drug wars between the competing Mexican cartels will continue to creep into our nation and more innocent people will die in the crossfire.

7) Obviously the mental heath care system in our nation needs some improvements. However we have to be very careful that we don't cause those who need treatment to avoid it from fear that it would be a black mark on their lives and careers.

8) Anyone who purchases a firearm or ammo should have proof that he has attended a firearm safety course.

Currently some politicians and many in the main stream media believe that bans and confiscations of firearms or limiting magazine size will help solve the problem. Of course when that doesn't work other types of firearms will be banned and confiscated and eventually the goal of disarming the American public will be achieved.

Even if there was some true benefit in imposing such draconian laws the simple reality is that this will not happen at any time in the immediate future. It's simply politically impossible at this time and likely uneven after the next several national elections. The Republicans are not going to become extinct overnight or in the next decade and also many Democrats in Congress come from red states and are strong gun rights supporters. What scares me is that a push for gun bans might cause the Tea Party to gain even more influence in the Republican Party. The elected Tea Party members of the GOP are largely the reason we can't compromise on important issues in Congress.

It is possible that some from of another assault weapons ban will pass but it will once again be watered down to the point that it will accomplish little. Much valuable time and effort will be wasted in the attempt to pass this law that might have been better expended to create effective legislation that would actually make a difference.

[Toronto]

87. Would you support a federally mandated minimum

standard with regard to gun security, and by that I mean that every state has to comply with the minimum standard, although they can exceed it if they so choose?

[gejohnston]

89. I like your idea, but the ATF has no way of enforcing it

Our federal system is probably more complex than yours. AFAIK, state and local cops have no responsibility to enforce federal law. For example, in the states that recently legalized pot, local police can't arrest you even though there is still a federal prohibition. They can give DEA your address, but that's it. There would have to be corresponding state law. For example, if you are target shooting on your farm with a machine gun in Florida, a local cop wants to see the registration and tax stamp. Legally, you could tell him to screw off and you both wait for the ATF. A local cop in Wyoming would have jurisdiction because they have a law that says violating NFA is also a state crime. Of course if you get caught with it in "any game field or forest" it becomes property of the state and you go to jail tax stamp or not.

Best thing is for each state to pass one.

[Toronto]

93. Not even if it was a modification of section 921(a)(34) of the Gun Control Act?

[gejohnston]

94. it would still be a federal responsiblity

since it is federal law. I'm not a lawyer, but I think it is saying that if a gun is in a safe that the prohibited person does not have access to, then it is not in "possession" under federal law. A US lawyer would have to look at it.

[Toronto]

96. But if nothing in the GCA is enforceable

other than by the ATF or the FBI, why is everyone so concerned about federal gun control? Neither the ATF or FBI have the resources to police the entire population of the US.

[gejohnston]

97. the ATF oversees all manufactures, importers and dealers

since they all require federal licenses to operate. They control the sources. The FBI doesn't bother with gun laws. Until 2004 ATF was under Treasury.

[Toronto]

98. I see, so insofar as it affects the stream of commerce

the ATF has control, but once weapons and ammunition are in the market, the ATF is relatively powerless, unless the State chooses to enforce the legislation.

[spin]

90. That would depend on the level of gun security required. ...

Requiring a gun owner with a few handguns to have a $5000 safe would be extreme but requiring him to have a smaller safe or a gun box that would be child resistant might be reasonable in my opinion.

I would also oppose any regulations that required all firearms to be unloaded in the home, dissembled or a mandate that a gun lock be installed on all firearms when not in use.

I feel that a home defense weapon can be adequately secured loaded in a rapid access gun box.

[sarisataka]

13. Different purposes

and different situations.

It is much easier to conceal a gun in Minnesota winter wear than Florida summer wear. I have three 'carry' guns that I use depending on my dress of the day. Some are easier to conceal under casual clothes, others under suits. If I am visiting my children's school, I need my small revolver that I can secure in the lockbox in my vehicle.

BTW- thanks for the honest open question. For most it is not the disagreement we have on these issues, it is the attitudes that come with. I single out no side on this as being better than the other regarding attitude.

[Toronto]

14. So what I infer thus far is that

people collect guns in America, much as the Japanese might collect samurai swords (if they were allowed to). People, probably for cultural reasons, enjoy proficiency in guns, as people in the past enjoyed proficiency in swordmanship. So far no psychotic reasons for gun ownership. So, who in the opinion of gun owners, is responsible for guns ending up in the criminal stream of commerce? I accuse no one in particular, but as gun owners you must have an opinion.

[sarisataka]

18. Ultimately it is...

the criminal who seeks the gun, just as the drug user who seeks the drugs. No demand = no supply

The supply side blame comes from many sources. In no particular order- dealers who have no scruples and risk long jail time, private sellers who want to sell and not ask any uncomfortable questions of the buyer, criminally irresponsible gun owners who loose their guns (???) or leave them unsecured so they are easily stolen in a burglary, those who smuggle guns into the country, communities who turn a blind eye towards criminal activities, states that do not provide full information for NCIS and probably several other sources.

I cannot blame manufacturers however. They are selling a product according to economic law of demand and legal laws regarding manufacture and sales. I have never seen or heard of any manufacturer that specifically markets their guns for crime or is willing to sell outside of the proper legal channels. To do so would eliminate them from the market and be very counter productive. This is not to say the manufacturers are not completely ethical. As with any other corporation, they will take advantage of market fluctuations to enhance their own profit. These days it is the fears of strict controls which drive up prices. They will do all they can to harness this trend as long as it lasts.

[gejohnston]

19. hard question,

I can't remember if it was the ATF or a criminologist they hired that polled federal inmates, the big answer was "black market" and "friends and family". That begs the question, where did they get them. I think there is a mixture of theft from private collections, theft from police armories, cops selling on the black market. Of course, there is the flea market and naive private seller. There might be underground factories like one of the Australian biker gangs had going until it got busted. I doubt it here, although I'm surprised the Mexican cartels don't have them. That's how the Yakusa get theirs, usually illegal factories in Cebu.
Ultimately, all economies are demand based. That applies to guns as it does anything else. So, it is the criminal who is responsible.

[alpine44]

16. Why do women (and men) own dozens of pairs of shoes?

For the same reason a mechanic owns hundreds of wrenches, etc. Because they serve different purposes and some are spares and backups.

Here is how you become what some would call a "gun nut":

You realize that there are very violent people out there. Please ask a law enforcement psychologist about what they call violent criminal offenders (VCOs). It will take you a while to get your head around the fact that these people are not "normal" and cannot be reasoned with. If a VCO chooses you as a victim you only have one option and that is to prevent them forcefully from harming you or your family. The alternative is that you or your family members will get hurt or worse.

You realize that a gun is one of the most effective tools to defend your life if necessary. That's why law enforcement officers carry guns and not frying pans. So you buy a gun for self defense. You realize that in order to be proficient with any tool, including a gun, you need to practice the use of that tool. So you take a course, join a club, etc.

At this point we reach a fork in the road. Some assume that they are competent enough after a few hours of training to protect themselves in a critical incident without harming innocent bystanders. Others remember the saying that in a critical situation we do not rise to our expectations but we sink to the level of our training.

Once you decide to take the long road to develop a degree of mastery and more importantly the mindset to make a gun work for you and not against you in stressful situations you are going to be labeled a "gun nut" sooner or later.

(Note: I am also an aviation nut, diving nut, and mountain climbing nut. All these disciplines do not mesh well with neglect, incompetence, or incapacity. I train like my life depends on it because one day it will and in some cases it did already. On a psychological level, I want to be as committed to staying out of trouble as a violent criminal is committed to causing trouble.)

Most people who commit themselves to continuous training are going to compete sooner or later to make the training more realistic and also more enjoyable. This is no different in martial arts or -let's say- dancing. So the next purchase is a gun for competitive use which is generally larger, more precise, and much more expensive than what you would use for self defense. (or another couple shoe boxes if you dance).

Many people buy different brands and types of guns to broaden their skill analogous to practicing mixed martial arts. If you can shoot many different guns well you are certainly more confident in the use of a specific one. I purposely fly very different airplanes in very different environments for the same reason.

As far as the need for multiple guns of the same make/model is concerned, guns are tools and tools break. They tend to break during a competition, when the broken part is back ordered, etc. Also, I keep several, exactly identical guns hidden around my home as it is pretty ridiculous to wear a holster and the necessary belt with pajamas. That would be a picture of what I would call a "gun nut".

So, before you know it, you lost the right to tease your wife about all the shoe boxes because your gun vault looks no different than her closets. I already lost that privilege years ago when my dive locker started looking like a dive shop.

Hope that helps.

[guardian]

17. Why do women NEED a bazillion pairs of shoes?

Why would anyone need more than one suit?
Why would anyone need more than one tv?
Why would anyone need more than one car?
Why would anyone need more than one set of golf clubs?
Why would anyone need more than one computer?
Why would anyone need more than one flavor of ice cream? just stick with your favorite

The premise of your thesis is flawed. Why is any individual justified in deciding the 'needs' of someone else? Just because one person doesn't like something or doesn't want something doesn't mean someone else doesn't want it. Remember the 2nd Admendment is part of the Bill of RIGHTS not the Bill of NEEDS.

To more specifically answer your question from a practical standpoint (as opposed to someone just wanting and enjoying a variety of guns) is that handguns come in a variety of sizes, weights, calibers, and other factors. For example a handgun that might be used for discrete pocket carry in a business casual environment might be chosen because of small form factor and light weight. However, that type of gun is uncomfortable to shoot. If you are using it to save your life from Mr. Bad Guy you really don't care about comfort. However, if you are going to the range to target shoot several hundred rounds for proficiency you want a gun that won't feel like you spent an afternoon slamming a hammer into the palm of your hand. Maybe you like to hike in the great outdoors and want to have some protection against critters. That .380 pocket pistol is pretty useless against things that would like to eat you, or against some marijuana grower that you happen to stumble into in the national forest.

Maybe you also like to shoot in organized pistol competitions. Then you would use a different handgun that has different characteristics than say a gun you would use for long distance target shooting. To use a golf analogy think of the difference between using a putter and a 7 iron. They are both golf clubs. But have different purposes.

Additionally, you may want to have multiple handguns to keep in different locations. Maybe you want to keep one in your house. And another to keep in the car. And another to keep at your business. Depending on your preference, or local laws, it might be a pain to transport a firearm between locations. Maybe you just don't want to forget to bring your gun and not have it. Ever leave your cell phone at home and not have it in the car?

[Toronto]

20. So many people not only collect guns for recreational purposes, but collect them for self defense

including concealed carry. Again I don't see any psychotic reason for carrying a gun. But if you feel the need to be protected at all times, is this the society you want to live in?

[gejohnston]

21. some have a clear and present threat

like the stalking abusive ex husband. A cop once told me I should because "you never know". I'm either in the sticks, school campus, and always stay out of the triangle of stupid. So, I don't see a need for me to. When I hike in Wyoming, I'll carry one of my pistols, but that has more to do with locally obtained dinner, or turning down a mt. lion's invitation. That is my choice, it is proper for me and I don't judge anyone else's decision either way.

[Toronto]

25. I totally get your reason for weapon ownership

You live in rural Wyoming. Mountain cats, wolves, coyotes etc. None of the proposed legislative changes should apply to you. But if they do, you would have a heck of a good case to challenge the legislation. You live far more like the original Americans than anyone else. You respect the weapons you have and have a clear purpose for having them. Honestly, I don't hate gun owners. My own father owned a rifle and a handgun. The big question is why so many people living in cities need weapons. According to this blog, people own weapons for recreational purposes - no problem there and for self defense. The latter is the million dollar question. Is the fear of being attacked far greater than the risk of being attacked. And if the latter is true, whether gun control in any way will alleviate the problem. Do you have too many unsecured weapons, or is there another reason why this debate will always fall short, as it fails to recognize the real reason for gun crime?

[Clames]

28. And what, in your opinion, is the real reason for gun crime?

Keep in mind it is only an opinion.

The big question is why so many people living in cities need weapons.

You seem to accept living in a rural location is a good reason to own a firearm for self-defense because of a threat of attack from wild animals. You don't seem to accept the reason of self-defense when living in an urban environment though. Seems you are a fishing and doing a rather poor job of it IMO.

[Toronto]

37. The anti-gun people

posting on DU profess that they feel quite safe without a gun, yet the majority of pro-gun advocates indicate that they don't feel safe without a gun. Do all the anti-gun people live in safer cities or neighborhoods than the pro-gun people? Why the huge difference in perception? Are some places in the US so hostile that it is not a question of if some armed thug will break into your home, but a question of when? This does not sound like a very pleasant way to live. The anti-gun people theorize that it is the proliferation of guns that is the problem. The pro-gun people say it is crime that is the problem. Are the anti-guns all wrong and the pro-guns all right or are they both right?

The people responding to this OP would appear to be collectors of firearms. I understand the point of collecting things. Each to his own. None have expressed the view that they need their entire collection for self-defense purposes, but most have indicated that at least one or two of their guns is for self-defense, and some have indicated that they need different types for concealed carry purposes.

One thing that I have observed in this forum is that the anti-gun people and the pro-gun people are rarely willing to listen to each other, preferring to snipe and bicker endlessly. I don't see how that accomplishes anything.

[Clames]

60. I doubt you have anything to back up that assertion...

The anti-gun people posting on DU profess that they feel quite safe without a gun, yet the majority of pro-gun advocates indicate that they don't feel safe without a gun.

I think that if you had actually read the posts you'll find few if any instances of the pro-gun advocates saying they don't feel safe without a gun. Very poor assumption really. Stereotyping is what that kind of thinking is.

Are some places in the US so hostile that it is not a question of if some armed thug will break into your home, but a question of when? 

Yes. Some of those places exist in Toronto too.

[Toronto]

65. I've lived in many parts of Toronto

none of which fit that description. We have areas that are prone to gun violence, not necessarily armed break-ins, which are thankfully very few and far between. Most of our home invasion type crimes have targeted jewellery store owners and the like, where the invaders have a pretty good idea of what they are after, not that we haven't had the other type, but they are much rarer.

I say the majority of gun owners, because some don't necessarily state that they don't feel safe - so I won't assume one way or the other.

[Lurks Often]

64. Differing worldviews

I disagree with your statement "yet the majority of pro-gun advocates indicate that they don't feel safe without a gun".

As to the rest the vast majority of those of us who choose to carry a firearm recognize that there is an actual chance, however small, that we could be attacked by criminals who are willing to hurt or kill us. We also recognize that the police will not be able to respond in time to prevent it. If we knew ahead of time where and when we would be attacked we would gladly avoid the spot and call the police.

I can only think the anti gun side feels that because nothing bad has ever happened to them, that nothing ever will. You can see this same mindset among people who choose not to take even the most basic of precautions in case of a major weather event (couple of days extra food & water, candles, etc).

[Toronto]

66. I don't understand

how my statement that pro-gun advocates don't feel safe without a gun, is at odds with your point of view. If, the vast majority "choose to carry a firearm recognize that there is an actual chance, however small, that we could be attacked by criminals who are willing to hurt or kill us. We also recognize that the police will not be able to respond in time to prevent it. If we knew ahead of time where and when we would be attacked we would gladly avoid the spot and call the police". Aren't you saying you don't feel safe without a gun? Also, I didn't state that all pro-gun owners don't feel safe, only because some have not articulated safety as the reason for owning weapons. I therefore won't make the assumption that that is their primary reason for owning weapons.

[tortoise1956]

70. Lots of variables there...

For instance, I'm 56 years old, and I've gotten slower and frailer as the years roll on by. Because of that, I am starting to consider getting a CCW. The main sticking point for me is that I don't want to admit that I'm no longer capable of defending myself without a weapon.

As far as guns in the house, I have more than 2. Every one of them is currently locked in a gun cabinet since my grandchildren spend a lot of time with us. However, the mere fact that they are present is of some comfort to me and my wife in case something goes wrong.

[Lurks Often]

72. Umm

I know what I want to say in my head, but not sure I can express it properly.

I don't feel unsafe on a day to day or regular basis, I merely accept that there are people out there willing to hurt or kill me to achieve their own ends. It is kind of like wearing a seatbelt or having to a small fire extinguisher in the kitchen. I don't put the seatbelt on because I think I am going to get in an accident today, I merely accept that it is a possibility and that I am safer with the seatbelt then without, just as I don't expect a kitchen or house fire, but recognize it could happen.

[sarisataka]

71. It is a matter of perception and choice more than fear

Everyone admits the chances of being a victim of violent crime is small; the location a person lives will have some effect on the chances.

Those who are against guns believe that the chances are small enough that the hazards of owning and/or carrying a gun are greater than the odds of ever needing one.
Those who do carry make the same analysis and conclude that they can mitigate the hazards and being prepared for a rare situation is worth owning/carrying a gun.

In both cases fear is a separate related issue. There can be fear of being a victim yet choosing not to carry and fear of gun and still choosing to carry. There may be no fear in either case.

One thing that I have observed in this forum is that the anti-gun people and the pro-gun people are rarely willing to listen to each other, preferring to snipe and bicker endlessly. I don't see how that accomplishes anything.

BINGO!
many (most?) on each side believes they are entirely correct and find it completely illogical that those with an opposing view cannot see what is clearly 'true'

[SheilaT]

74. I can only speak for myself, but I can tell you that I live in a part of my city that has a

relatively high crime rate. I have no idea where it stands in relation to other places in this country. But I do not own a gun and feel absolutely no need to own one.

What I notice a lot of, when I read the police blotter published every day in the local paper, how often guns are taken in a home or car burglary. There are a lot of very unsecured guns out there.

[PavePusher]

105. "There are a lot of very unsecured guns out there."

Depends on your criteria.

Any storage device that most Americans could afford to buy, is relatively easy to get open with a few hand tools, in 30 minutes or less.

I leave my home at 0730 each morning, and frequently don't get back until 18/19/2000+. This gives thieves 12 or more hours to quietly do whatever they want to do. There's no storage device in the world, short of a Swiss bank vault, that can't be opened in 12 hours.

And I really don't think we want to restrict gun ownership to the uber-rich. That, historically, doesn't work out well.

[SheilaT]

125. I can tell you that the reports I'm reading are not ones of

thieves having 12 hours to break into a vault, but that they break a car window, and grab the guns, or are inside and out of a house within 30 minutes. Most of the time on the car burglaries, it's pretty obvious to me that the cars are not locked. Obviously, guns are only a small portion of all the things that are stolen, but I am still appalled at how many guns are stolen so easily. Every time I read stuff about how to discourage potential burglars it will say that often all you need to do is to make it a little harder to break into your place than into your neighbor's place.

It's right up there with the loaded guns left lying around for the toddlers to pick up and shoot.

[Toronto]

126. Absolutely. The average

gun owner does not have to do much to deter opportunistic gun theft.

[Spryguy]

127. Because pro-gun are paranoid wimps?

[Toronto]

128. Please don't put words in my mouth,

I never said anything of the sort. I asked whether where peope live has an effect on their perception of safety and whether some places that people live mandates self protection. I expect that some people live in hostile environments and others are influenced by the media and are vigilant as a response to the perception of danger. The word "wimp" does not enter the conversation. On a personal level there is no differentiation between actual danger and the perception of danger.

[jeepnstein]

35. Most gun crime in the U.S. is drug related.

Since drugs are illegal you can't take a business dispute to court. Just like Al Capone used a gun to enforce contracts during Prohibition today's drug dealers rely on them for turf or debt collection. That's the biggest cause of the violence that is tearing apart some communities. Of course nobody wants to talk about that because it points out several inconvenient truths.

Real accidents, domestic disputes, things like that will always be around but they are far less common than criminals shooting criminals. If a person carries a gun every day, follows the four rules, and isn't a drug dealer or consumer there is very little chance of them ever shooting anyone who doesn't need it.

You want to do something about violence in American society? Address the issue of the War on Drugs.

[gejohnston]

73. I bounce between Wyoming and Florida

I don't carry at all in Florida. That may sound ironic since Wyoming conservation officers patrol larger wilderness areas lightly armed, and often leave the gun in the truck when they stop you, while Florida conservation officers are armed like city cops minus the stick
. I just never took the time to get a concealed carry permit. Open carry is mostly illegal in Florida.
The best I can figure, open carry is allowed in Florida if you are in a hunting area during hunting season or if you are fishing. IOW, backpacking in national forest with an OC pistol, bad. OC while fishing off a pier in Tampa city limits, OK as long as you are fishing.
While being in the wrong place/wrong time is very improbable, it is always possible.

[alpine44]

23. You can delegate the need to carry a gun to the ones who answer your 911 call...

...or you can defend yourself if necessary. Remember, when seconds count, help (via 911) is only minutes away.

Let's face it: human societies have always included malicious, violent people. These people use the best tools they can find to do harm why would I choose lesser tools for defending my life against their attacks?

I can respect if anyone feels uncomfortable owning a gun, training with one, or carrying one. And it is really not necessary to arm everybody. Just one or two Good Guys with guns in Aurora or Newtown or (insert countless horror stories here) would have made a big difference.

When you have sheep and wolves you need sheepdogs to keep the wolves at bay. We pay some sheepdogs with our taxes but obviously that is not enough as crime statistics and recent events show.

[bobclark86]

92. Nope

"But if you feel the need to be protected at all times, is this the society you want to live in? "

Obviously not... mostly because no reasonable person would want this fucked-up mess called our society, but here we are. It's not a question of want.

[PavePusher]

103. It's the society we've always lived in and always will.

The individual is always responsible for their own immediate defense.

Denying reality is counter-productive.

[iiibbb]

129. Just because I have a permit doesn't mean I carry at all times...still need it to carry some times

I have a permit. I rarely carry. Largely because I respect the laws that don't permit me to carry at my place of employment.

In my particular state the laws governing carry can vary from municipality to municipality. It is easy to believe that I might not be aware of certain laws in towns near mine. The state permit trumos all local laws; thus if I happen to have a firearm on me, or in my car, for whatever reason I will not be subject to the arbitrary treatment by a law enforcement officer should I get into a situation where for "probable cause" they decide to search my car or question me... not that there would be reason too, but that doesn't stop some police officers does it?

I also hunt. I have a single shot rifle for this purpose. I carry a pistol with me because there are feral dogs in my hunting area. I have also encountered rabid animals. There is some question as to the legality of me storing my handgun in my backpack, or in a coat pocket, or whatever. So I have a permit for that as well - to eliminate the question.

The last circumstance I have carried a gun on my person was a natural disaster... not Katrina quality... but certainly enough to cause concern about police help.

I've also been the vicitim of crime. It doesn't make me want to carry a gun all of the time, but it certainly makes me want to reserve my right to decide for myself when a gun is appropriate or not.

[napi21]

26. I guess we need to define "gun nut" & "collector".

My hubby has several handguns, and I wouldn't consider him in either of those catagories. He has a little 2 shot derringer, a Colt 22 revol;ver, a S&W 257 revolver, and a 9MM auto. He seems to view his guns the way some people view their cars. Cars are all modes of transortation, but one is a sports car, one a sedan, one a van or SUV. THEY all do the same thing too, If oe family has one of each, are they car nuts?

Hubby just likes his guns the same as some people like their cars, remote conrol airplanes, electronic gadgets, etc. He goes to a range once in a while to shoot a few of them at a time, and smiles with pride as he shows off the paper target he used.

[geckosfeet]

27. Different calibers. Different sizes. Concealement. Target. Open carry.

Hunting. Plinking. With or without a rail system for mounting lights or lasers. Different sighting systems. Different safety and firing mechanisms. Single action vs double action vs doble/single versus DAK versus some of the more obscure action types.

I have mentioned a few of the most obvious reasons why one would own different handguns. Those may or may not be valid in your mind. But for many people they are.

It has been quite a sight around here lately, observing the mania and hate for guns and gun owners from people who admittedly don't know the first thing about guns except that when you pull the trigger it is supposed to go bang.

[hollysmom]

29. maybe for the same reason I own so many computers

They upgrade them, make them more accurate and easier to use - then you are stuck with the old paper weight. I am always away on computer recycling day, so I have about 8 boat anchors here.

[hack89]

30. A .22 for target practice - ammo is much cheaper

.45 ACP for home defense. Smaller 9 mm for the wife and kids to shoot. Another .45 that was my dad's which I keep as a family heirloom.

[ileus]

31. Does one have "need" before they can own?

It's said often that everyone needs a G19 and/or a 1911 and/or a 22...the list is endless.

IMHO everyone needs at least one SIG. But to many they need a p228,229,226,220,238,698, and coming in 2013 a 227.

Maybe they want a sig in 357sig, S&W40, and 9mm.

Maybe they want a sig 380 and 45.

Sig also makes dozens of different grades of pistols one could easily but 30 P226's in 9mm and none of them would be the same.

You could duplicate this dozens of times for different brands of pistols.

Maybe you shoot competition with one G19, and you want a FDE g19 and a black g19 for SD. Maybe you want a Gen 3 and Gen 4 of each G19. Then you decide you want a G26, then a G27 and a G23, or a G21 and G20 and G36. All of these pistols look alike but none serve the same purpose. They're different sizes or different calibers (sorry 357sig and 45 gap fans I don't know any of those model numbers)



Now take my handguns: So far not one of them serves the same purpose. They're all different calibers or sizes covering many different purposes. I have two ruger 22's but I need a good hunting quality 22 semi auto, thus I want a 22/45 with a bull barrel.

I already have a sub compact 45 acp but I need a full sized 45 for home defense and plinking out back.

My wife has a 642 for her EDC I have zero real revolvers in my collection I need a nice J frame for EDC.

Maybe someone likes striker fired and hammer fired pistols, or they like revolvers.

All the above is an example of non collections. We could get into collections but this post would drag on for hours and hours.

Maybe ask the poster in the thread he/she spoke of buying more sidearms in. They can probably justify their needs more than any of us.

[dizbukhapeter]

32. Some people buy different guns just because they like them

Is there something wrong with buying guns just because you like guns?

[Toronto]

43. I understand that people collect things that they like

I don't see a problem with collecting if you are a rational, normal person and you take care to properly secure your weapons. I do see a problem with irrational hyper-vigilant personalities owning large weapons caches.

[jeepnstein]

33. Lots of reasons.

I personally don't see the term "gun nut" any more insulting that calling someone a "car nut", or in my case a "sheet music nut". Of course there are people who are hysterically trying to label anyone who has more than one gun as some kind of mental case just waiting for an opportunity to snap but that's really just not the case. Oh, and should I admit that I own about two dozen hammers? So I'm probably some kind of tool nut. I won't even tell you how many saw blades I have down in the shop. I'm also a bit of a guitar nut but have it weeded down to five right now.

While I have several hand guns, only two of them ever actually see any use. Some times I'll buy one because it seems interesting, a few I've inherited, and one I bought from a friend who felt strongly he didn't need a gun in his home anymore. I've been trying out a few handguns as a possible replacement for my 1911 as a duty weapon. I like to take a year or so to decide and so far I can't find anything I like better. I've sold a few over the last few years as the economy took it's toll on me and my family. I may very well buy a new rifle later this year.

I once had the frame crack on a 1911 during a training class. If it hadn't been for the fact that a good friend had a couple of identical models sitting around collecting dust I would have had to drop out of that school and lost quite a bit of money. So I can see where having spares is probably a good thing.

[guardian]

42. I personally don't see the term "gun nut" any more insulting that calling someone a "car nut"

You are not paying attention. The anti gunners mean it in the most insulting way. Just look at all the personal attacks, calling gun owners psychotic, evil, crazy, morons, stupid, etc. A major part of the anti gun strategy is to insult, marginalize, and diminish the person the owns or enjoys guns.

[Remmah2]

34. Thanks for an honest open ear.

I'm a mechanical engineer and am interested in the mechanics of things. Ballistics, mathematics and physics go hand in hand. Each caliber has different characteristics and every manufacturer does something different. There is art, skill and craftsmanship in the metalwork.

[slackmaster]

36. Why would it be any of your business?

[Toronto]

38. Perhaps because

like a neighbor who has weeds in their yard, they have a tendency to migrate beyond the fence line. The illegal weapons in the US migrate beyond your borders.

[Callisto32]

46. If you can't secure your own imaginary line in the sand...

that's your trouble, Cpt. Canuck.

[slackmaster]

50. I think it's really something else

[Callisto32]

44. Meh, a tempest in a teapot.

Does it MATTER? Seriously, how many firearms can a person operate at once? Two, maximum, and it would be cumbersome as hell, and totally counterproductive to marksmanship to boot.

[Toronto]

49. Your fellow posters

would beg to differ. Do you have a problem with people collecting guns?

[Toronto]

55. Whoops - the trolls have come out from under their bridge

Thanks to all the rational posts folks, but the thread has now been hijacked by undesirables.

[Lizzie Poppet]

59. A pity, but this was an excellent thread.

Rational, civil discussion of this issue has been pretty thin on the ground here at DU since the Sandy Point atrocity. Threads like this give me at least a small hope for the community here, which I'm real close to giving up on (given the nasty streak of censorship and ideological totalitarianism that's been revealed).

[Toronto]

61. I agree

and I think some people jump on a thread for no purpose other than to bait and disrupt. Once that happens, the threads tend to deteriorate into a childish battle of insults rather than a rational forum debating differing opinions.

[oneshooter]

58. I own a few. I teach gun safety, and basic shooting.

Many of my students have never ownd a firearm before and, for various reasons, have decided to.
I have 6- 22 cal rimfire pistols and revolvers for beginers, 3 each 32 and 38 cal revolvers for the intermediate shooters, 4-9mm and 45 cal pistols for the advance shooters.
Many bring their own and when I am sure they can handle them correctly they use them. All of the ammo is handloads, exept the rimfires. All bullets are cast lead, every 4 months I have a recycle day and all who wish to help me clear the lead from the backstop.

I also have several 44and 45 cal revolvers that I use for hunting.

All are locked in fireproof safes when not in use. The safes are bolted to the concrete wall and floor of my gun room.

[Deep13]

76. variety...

Some people shoot recreationally.

There is a practical reason to have two or three: cost. Bullets are very expensive now because of the cost of metals. If one has a full size model for home defense, maybe a smaller one for CCW, it is a good idea to have an analogous pistol in .22 rimfire. .22 rimfire is much, much cheaper to shoot than full power guns. One can practice a lot for a few dollars. And unlike riding a bicycle where you never forget how, handgun proficiency takes frequent practice. Granted, there is no substitute for the real thing. Regular pistol ammunition produces loud sounds and considerable felt recoil, while a .22 does not (they are loud enough!). Still, it is a lot better than nothing.

For me, it's a hobby and I like having some variety of revolvers and auto-loaders and several .22s.

[Toronto]

77. If you were writing the legislation,

what would you suggest are fair requirements for gun owners, in the interest of public safety?

[slackmaster]

78. I've seen this one before

[RoccoR5955]

79. Less time to reload

If you have, say ten guns on your person, when you run out of ammo in the first 30 shot clip, because you are such a lousy shot, and miss them, you could just whip out another handgun with a 30 shot clip, ad nauseum.

The other thing is that a lot of these gun owners use their guns as a substitute for proper genitalia. More is better in this case. You know, they're more of a "man" if they have more handguns.

I am not trying to be rude, these are a couple of the arguments that I have heard from gun owners.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

80. Wow

"If you have, say ten guns on your person..."

Ten handguns with 30 round mags would weigh ~ 70 pounds give or take.



"...gun owners use their guns as a substitute..."

Oh, no! Genitalia alert!

[Toronto]

83. I think it would be kind to say

that your remarks are specious. Try giving a thoughful, honest answer.

[RoccoR5955]

84. Would an honest answer entail

recording people stating such?
You don't believe me? I am telling you it's true, this is what a few folks have told me.
The one with ten guns wouldn't have them in his pockets. they would be in a knapsack or something, but surely, you could have 2 in your waistband, 1 in the small of your back, and 2 in shoulder holsters. That would be 5 ready to go handguns that would require no time to reload.

[Toronto]

85. So someone actually said

"The other thing is that a lot of these gun owners use their guns as a substitute for proper genitalia. More is better in this case. You know, they're more of a "man" if they have more handguns."

[tortoise1956]

86. I think this post may fall under the same rule as farts

"The one who smelt it, dealt it."

Perhaps this poster is trying to deal with a personal lack by attributing it to others in a PPP (PeePee Post)...

[RoccoR5955]

114. What was actually said is,

"The more guns I have, the more of a man I am."
Therefore, one can extrapolate that his guns are a substitute for proper genitalia.

[Toronto]

121. The poor fellow was

probably a victim of 20th century American fiction which extols the "manly" virtues of gun ownership - not I think a substitute for genitalia but more a lack of personal identity.

[RoccoR5955]

130. Tell me about it.

There are many who are just like that.

[sylvi]

123. Cool Story, Bro'!™

Tell it again!

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

88. Variety is the spice of life...

and gun safes.

[jmg257]

95. I would suggest that most people don't need more then a few.

After the base perceived needs are filled (target, hunting, self defense, compact self defense, ??), the rest are just things that are wanted.

Does that make a person a nut because they happen to like guns? Not really...but if they are nuts about guns?

Hmmm...I guess I am a guitar nut 'cause I have 6 and don't need any...I just like them!

[echo216610]

99. why would a person need more than one watch or purse?

I own more than 1 handgun and if I had the money i would buy another one. the ones i have don't go with all my outfits. i suppose it would be like any other thing that interests anybody. if one or two is good three or four would be better. for me it is more like finding just the right one. i bought my first handgun in the 1980's when i reached the legal age. then later i found another one that better suited my needs. same thing years later another one that still better suited my needs. as the number grew i wondered what to do with the ones from previous years. i could sell them but what if they wound up in the wrong hands. even when you turn in a weapon to police departments most of them are sold at auction later so it could still wind up in the wrong hands. as long as i keep them they are not in the wrong hands and i may want to use them one day.

[wilt the stilt]

106. the need to hold two guns

while masturbating is very important.

[SummerSnow]

107. people have Yosemite Sam Syndrome

[backwoodsbob]

108. I own 2 handguns at the moment

one is for hunting and one is for home

[GreenStormCloud]

132. The U.S. doesn't have a Dept. of Needs.

We get to buy stuff because we want to. It is called freedom.