6 ms·

Excellent. There's no reason defensive gun buyers should be demographically different from the general population. It's understandable that gun sales for hunt

by bm3719 5y ago

Excellent. There's no reason defensive gun buyers should be demographically different from the general population. It's understandable that gun sales for hunting or other activities might show differences, but we all have the same personal security needs. Side note: I'm one of the people here with a large collection of firearms. One thing to realize when you see the statistic that the US has more firearms than people is that only a percentage of them are really combat worthy/capable. Most of my collection, for example, are collectable historic pieces, or dedicated target/sporting firearms. Some of these could feasibly be pressed into service if you had absolutely nothing else, but they would be extremely sub-optimal for the task.

jvanderbot 5y ago
Your standard of combat is obscenely high. Any weapon that can kill an animal can be used quite well against humans in defense. Would they be standard issue arms for a modern army? Irrelevant.
- torstenvl 5y ago
  Your comment seems to be a bit of a non sequitur. GP said they were not combat-worthy due to being collectibles/antiques, not due to... whatever it is you're talking about. Among my collection is a 100-year-old 16ga. H&R single-barrel shotgun passed down through four generations. It hasn't been fired in decades, and hasn't seen an armorer in longer than that. Not only is there no semi-auto, there is no magazine at all, and even if you'd be willing to go to war with something that needed to be manually reloaded after every shot, I am not altogether convinced the breach wouldn't explode upon firing.
  - bm3719 5y ago
    This is correct. My current collectables (C&R and antique) are all capable of being fired, but I almost never do due to their value and risk of damaging them. Many are over 100 years old and there's a decent enough chance some irreplaceable part will break during use. I can also easily reduce their value by 1000s of dollars by doing something like this. I keep them because I enjoy their historical significance and the interesting mechanical solutions they embody, not for their ability to launch projectiles. When I'm ready to go to the nursing home, I'll sell them and get my money back or more. A good percentage of the firearms out there are like this, which was my point for those not aware. Another good percentage are specialized for sporting use. Some are so inappropriate for combat that you'd be better off with a spear (e.g., if given the choice between a 50lb benchrest rifle and a spear, I'll take the spear).
- kube-system 5y ago
  Some old collectables are not safely operable against any target. Some simply aren't operable. Even if they're not worn out from use or disrepair, the chemistry of ammunition has changed over the years and it may not be safe to use with modern ammunition. For others, commercially made ammunition might not be available at all. Yes, people have been killed by old antique guns. But most of them in this category them are rotting away in attics or forgotten in safes. They're certainly not what is predominantly being used in street crime.
- xdennis 5y ago
  I've never touched a gun, but as far as a know hunting weapons are not optimal for self defense. When you hunt a deer you try to hit from far away and if you miss, well, you'll find another. When someone is trying to harm you (even with a knife), you want to shoot multiple times and as fast as possible. If you shoot once and miss, by the time you manually reload, the attacker can get to you. If you do hit, but with a small caliber, that doesn't have stopping power. You might seriously injure the attacker, but he'll also injure/kill you.
  - Zababa 5y ago
    Sure, but if I had to choose between a hunting rifle and a knife I would still take the hunting rifle.
    - rpmisms 5y ago
      But if the choice comes down to a hunting rifle, a knife, and a Glock 19, I'm going to choose the option that will put the threat down quickly and humanely.
    - bm3719 5y ago
      Between the two, I might go with the knife in most situations. I can't carry my hunting rifle around with me all day. Mine also has a huge scope on it that makes it useless at the distances you would typically encounter a hostile human attacker. The rifle is also overpowered for the job, and introduces concern for damage to unintended targets.
      - Rebelgecko 5y ago
        Have you ever heard the saying "in a knife fight, the difference between the loser and the winner is that the winner gets to go to the hospital"? Doesn't seem like a fun situation to be in. Especially for people who hunt with weaker calibers or lower powered scopes, it seems ideal to stay out of arm's reach from any potential bad guy
anonfornoreason 5y ago
Or, the fact that you don't really know a particular gun fits you until you buy it and use it for a decent period of time. I have 6 different semi-automatic pistols because it's hard to find the right fit. Personally, it takes me 1000 rounds or so, plus 8+ hours of draw practice to feel comfortable with a given platform. Finally, selling used guns kinda sucks so I just end up keeping them.
standardUser 5y ago
For decades I have lived deep in the heart of some of the densest cities in the country (SF and NYC). These are places with serious and obvious crime problems that I have seen up close and personal, day in and day out. Yet to me, despite these experiences, the entire concept of "personal security needs" involving firearms is absolutely absurd. It sounds like a Monty Python sketch. Silly to the point of absurdity. But, I don't deny that tens of millions of Americans do genuinely think that owning a firearm is a legitimate security precaution. Even though they mostly live in vastly, vastly safer zip codes.
- Fogest 5y ago
  > Even though they mostly live in vastly, vastly safer zip codes. Do they though? Not sure where you got this information from. And are we talking legal gun ownership or guns in general? Because even in the "hood" and the "projects" it's quite common for people to be "strapped". Those guns may often not be legal, but they are also still carrying them for self-defense in most cases. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if these communities had a much higher percentage of weapons. I am sure you'd feel a lot safer walking at night in a low income neighbourhood if you had that kind of protection and I could definitely understand why someone would want to walk around armed.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    Not the parent poster, but I would not feel safer in a bad neighborhood armed. If someone is going to draw on me, I doubt I'd have the time to out-draw them. And if they aren't, then I just don't need the gun at all. Unless you're suggesting that walking around obviously armed acts as a deterrence, but I'm not sure I buy that either. I think it's equally possible that could draw more attention to you. (I do agree, though, that the parent seems to have some weird ideas as to what is and isn't safe, and what guns may or may not protect someone from.)
- teakettle42 5y ago
  You live somewhere with strict gun laws, and in your own words, serious and obvious crime problems. You think the people living in much safer places have a viewpoint that’s “silly to the point of absurdity”. Yet, they’re the ones living somewhere with much lower crime and murder rates. How is this an argument for the efficacy of your preferred policies?

by bm3719 5y ago

jvanderbot 5y ago

Your standard of combat is obscenely high. Any weapon that can kill an animal can be used quite well against humans in defense. Would they be standard issue arms for a modern army? Irrelevant.

torstenvl 5y ago
Your comment seems to be a bit of a non sequitur. GP said they were not combat-worthy due to being collectibles/antiques, not due to... whatever it is you're talking about. Among my collection is a 100-year-old 16ga. H&R single-barrel shotgun passed down through four generations. It hasn't been fired in decades, and hasn't seen an armorer in longer than that. Not only is there no semi-auto, there is no magazine at all, and even if you'd be willing to go to war with something that needed to be manually reloaded after every shot, I am not altogether convinced the breach wouldn't explode upon firing.
- bm3719 5y ago
  This is correct. My current collectables (C&R and antique) are all capable of being fired, but I almost never do due to their value and risk of damaging them. Many are over 100 years old and there's a decent enough chance some irreplaceable part will break during use. I can also easily reduce their value by 1000s of dollars by doing something like this. I keep them because I enjoy their historical significance and the interesting mechanical solutions they embody, not for their ability to launch projectiles. When I'm ready to go to the nursing home, I'll sell them and get my money back or more. A good percentage of the firearms out there are like this, which was my point for those not aware. Another good percentage are specialized for sporting use. Some are so inappropriate for combat that you'd be better off with a spear (e.g., if given the choice between a 50lb benchrest rifle and a spear, I'll take the spear).
kube-system 5y ago
Some old collectables are not safely operable against any target. Some simply aren't operable. Even if they're not worn out from use or disrepair, the chemistry of ammunition has changed over the years and it may not be safe to use with modern ammunition. For others, commercially made ammunition might not be available at all. Yes, people have been killed by old antique guns. But most of them in this category them are rotting away in attics or forgotten in safes. They're certainly not what is predominantly being used in street crime.
xdennis 5y ago
I've never touched a gun, but as far as a know hunting weapons are not optimal for self defense. When you hunt a deer you try to hit from far away and if you miss, well, you'll find another. When someone is trying to harm you (even with a knife), you want to shoot multiple times and as fast as possible. If you shoot once and miss, by the time you manually reload, the attacker can get to you. If you do hit, but with a small caliber, that doesn't have stopping power. You might seriously injure the attacker, but he'll also injure/kill you.
- Zababa 5y ago
  Sure, but if I had to choose between a hunting rifle and a knife I would still take the hunting rifle.
  - rpmisms 5y ago
    But if the choice comes down to a hunting rifle, a knife, and a Glock 19, I'm going to choose the option that will put the threat down quickly and humanely.
  - bm3719 5y ago
    Between the two, I might go with the knife in most situations. I can't carry my hunting rifle around with me all day. Mine also has a huge scope on it that makes it useless at the distances you would typically encounter a hostile human attacker. The rifle is also overpowered for the job, and introduces concern for damage to unintended targets.
    - Rebelgecko 5y ago
      Have you ever heard the saying "in a knife fight, the difference between the loser and the winner is that the winner gets to go to the hospital"? Doesn't seem like a fun situation to be in. Especially for people who hunt with weaker calibers or lower powered scopes, it seems ideal to stay out of arm's reach from any potential bad guy

anonfornoreason 5y ago

Or, the fact that you don't really know a particular gun fits you until you buy it and use it for a decent period of time. I have 6 different semi-automatic pistols because it's hard to find the right fit. Personally, it takes me 1000 rounds or so, plus 8+ hours of draw practice to feel comfortable with a given platform. Finally, selling used guns kinda sucks so I just end up keeping them.

standardUser 5y ago

For decades I have lived deep in the heart of some of the densest cities in the country (SF and NYC). These are places with serious and obvious crime problems that I have seen up close and personal, day in and day out. Yet to me, despite these experiences, the entire concept of "personal security needs" involving firearms is absolutely absurd. It sounds like a Monty Python sketch. Silly to the point of absurdity. But, I don't deny that tens of millions of Americans do genuinely think that owning a firearm is a legitimate security precaution. Even though they mostly live in vastly, vastly safer zip codes.

Fogest 5y ago
> Even though they mostly live in vastly, vastly safer zip codes. Do they though? Not sure where you got this information from. And are we talking legal gun ownership or guns in general? Because even in the "hood" and the "projects" it's quite common for people to be "strapped". Those guns may often not be legal, but they are also still carrying them for self-defense in most cases. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if these communities had a much higher percentage of weapons. I am sure you'd feel a lot safer walking at night in a low income neighbourhood if you had that kind of protection and I could definitely understand why someone would want to walk around armed.
- kelnos 5y ago
  Not the parent poster, but I would not feel safer in a bad neighborhood armed. If someone is going to draw on me, I doubt I'd have the time to out-draw them. And if they aren't, then I just don't need the gun at all. Unless you're suggesting that walking around obviously armed acts as a deterrence, but I'm not sure I buy that either. I think it's equally possible that could draw more attention to you. (I do agree, though, that the parent seems to have some weird ideas as to what is and isn't safe, and what guns may or may not protect someone from.)
teakettle42 5y ago
You live somewhere with strict gun laws, and in your own words, serious and obvious crime problems. You think the people living in much safer places have a viewpoint that’s “silly to the point of absurdity”. Yet, they’re the ones living somewhere with much lower crime and murder rates. How is this an argument for the efficacy of your preferred policies?