If owning a gun is a right, should guns be subsidized for the low income?

[Glaug-Eldare]

43. I see it a bit differently

First off, welcome to GC&RKBA!

As for the numbers, you're largely right -- firearms are not cheap, nor is ammunition. Guns are something most of us save up for, and we buy ammunition in bulk and on sale. Sad to say, but it's not likely that a poor household will be able to afford a quality gun and premium ammunition without scrimping and saving. Even then, they won't be able to afford to go to the range and practice very often. Permit fees are a major hurdle for the poor (as they're designed to be). That's just how it is, for guns, cars, houses, medical care, and clothes.

But even with a cheap gun, no-name ammo, and a handful of practice sessions through the year, that can provide a huge advantage. The "arms race" mentality doesn't exist between law-abiding gun owners. Except in exceedingly rare cases, the people investing hundreds or thousands of dollars in premium arms, magazines, training, etc. are not the ones committing violent crimes. The ones committing violent crimes have never trained, don't know the difference between steel and brass cases, and don't know how to maintain their guns. The poor Baltimorean with a Hi-Point and Tulammo FMJs has still improved his odds dramatically over the one without.

I don't mean to say that everybody should buy a gun, or that all guns are created equal, or even that everybody can afford to be armed -- only that the difference between being well-armed and poorly-armed is a lot smaller than the difference between being poorly-armed and unarmed.

As for what the Heritage Foundation has to say about it, they're hardly authorities on justice or truth.