Do Lots of People Own Guns?

[fessie]

Just wondering how common it is for people to have a gun (or guns) in the house, and whether it's perceived as "normal".

[gladtobeblazed]

Depends on the location. In certain places it is "normal" to have guns in other places it is not.

[Cluricaun]

I'd think that there's plenty of gun owners who don't feel the need to broadcast their gun ownership to others. While many people here know I'm a gun owner, plenty of people in my day to day life don't. It's not always a popular subject, some people get very testy about it and then you have to shoot them. ;)

[Kalhoun]

Some people put the figure at 70 million in the US. I don't think most people find it peculiar, but I certainly do.

My husband owns a few, but they're locked up so tight it would take a weekend to figure out how to get at them.

[Khampelf]

It's 'normal' enough that it's part of the Bill of Rights. (If you're in the United States)

Makes it more normal than drinking alcohol. (Where that right was repealed, then restored)

IMVHO.

[silenus]

Around here, hell yeah. It's kinda assumed that a home is armed unless proven otherwise. But then I'm in a semi-rural part of Southern California. (Or at least it used to be. Damned developers!)

[Yorikke]

Everyone is a gun nut around here - Fresno, CA area. I understand the desire to have a gun for home protection (Though I don't have one), and I understand hunting (Though I don't hunt), and I understand collecting antique guns (Though I don't), but I just do not get the guys around here who compare the stats of their 6 different handguns against their friends' collections. I mean, it's a gun! Point at the thing you want to shoot and pull the trigger! I don't get the rabid devotion...

Joe

[Airman Doors, USAF]

I don't get the rabid devotion...

That's because you think it's rabid devotion. It's no different from people who have several different cars that they enjoy driving. They all have different feel, different characteristics, and while the skill is the same the technique is often different.

[Boyo Jim]

That's because you think it's rabid devotion. It's no different from people who have several different cars that they enjoy driving. They all have different feel, different characteristics, and while the skill is the same the technique is often different.

I don't get the car thing either. Nor die-hard sports fans. Rabid is rabid.

[Nawth Chucka]

I don't know about lots of people, but most people I have been close to in my life (family, friends, etc.) are gun owners. I am a gun owner and have been for over a decade. I grew up in an armed home and it wasn't the only one in the neighborhood.
I would call it common, but I don't know that it's normal. Lots of people have tattoos, and I wouldn't call that normal, per se.

[Queen Bruin]

I don't know if lots of people own guns, but I own lots of guns. OK, not lots, only 4. And I share them with my husband. I got my first gun (.22 single-shot bolt-action, I still have it) when I was in the fifth grade. I wasn't allowed to keep it of course, but it was mine. It's about 10 feet behind me in the rifle case. Fun as hell to plink cans with, and cheap, too.

I'm having a shotgun craving at the moment, personally. Might need it if zombies attack. Zombies don't stand a chance against 12 gauge.

[Anaamika]

I think - I'm not sure - that NY has one of the stricter set of gun laws around. So that's probably kind of discouraging to some There are gun clubs and associations here but what people mostly own here is rifles for hunting and shotguns for skeet shooting and the like.

Not really being part of that circle I couldn't tell you how many but I bet the percentage of people who have a rifle is pretty high. You only have to go maybe 20 miles outside of Albany for it to get pretty rural, after all. And I have even considered, when I get a house, to have a shotgun - and I am not particularly fond of guns.

[Queen Bruin]

Should have answered the main thrust of the OP. I consider it normal. In my family and around my peers anyways, it's normal. I don't think we're out and out "gun nuts", but I learned to be respectful and how to operate them at a young age. I'm not in the NRA (I was, but their rhetoric was a little too heavy for me, the gun-toting liberal) and I don't go to the range more than a few times a year.

Everything stays secure, even though we don't have kids. No trigger locks or anything, but I don't have a big sign over my house that says, "ARSENAL IN HERE," either.

[Paul in Qatar]

All my students have guns. We can get into an excited debate between those who favor the AK family or the Armalites. They claim to also have RPGs, apparently "In case the Ottomans come back."

[silenus]

"In case the Ottomans come back."

Sounds like a perfectly rational reason to me. :D

[Crafter_Man]

We have about 10 guns in the house. And lots of ammo. Noteworthy guns include a FAL, AR-15, and a .50 BMG bolt action.

I consider it very normal. :cool:

[Bricker]

Gun owner here, consider it normal.

[Bobotheoptimist]

I know a few people who don't have a gun, which I consider abnormal. As far as I know, the vast majority of my acquaintances have at least one.

If the 70 million gun owners number mentioned is true, that's about 1 for every 4 people, or 66% of households (2000 census). I suppose it's probable that there's more than one owner per household, but 66% sounds about right to me - Thinking of any 10 of my friends, 7 of them probably have a firearm.

I haven't seen the source of that number, so my opinion is worth almost every penny you paid for it :)

[StuffLikeThatThere]

I don't consider it abnormal, but I don't consider it abnormal to not own a gun, either.

Right where I live, nearly every household has a gun, but nobody talks about it much. It's quite rural and a gun is needed for pest control, or in the case of our neighbor, to kill the extremely aggressive coydog that used to be eating one of your calves and is now aimed at you. :eek:

However, 20 miles away and in a more populated area (though it would still be called a small town by any self-respecting city dweller), it's much less common to own a gun. At least as far as I know. I don't take polls at the local Wally World or anything.

[GuyNblueJeans]

Guns. No one can say what will happen in the future. If, God-forbid, the Islamo nut jobs wipe out D.C. and New York City and the square jawed news guys then get on TV and say your money is worthless ... and everyone is on their own, you'll then wish like hell that you had a gun because, as they say, nice guys finish last.

[Savannah]

Just wondering how common it is for people to have a gun (or guns) in the house, and whether it's perceived as "normal".

Where are you asking about? I'm in Canada, and growing up, I never even realised there were a couple of old hunting rifles in the basement until we moved one year. I didn't know anyone with a gun, my father didn't hunt any more, and I never owned or even handled one. I grew up in the interior of British Columbia.

When I lived in Alaska for a few years, it was a completely different situation. Every single man I dated had a gun. I don't know if my female acquaintances had guns; I wouldn't be surprised if they did.

Back living in Victoria, BC Canada, I'm back to a 'non-gun' culture. I don't know anyone who has one in my circle of friends, co-workers, or acquaintances. But then, I also never think to ask.

So... no, yes, and no. As far as I know. :)

[ExTank]

Just wondering how common it is for people to have a gun (or guns) in the house, and whether it's perceived as "normal".

From the outer suburbs of St. Louis, it depends on who you talk to. Most of my coworkers consider gun ownership "nothing special." They also consider not owning a gun "nothing special."

Amongst family, gun ownership is quite normal.

I have 12 of them in my house, evenly divided between handguns and long guns.

[NinetyWt]

Just wondering how common it is for people to have a gun (or guns) in the house, and whether it's perceived as "normal". Depends upon the region. Here, most every one has hunting guns. Between deer hunting and turkey hunting, it's very big. A lot of folks keep their long guns in a closet or special gun cabinet. Hand guns as well. My hubby has a concealed carry permit and we do take that hand gun to places like New Orleans and Memphis. It has come in right handy a time or two. :)

[DanBlather]

None of my close friends or family members own guns, and I would have felt nervous to have my child play at a friends house if there were guns there.

That's because you think it's rabid devotion. It's no different from people who have several different cars that they enjoy driving. They all have different feel, different characteristics, and while the skill is the same the technique is often different.Where it would get creepy is if people talked endlessly about whether an SUV driven at 70 MPH had more stopping power than a Porsche at 120 MPH when you were trying to run someone down.

[Kalhoun]

One statistic I heard a few years back (sorry, no cite but I do remember that the source sounded reputable) states that there are more gun dealers than gas stations in the US. Most gun dealers operate out of their homes, so it is not as apparent to most people. So, yes...lots of people own guns and lots of those people own multiple guns.

[jjimm]

Really the only people round here who own guns are farmers, sports shooters, antique collectors, the police, and gang members.

Having a gun in your house in England 'normal' circumstances would be seen as exceptionally strange.

[zuma]

I've known just two people in my lifetime who have owned guns. At least that I know of. I'd be hard-pressed to spend a week searching out acquaintences who I knew owned guns. Apparently they are sold in supermarkets from some of the things you read here, though.

Now, yes, I don't live in the south or midwest, so things might be different there.

[zuma]

Upon reading this thread again, I find the amount of gun-owners shocking. Apparently, if you get outside of 30 miles of the ocean, you must own a gun.

[enipla]

We own guns. I suspect that just about every house in the valley has some sort of fire arm.

I have never purchased a gun yet I have 2 large caliber lever action rifles, two shotguns, one pistol and one revolver and two .22 rifles.

All handed down to me. Except for two which where gifts.

[GuyNblueJeans]

It's as someone observed: I'd rather own a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have one.

[Beware of Doug]

I'm from Iowa originally. I wasn't into shooting growing up, but I didn't think anything of it particularly. We had a 20 gauge shotgun, although it hadn't been used since my dad's hunting "phase" in the 50s.

Kids I knew used bb guns and the older ones, .22 rifles, and my 6th grade teacher was an occasional black powder shooter. Rural families were used to clearing off rabbits, raccoons and such, and pheasant hunting was popular in season.

What we would have found worrisome, back there in 1970s Iowa, was people owning, and especially concealing, handguns. Property crime was low, and I never heard of the NRA back then (they certainly didn't do much lobbying). Long guns were tools - handguns were "trouble."

[Czarcasm]

Going on years of past history, I think I'll just skip past the 3 or 4 warnings on not turning this gun thread into a debate and just skip to the final step:
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.

[fessie]

My Dad remarked recently that not having a gun made our household somewhat unusual (but of course, just "normal" to me) because "everybody" has a gun. But he's prone to melodrama, so I thought I'd ask people here.

There was a letter in our local paper about gun ownership and law enforcement, and the writer dared people to post "no gun on premises" signs on the lawn. I thought, geez, is that all that's keeping people from breaking in?



oh, dear, I thought this was just a simple poll and not a debate.

[River Hippie]

Here in Indiana they are very common. When I go out to my Mom's house, which used to be out in the country but is now being swallowed by urban sprawl, it's not unusual to hear gunfire. People target practicing in the woods. Indiana has to be one of the most gun friendly states in the US. I just renewed my concealed carry permit, now good for life, for $125. The state law is that they must issue you a permit unless they can show some reason you shouldn't have it unlike many states where you have to show you need one.
Very normal to have a gun in the home here.

[DSeid]

To the op ...

... firearms ownership was unevenly distributed in the population: 24.6% of U.S. adults owned a firearm— 41.8% of men and 9.0% of women. Another survey found that 41% of (adult) respondents reported having a firearm in their home in 1994, as did 32% in 2000. -Source (http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/viol-AJPM-evrev-firearms-law.pdf)

[BarnOwl]

I am probably the least likely Doper to own a gun, but until recently I had a WWII 35 Caliber carbine, took it out once for target practice, then put it under the bed and all but forgot about it.

This year I traded it to my son in law for a brand new pellet rifle which is more my style. My Great White Hunting exploits consist of culling the squirrel population and eliminating raccoons in the neighborhood.

According to that same son in law, some town in a southern state (KY? TN?) passed a law, not long ago, that every resident had to own a shotgun, plus 10 rounds of ammo.

The violent crime rate went to zero, he said. Anyone familiar with that?

(If this issue appeared in a previous thread, please ignore.)

[BarnOwl]

When I lived in Alaska for a few years, it was a completely different situation. Every single man I dated had a gun. I don't know if my female acquaintances had guns; I wouldn't be surprised if they did.

So... no, yes, and no. As far as I know. :)

Was the crime rate lower in your Alaska town (and perhaps in Alaska, in general), than it is where you are now in Canada (and in Canada, in general)?

(See my post #36, to make sense of this question.)

[Boyo Jim]

... According to that same son in law, some town in a southern state (KY? TN?) passed a law, not long ago, that every resident had to own a shotgun, plus 10 rounds of ammo.

The violent crime rate went to zero, he said. Anyone familiar with that?....

The town is Kennesaw, Georgia.

[E-Sabbath]

Where it would get creepy is if people talked endlessly about whether an SUV driven at 70 MPH had more stopping power than a Porsche at 120 MPH when you were trying to run someone down.
SUV. Besides the kinetic energy issue, it's the high front end that really does it. Part of why you don't see the old hood ornaments anymore, and part of why hood styles changed.

Location: Mid-NY. South of Upstate, north of the City.
Guns: Family has had them since we came over, we have several of various description. Fewer than two dozen in the immediate household.
Neighbors: Most of them have one somewhere... not really mentioned.
Shopkeepers: Most of them have a pistol somewhere, if they work in the city or somewhere down by the river in the Hudson Valley. Tend to carry when making deposits.
Untrackable guns: Probably one in four guns is completely untracable by law enforcement, due to being over fifty years old and/or something picked up in a war and brought home as a trophy, from a random survey of neighbors and my house. Maybe one in five or six, but around that.
Surprising Guns: About one in ten people who own a gun, owns something that'll surprise the hell out of you. Police Chief is a friend of the family. Upstate New York. Went to high school with the OC Chopper guys. Refuses to carry a pistol.
... owns a number of... I forget the model, but it's equivalent to the HK M416s.
One guy, nice guy, sailor, dentist... collects Pre-October Revolution Russian arms. Handmade, inlays, gorgeous.

[AdmiralCrunch]

Where it would get creepy is if people talked endlessly about whether an SUV driven at 70 MPH had more stopping power than a Porsche at 120 MPH when you were trying to run someone down.
Except stopping power isn't what cars are made for. I admit it would be creepy if all car enthusiasts talked endlessly about murdering people with their cars, but it's not relevant to a discussion about guns.

I don't own one, but finding out someone has a gun is about as weird as finding out someone wears contacts. Notable but not exceptional.

[DanBlather]

The town is Kennesaw, Georgia.From Wiki:Gary Kleck, a criminologist and gun-control critic attributes a drop of 89% in the residential burglary rate to the law. Kennesaw is often cited by advocates of gun ownership as evidence that gun ownership deters crime. (see, for instance, this 2004 sheet of talking points from the Gun Owners Foundation).

Other criminologists, such as David McDowall, Brian Wiersema, Alan J. Lizotte and Colin Loftin, dispute the 89% figure, using the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting data, and find instead a small, statistically insignificant increase in burglaries after the law was passed.

[T_SQUARE]

All my students have guns. We can get into an excited debate between those who favor the AK family or the Armalites. They claim to also have RPGs, apparently "In case the Ottomans come back."

What are the laws about gun ownership in Saudi? Are they talking about select fire automatics?

[Savannah]

Was the crime rate lower in your Alaska town (and perhaps in Alaska, in general), than it is where you are now in Canada (and in Canada, in general)?

(See my post #36, to make sense of this question.)

I'm not sure. I suspect it was higher--I lived in Anchorage, which is "big city" for Alaska, and it certainly had its share of property and violent crimes.

Here in Victoria, we seem to have a lot of property crimes, assaults, stabbings and suchforth, but a death by shooting would be very big news. In Anchorage, a death by shooting would not be considered such an extraordinary event.

This is citeless, I'm sorry.

Edited to add: Both Victoria and Anchorage are minor port cities with military bases and tourism, but the culture is quite different. Anchorage still, in the 90s, had a bit of a "frontier" feeling, whereas Victoria until recently, was quite settled and opposed to change. We're just now putting up tall buildings!

[BF]

One statistic I heard a few years back (sorry, no cite but I do remember that the source sounded reputable) states that there are more gun dealers than gas stations in the US. Most gun dealers operate out of their homes, so it is not as apparent to most people. So, yes...lots of people own guns and lots of those people own multiple guns.This may have been true at one time, but during the Clinton administration they raised the fee for FFL's from about $50 to $600 and added a significant number of reporting requirements, forcing a lot of the "out of the garage" dealers out of business.

[marshmallow]

Just another data point:

My father is a dorky engineer and my mom is what I might describe as a very socially liberal old school Republican. Both inherited several hunting rifles from their parents -- on my mother's side because they died, father's side because they don't exactly hunt much in Florida. All these rifles are stored under lock and key (with no ammo to be found).

Also, my dad keeps a loaded shotgun under his side of the bed and a pistol -- bought by my mom -- in his bedside drawer, both for home defense.

[Lizard]

Where I grew up in rural Ohio it was very normal, even routine. Most of the guys I knew in middle school had .22 rifles, and I bought one for myself when I was 17. (My mother signed the legal forms, but it was my money.) I've owned a gun or several guns of some sort ever since. My budget has always been limited, so I've never been able to get what I would consider "mainstream" weapons, like a Glock pistol or or a Remington varmint rifle. I've owned a few military surplus weapons, a cheap (but sturdy and serviceable) bolt-action 16-gauge shotgun, a pump-action .22 that belonged to my grandfather, etc. Right now I still own that rifle and shotgun, but they are at my parents' house. WIth me I only have a 9mm pistol and a .22 revolver.

In my experience, the closer I move to NYC/N.J., the more negative people get about guns. A coworker who grew up in Brooklyn explained it to me this way: In his neighborhood, the only people with guns were cops and hoods. So if you weren't a cop, what did having a guns say about you?

[Mrs. Janet Garrison]

Guns. No one can say what will happen in the future. If, God-forbid, the Islamo nut jobs wipe out D.C. and New York City and the square jawed news guys then get on TV and say your money is worthless ... and everyone is on their own, you'll then wish like hell that you had a gun because, as they say, nice guys finish last.

Is this really a fear that keeps you awake at night? :confused:

[BarnOwl]

Is this really a fear that keeps you awake at night? :confused:

I'd have one in my house if I lived in NYC - and some other places in the US. Hell, I might even carry it concealed.

And I wouldn't give a rat's ass what anyone thought about me.

How much does a Glock go for?

[BarnOwl]

Answered my own question -

They run in the area of ~$500 according to this website:

http://www.ozarkguns.com/pistols/glock/glock_compact.htm

[DanBlather]

I'd have one in my house if I lived in NYC - and some other places in the US. Hell, I might even carry it concealed.

And I wouldn't give a rat's ass what anyone thought about me.

How much does a Glock go for?Where are you from? There is a good chance your crime rate is higher than NYC.

[Sam Stone]

Everyone is a gun nut around here - Fresno, CA area. I understand the desire to have a gun for home protection (Though I don't have one), and I understand hunting (Though I don't hunt), and I understand collecting antique guns (Though I don't), but I just do not get the guys around here who compare the stats of their 6 different handguns against their friends' collections. I mean, it's a gun! Point at the thing you want to shoot and pull the trigger! I don't get the rabid devotion...

Joe

I don't get the car thing either. Nor die-hard sports fans. Rabid is rabid.

Aren't you enlightened. And I take it you don't get into Mac/PC wars, or Linux vs windows, or XBox vs PS/3, or HO trains vs N scale, or...

When people bomb into threads to declare that people who have a passion for something are 'rabid' and make no sense, it seems to me that it's just a way of atempting to assert their superiority. Then the same people will enage in a heated debate with someone over whether Denby china is better than Mikasa, or rank their favorite rally bike manufacturers in order.

Everyone has passions. You don't understand gun owners or car lovers or sports lovers? Look in a mirror before you cast stones. And if you really don't have any passions like this about the things in your life well... I feel sorry for you.

[BarnOwl]

I live in Brookfield CT.

I don't think I'm in a high crime town, but fire away, DanBlather. :D :D :D

In a neighboring town we recently had a Board of Ed member nailed for throwing a booze party for his high school kid and friends. The moron resigned in disgrace.

In the area, we have a murder once every five years or so, most notably the airline pilot who murdered his wife and put her parts in a wood chipper which puree-ed them and then sloshed them into a nearby lake.

[glee]

Really the only people round here who own guns are farmers, sports shooters, antique collectors, the police, and gang members.

Having a gun in your house in England 'normal' circumstances would be seen as exceptionally strange.

Here in England, if I remember correctly:

- farmers are only allowed shotguns (which have to be licenced)
- sports shooters are not allowed handguns (after Dunblane (http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=763&id=1627642001) )
- antique collectors are not allowed workable guns
- only a few special units of police have guns (not the beat cops)
- extra legal penalties for criminals using guns

So if someone has a handgun here, they're either specially trained police or criminals.
The above makes gun ownership incredibly rare here.

[DanBlather]

I live in Brookfield CT.

I don't think I'm in a high crime town, but fire away, DanBlather. :D :D :D

In a neighboring town we recently had a Board of Ed member nailed for throwing a booze party for his high school kid and friends. The moron resigned in disgrace.

In the area, we have a murder once every five years or so, most notably the airline pilot who murdered his wife and put her parts in a wood chipper which puree-ed them and then sloshed them into a nearby lake.Oh sure, pick "Happyville, USA", that's not fair. ;)

Far as I can tell Brookfield had 27 crimes/1000 in 2000 vs NYC's 31/1000.

[Tripler]

I own a gun--several in fact. I consider it optional for people to own one, but not a requirement. I consider it normal for people to act upon their wishes, desires, and available options. I consider owning a gun "normal".

Also, just recently, I applied for and was issued a concealed carry permit. Do I carry? Haven't yet. But now I legally have the option.

Tripler
Do I need one? No. But I thank God I have the option to own one, and that's why I do.

[gonzomax]

I met 6 guys from my old high school days about 10 years ago. As we were drinking beer and reminiscing it came out that I was the only one not carrying.

[BarnOwl]

Oh sure, pick "Happyville, USA", that's not fair. ;)

Far as I can tell Brookfield had 27 crimes/1000 in 2000 vs NYC's 31/1000.

See? It's the Garden of Eden before the fall. :D :D :D

[GuyNblueJeans]

Is this really a fear that keeps you awake at night? :confused:

No. But it doesn't mean my reasoning is flawed. ;)

[lekatt]

I live in the city where the largest gun show in the US is held. It is held in the IPE building, close to half a million square feet, with no inside supports. Over a thousand tables of guns of all kinds, old and new. When the show is held you can't park within a mile of the place unless you are an official. I went to the last show just to look around, cost me $10. I was there about three hours and saw about half of it. The gun sales were brisk I was told by a dealer. I think guns are common, especially in my part of the country. Can't say whether that is good or bad, depends on their use.

[BarnOwl]

Can you get good deals at Gun Shos? You know, like go on the last day and pick up a pretty good Glock at a pretty good price?

[Bobotheoptimist]

Not at the gun shows I've been to ("to which I've been"?) Good deals on parts and accessories occasionally, but it's been a long time since I've seen a reasonably priced firearm at one. Even used beat up junk offered by random individuals are twice what they should be. Seems it all went to hell about the time the so-called "gun show loophole" crap hit the press... Or maybe after the assault weapon ban, when everyone was looking for grandfathered hi-cap mags.

Could just be the Tanner show we have around here, but I don't even go unless I'm in the market for something like a rare book or a special part (still need a screw for an S&W grip, looks like I'm going in June)

[DSeid]

Sorry to chime in again with figures that actually address the op but I wonder if any of the gun affidicios here have an explanation for this stat? (http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/13/1/15) The General Social Survey indicates that household gun ownership has been declining over time, from about 50% in the early 1970s to current estimates of 34%.1 Although the exact number of firearms in the US may be debatable as a result of inclusion or exclusion of outliers, or whether individual or household responses are used, it seems that although the proportion of households with firearms is declining, the number of working firearms in the US is increasing, not decreasing, and increasing most among those who already own firearms.

[Martin Hyde]

Sorry to chime in again with figures that actually address the op but I wonder if any of the gun affidicios here have an explanation for this stat? (http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/13/1/15)

Guns seem to be getting ever more expensive and many major cities have very restrictive gun laws. Also, it's rare that someone gets into a sporting activity like hunting unless their father took them and got them interested in it. As more people have moved to suburbs and urban areas vs. more rural areas, it's been less and less common for people to be hunters. While I don't discount the people who buy guns for personal protection, I think traditionally gun ownership was primarily driven by sportsmen.

As far as hobbies go, hunting is a hassle. You have to take hours and hours out of a day to do it properly, you need a firearm usually in the $500-$1200 range, you have to go through licensing procedures, and when all is said and done you still only get to do it a few months out of the year because of hunting seasons.

Hunting seems to be a dying hobby, just like another hobby of mine--war gaming. There was an article in a popular magazine on the hobby recently which shows the high cost of miniatures and the difficulty in finding games (combined with the convenience of PC games in the same vein) have more or less killed the classic war gaming crowd.

Target shooters and non-hunting "gun enthusiasts" are a relatively minor part of the gun owning population. As less people become hunters, less individuals have any reason to purchase a gun. Whereas the gun enthusiasts tend to have interest in purchasing ever more guns.

[Lizard]

Not at the gun shows I've been to ("to which I've been"?) Good deals on parts and accessories occasionally, but it's been a long time since I've seen a reasonably priced firearm at one. Even used beat up junk offered by random individuals are twice what they should be. Seems it all went to hell about the time the so-called "gun show loophole" crap hit the press... Or maybe after the assault weapon ban, when everyone was looking for grandfathered hi-cap mags.

My theory is that we all got spoiled by all the cheap military surplus stuff in really good condition floating around in the 1990s from former Warsaw Pact countries and China. For a while you could get a solidly made SKS powerful enogh to hunt deer for well under $150; you might still, but only if you're lucky. The best ones have already been sold. I bought an old Hungarian Moisin-Nagant M44 Carbine in good shootin' shape for just $60 in Oregon around 2001. That thing thundered like a cannon and kicked like a mule, but it was accurate, and I could've hunted bear with it if I wanted.
Those days of cheap guns made to mil-spec available everywhere are receding, and they will probably never return. The most common military weapons being made in the world now are AK clones that would be illegal for civilians to own, so they have no resale value. There's still WWII surplus out there, but by now it's been through multiple owners, and a Garand that cost 50$ in 1960 costs hundreds now. They aren't making any more of them.

I also think the poor salesmanship and attitude I've seen exhibited by many, many people in the gun business has something to do with the rate of gun ownership mentioned above too. I've dealt with more rude pricks than I can care to remember at gun shows and gun shops. You'd think they could act with some civility, if they expect me to spend my money on their stock, but no.

[Martini Enfield]

I grew up in the South Island of New Zealand, where most people I knew owned a gun in some form- if not an air rifle, then a .22, shotgun, .303, or hunting rifle.

Here in Australia, gun ownership is very common in rural areas- most farmers I know have at least a shotgun- whilst in the cities it's not uncommon, but not nearly as widespread as it is out in the bush.

[lekatt]

Sorry to chime in again with figures that actually address the op but I wonder if any of the gun affidicios here have an explanation for this stat? (http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/13/1/15)

I wouldn't pay to much attention to surveys, and polls. A lot of gun owners don't want others to know because guns are expensive and people like to steal them.

[Kalhoun]

I wouldn't pay to much attention to surveys, and polls. A lot of gun owners don't want others to know because guns are expensive and people like to steal them.
How would an anonymous poll have any affect on that? Gun prices run the gamut from ridiculously cheap to ridiculously expensive.

[BarnOwl]

How would an anonymous poll have any affect on that? Gun prices run the gamut from ridiculously cheap to ridiculously expensive.

'cause if the pole's onna computer yew caint erase it!! Krikey Kalhoun, sum times ah think yew ar so dum! :D :D :D

[Kalhoun]

'cause if the pole's onna computer yew caint erase it!! Krikey Kalhoun, sum times ah think yew ar so dum! :D :D :D
Sheeeee-it! It's a conspiracy, daddy!

[Zsofia]

Well, it depends on who you ask. All of my parents friends have a gun in the house (although Dottie has no idea how to shoot hers, which is okay because she also doesn't have any ammo. Sigh.) A quick survey of the people working in my department has two out of six owning guns, including me. This is the South, however.

[Kalhoun]

Well, it depends on who you ask. All of my parents friends have a gun in the house (although Dottie has no idea how to shoot hers, which is okay because she also doesn't have any ammo. Sigh.) A quick survey of the people working in my department has two out of six owning guns, including me. This is the South, however.
That's my favorite kind of gun! Nothin' like a good pistol whippin' to get the anger out of your system.

[Bobotheoptimist]

I also think the poor salesmanship and attitude I've seen exhibited by many, many people in the gun business has something to do with the rate of gun ownership mentioned above too. I've dealt with more rude pricks than I can care to remember at gun shows and gun shops. You'd think they could act with some civility, if they expect me to spend my money on their stock, but no.Oh hell yes! Gun store owners must have the worst job in the world to judge by their attitude. I don't even feel bad about buying from big box sporting goods stores. I've heard racist and sexist remarks loudly spewed by an owner in a busy store in front of several people who obviously were looking for their first gun. Sickening, and I cheered when that prick went out of business.
The guy that rambled on endlessly about TWA flight 800 and Vince Foster wasn't as bad, at least he was friendly.

[BarnOwl]

Has anyone ever bought a handgun online? There are lots of sites selling them, and I think it would be legal for me (in CT) to buy one.

Maybe not. I don't have a license, and I suspect a gun dealer here wouldn't sell me one without it.

[Bobotheoptimist]

Has anyone ever bought a handgun online? There are lots of sites selling them, and I think it would be legal for me (in CT) to buy one.

Maybe not. I don't have a license, and I suspect a gun dealer here wouldn't sell me one without it.They will ship it to the FFL of your choice, but not directly to you. Find a licensed dealer first then contact the seller. The dealer will charge you a fee, but it's a fairly painless process providing you have decent dealers in your area. I've heard that some of the big stores will do it too, but I don't know for sure.

[lekatt]

How would an anonymous poll have any affect on that? Gun prices run the gamut from ridiculously cheap to ridiculously expensive.

Expensive and cheap relative to what? I haven't seen any cheap ones lately.

[Kalhoun]

Expensive and cheap relative to what? I haven't seen any cheap ones lately.
I picked one up for my husband for less than a deuce. You can spend thousands...even millions on a valuable collector gun. And everything in between.

[BarnOwl]

Expensive and cheap relative to what? I haven't seen any cheap ones lately.

I googled for cheap handguns. Didn't find any - but I admit I skimmed. The word seems to be there are plenty on the street for sale - but I suspect these aren't the places you'd even consider. Nor would I.

[GuyNblueJeans]

I grew up in the South Island of New Zealand, where most people I knew owned a gun in some form- if not an air rifle, then a .22, shotgun, .303, or hunting rifle.

Here in Australia, gun ownership is very common in rural areas- most farmers I know have at least a shotgun- whilst in the cities it's not uncommon, but not nearly as widespread as it is out in the bush.

I thought I read in many-a places that some zealot politicians a few years back had all the guns taken from private citizens. In fact (as my recollection returns to me at the moment) I'm pretty sure that the NRA made something out of this, running ads stating that your countries crime had gone way up as a result of gun confiscation. Hmm.

[mswas]

I don't get the car thing either. Nor die-hard sports fans. Rabid is rabid.

Get a hobby!

[GuyNblueJeans]

Well, it depends on who you ask. All of my parents friends have a gun in the house (although Dottie has no idea how to shoot hers, which is okay because she also doesn't have any ammo. Sigh.) A quick survey of the people working in my department has two out of six owning guns, including me. This is the South, however.

I feel that every law-abiding, level-headed woman in America should carry. The rapes would go waaaay down if they did.

Several years ago, I read this heart warming article about a lady that came home to the darkened garage of her house and was attacked by some scumbag from behind and, thankfully, she had the presence of mind to reach into her purse for her gun and place a bullet in his head, killing him instantly.

God bless her! :)

[mswas]

I don't own a gun as I live in NYC and it is illegal. My Father owns two a .30 calibre Carbine revolver and a 9mm Luger my Grandfather took off of a Nazi officer.

I prefer to be able to kill with my bare hands. ;p

Gun ownership is important so that every person can be an armed sovereign republic unto themselves.

[Kalhoun]

I feel that every law-abiding, level-headed woman in America should carry. The rapes would go waaaay down if they did.

Several years ago, I read this heart warming article about a lady that came home to the darkened garage of her house and was attacked by some scumbag from behind and, thankfully, she had the presence of mind to reach into her purse for her gun and place a bullet in his head, killing him instantly.

God bless her! :)
Oh yes...by all means bless the murderess. Bless her hard.

Some interesting stats on women and guns:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Q6CTiOgxk6YJ:www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/women.pdf+women+using+guns+against+attackers&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

Myth: Guns protect women from rape.
Fact: Guns are rarely used by rapists - less than 2 percent of rapes are committed with guns,while almost 70 percent are committed with personal weapons (physical violence). Women would be safer knowing self-defense to fight off an attacker than using a gun which can easily be turned against them.

Myth: Women need guns to protect against stranger rape.
Fact: Stranger rape is not the greatest danger for women as most women (75 percent) are raped byoffenders known to the victim. 60 percent of rapes are committed against victims under the age of 18 who are forbidden by law to own a gun.

[ExTank]

Oh yes...by all means bless the murderess. Bless her hard.

Some interesting stats on women and guns:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Q6CTiOgxk6YJ:www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/women.pdf+women+using+guns+against+attackers&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

Uhm....yeeaaahhhhh...... :dubious:

Y'know? Citing the Bracy Center might not be the best way to go about making your case.

[GuyNblueJeans]

Kalhoun --

If, God forbid, any of us "gun nuts" should happen to one day see you being raped, what should we do?

[Kalhoun]

Kalhoun --

If, God forbid, any of us "gun nuts" should happen to one day see you being raped, what should we do?
What does that have to do with women carrying guns for protection?

[Kalhoun]

Uhm....yeeaaahhhhh...... :dubious:

Y'know? Citing the Bracy Center might not be the best way to go about making your case.
Do you have stats that counter these? I'd like to see them.

[Bookkeeper]

I don't own a gun (1:35 scale artillery models excepted), but my father has several which he has had from before I was born. One .22 rifle, a Walther automatic pistol (war souvenir originally acquired by my grandfather) and a .455 Webley revolver that was my grandfather's personal military sidearm.

[GuyNblueJeans]

What does that have to do with women carrying guns for protection?

Are you serious?

Well, if the lady has a gun and some guy has his pants down around his ankles while sporting a boner and intending to insert said boner into her wee wee without her permission, then she can BLOW HIM OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH. And if she (you) doesn't have a gun to take care of the situation, THEN one of us folks that do own firearms, if we're there, can intercede and BLOW THE CREEP AWAY (and put him out of business so he'll not harm other ladies and girls).

Does that make sense, Kalhoun?

[ExTank]

Do you have stats that counter these? I'd like to see them.

Well, now that you mention it...

First: Women's Self Defense Institute (http://www.rapeescape.com/fightwfear.htm)

Studies have finally dispelled the myth that women are unable to protect themselves and that resistance will only "make things worse," replacing this erroneous claim with newfound data: immediate and aggressive responses including fighting back are effective. Conversely pleading, reasoning or appealing to a rapist’s humanity is not - the latter being "almost universally futile," notes Dr. Judith Herman, foremost authority on trauma and author of the best selling book Trauma and Recovery.

Second: Rape and Resistance (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0037-7791(199005)37%3A2%3C149%3ARAR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M)


What are the consequences when rape victims resist rapists? Analysis of a nationally representative sample of rape incidents reported in the National Crime Surveys for 1979 to 1985 yields the following findings: (1) Victims who resist are much less likely to have the rape completed against them than nonresisting victims, a pattern generally apparent regardless of the specific form of resistance; (2) The form of resistance that appears most effective in preventing rape completion is resistance with a gun, knife, or other weapon; (3) Most forms of resistance are not significantly associated with higher rates of victim injury. The exceptions are unarmed forceful resistance and threatening or arguing with the rapist; (4) Even these two forms of resistance probably do not generally provoke rapists to injure their victims, as ancillary evidence concerning assaults and robberies indicates that resistance rarely precedes injury. Attack against the victim appears to provoke victim resistance, rather than the reverse; (5) Only about three percent of rape incidents involve some additional injury that could be described as serious. Thus it is the rape itself that is nearly always the most serious injury the victim suffers. Consequently, refraining from resistance in order to avoid injury in addition to the rape is a questionable tradeoff.

[Kalhoun]

Are you serious?

Well, if the lady has a gun and some guy has his pants down around his ankles while sporting a boner and intending to insert said boner into her wee wee without her permission, then she can BLOW HIM OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH. And if she (you) doesn't have a gun to take care of the situation, THEN one of us folks that do own firearms, if we're there, can intercede and BLOW THE CREEP AWAY (and put him out of business so he'll not harm other ladies and girls).

Does that make sense, Kalhoun?

You said all women should carry guns to protect them from rapists. I disagreed. Then you said

If, God forbid, any of us "gun nuts" should happen to one day see you being raped, what should we do?

and I said:

What does that have to do with women carrying guns for protection?

I'll ask again. What does a bystander have to do with a woman carrying a gun for protection?

I would hope that a bystander would help me, of course. But my carrying a gun doesn't ensure my safety and may very well get me killed when all I would have been was raped. See the difference? I do not believe rape is an offense that would justify anyone killing anyone over.

[Kalhoun]

Well, now that you mention it...

First: Women's Self Defense Institute (http://www.rapeescape.com/fightwfear.htm)



Second: Rape and Resistance (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0037-7791(199005)37%3A2%3C149%3ARAR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M)
I agree that women can fight back. I do not agree that a gun is the best way to do that. And as I said earlier, rape is not justification for murder, in my opinion.

[ExTank]

I agree that women can fight back. I do not agree that a gun is the best way to do that. And as I said earlier, rape is not justification for murder, in my opinion.

That's a judgement call on your part, subject to your own values and mores. Are you willing to deny other women that right to choose whether or not they should be raped because you're kinda "oogy" about guns?

Just out of curiosity: are you pro-choice or pro-life?

[Maggie the Ocelot]

I've lived in urban/suburban Southern CA all my life.

To the best of my knowlege, no-one in my family nor my friends' families owns a gun. The sole exception is my grandfather's WW2 service gun, which he has framed behind glass, and doesn't own any ammo for.

I have never touched a gun, and gods willing I never will. I am going to visit some friends who live in rural KY at the end of this month, and I know they have several guns. I don't feel safe about that, and if I didn't know that they'd laugh me out of the state I'd ask them to store them somewhere else while I'm there.

It's sorta like someone said above - there are 3 kinds of people in L.A. who have guns, cops, criminals, and liquor store owners. And not even all of that third category have 'em.

[Kalhoun]

That's a judgement call on your part, subject to your own values and mores. Are you willing to deny other women that right to choose whether or not they should be raped because you're kinda "oogy" about guns?

Just out of curiosity: are you pro-choice or pro-life?
Hey, fuck you. Nobody chooses to be raped, you knuckle-draggin' moron. A woman increases her chances of serious harm during a rape, should she even have the time to go for her gun. She'd be better off fighting back in other ways than to risk losing her life or killing someone else over a usually non-life threatening attack.

[ExTank]

Hey, fuck you. Nobody chooses to be raped, you knuckle-draggin' moron. A woman increases her chances of serious harm during a rape, should she even have the time to go for her gun. She'd be better off fighting back in other ways than to risk losing her life or killing someone else over a usually non-life threatening attack.

My apologies; my previous post was very poorly phrased. Allow me to amend:

That's a judgement call on your part, subject to your own values and mores.

Are you willing to deny other women the tools they might find most effective and be most comfortable with, should they ever be confronted with a rape/sexual asault situation?

Even when I have non-partisan links showing that fighting back, even with a gun, reduces the chance of injury or death?

Remember, using a firearm to defend yourself /= a dead Bad Guy.

[Tastes of Chocolate]

I've lived my whole live in the upper midwest. Here it's very common for a household to have firearms. But most of those are hunting rifles or shotguns. Probably 95% plus. They aren't in the house for protection. They are there for deer, pheasant and turkey hunting. All of the ones I have known are stored either in a safe, with a trigger lock, or at minimum, far away from ammunition. They really couldn't be used for a home break-in.

[Kalhoun]

My apologies; my previous post was very poorly phrased. Allow me to amend:

That's a judgement call on your part, subject to your own values and mores.

Are you willing to deny other women the tools they might find most effective and be most comfortable with, should they ever be confronted with a rape/sexual asault situation?

Even when I have non-partisan links showing that fighting back, even with a gun, reduces the chance of injury or death?

Remember, using a firearm to defend yourself /= a dead Bad Guy.
Well, I would rather see no hand guns, but since they're legal, a woman can carry a gun if she chooses. I think it will do her more harm than good, but that's the chance she's willing to take. The chances of the circumstances being conducive to her getting the gun and actually using it are slim, at best. She'd do better to kick, elbow, gouge, and scream in nearly every case. And I, for one, know that even a small man could wrestle a gun out of my hand with ease.

I do not want to be the direct cause of a rapist's or robber's death. I do not believe that most people think it is ethically right to kill someone because they're taking your stuff or raping you. It's overkill (pun intended).

[GuyNblueJeans]

You said all women should carry guns to protect them from rapists. I disagreed. Then you said



and I said:



I'll ask again. What does a bystander have to do with a woman carrying a gun for protection?

I would hope that a bystander would help me, of course. But my carrying a gun doesn't ensure my safety and may very well get me killed when all I would have been was raped. See the difference? I do not believe rape is an offense that would justify anyone killing anyone over.

Correction" I said, "..every law-abiding, level-headed woman in America.."

[Kalhoun]

Correction" I said, "..every law-abiding, level-headed woman in America.."
Who decides what law-abiding and level-headed are? Are women who speed exempted from the right? Where do you draw the line? Liars? Tax cheats?

[GuyNblueJeans]

Who decides what law-abiding and level-headed are? Are women who speed exempted from the right? Where do you draw the line? Liars? Tax cheats?

You're wearing me out. :(

[Kalhoun]

You're wearing me out. :(
I was going to say the same thing. But you still haven't laid out the details on your Master Plan to Arm Women (TM).

[Beware of Doug]

I've lived my whole live in the upper midwest. Here it's very common for a household to have firearms. But most of those are hunting rifles or shotguns. Probably 95% plus. They aren't in the house for protection. They are there for deer, pheasant and turkey hunting. All of the ones I have known are stored either in a safe, with a trigger lock, or at minimum, far away from ammunition. They really couldn't be used for a home break-in.Your experience is similar to mine growing up in Iowa, which is to say, largely irrelevant to the drift of the discussion.
(I notice nobody's touched the distinction I made between longarms and handguns, perhaps because nobody wants to het up a concealed carrier even on the Dope.)

[BarnOwl]

Well, I would rather see no hand guns, but since they're legal, a woman can carry a gun if she chooses. I think it will do her more harm than good, but that's the chance she's willing to take. The chances of the circumstances being conducive to her getting the gun and actually using it are slim, at best. She'd do better to kick, elbow, gouge, and scream in nearly every case. And I, for one, know that even a small man could wrestle a gun out of my hand with ease.

I do not want to be the direct cause of a rapist's or robber's death. I do not believe that most people think it is ethically right to kill someone because they're taking your stuff or raping you. It's overkill (pun intended).

I would respectfully disagree with you that it's unethical to kill someone who's raping you. For one thing you don't know how far it's going. Will he rape, then kill you? Has he raped before? Killed before? If he walks away, will he rape more and more women and girls? Should you give the sonofabitch the benefit of the doubt?

I am confident that God would regard you as justified, Kalhoun, if you shot and killed the guy before, during or after he raped you. You weren't created to be the plaything of a bad man.

[Kalhoun]

I would respectfully disagree with you that it's unethical to kill someone who's raping you. For one thing you don't know how far it's going. Will he rape, then kill you? Has he raped before? Killed before? If he walks away, will he rape more and more women and girls? Should you give the sonofabitch the benefit of the doubt? It's precisely because you don't know how far it's going to go that you don't kill your attacker. Most rapists do not kill their victims. In fact, most rapists are that nice boy who's dating your daughter. For the believers in the crowd, how can this possibly be an "eye for an eye" situation? You're not judge and jury.

I am confident that God would regard you as justified, Kalhoun, if you shot and killed the guy before, during or after he raped you. You weren't created to be the plaything of a bad man.
There is no god to judge me; there is only me having to live with myself. Most people survive rape, their minds and bodies intact. It is not in my best interest to kill my attacker unless he's trying to kill me.

[BarnOwl]

Okay.

[DSeid]

ExTank,

You're better than this.

There are few issues that are more prone to hyperbole and extreme silly statements by both sides than the gun guntrol/rights issue but, unless my memory serves me exceptionally poorly, in the past you've been rational and recognzed the hyperbole from both sides. Your cite in no way shows that carrying does significantly better than any other form of resistance. Nor it does it show that the possible benefit of carrying is not offset by any additional risk.

Few lives are saved and few rapes prevented by gun ownership. If any depends on whose stats you want to use. Few deaths are caused by legal gun ownership. Both are non-zero but on the scale of deaths associated with gun use in this country both are small. Concealed carry by qualified people is also associated with few deaths and little protection. These are small scale effects that are likely a near wash.

The bulk of deaths by guns continue to be caused by guns that find their way into the hands of those who have no legal right to own one. If anything is to be done it is to impact this. Putting resources in place to enforce the laws we already have and maybe rationally closing a few loopholes (if that is what they really are and it does not significantly impact the rights of those who have a legal right to weapons, and the burden of proof is on those who want the laws to prove those points) would go a long way. To me the rest is asinine posturing from both sides. And again, I think that you at least know it.

{Checks forum, decides not to comment on some others' posts. Moves onto other subjects.}

I find the changes in gun ownership demographics fascinating. Fewer people (although still a sizable American minority) own guns but those who do own more of them. To hear Martin Hyde tell it "hunting seems to be a dying hobby" and guns are increasingly the realm of the more well heeled enthusiast. Still some who percieve a sense of increased security from having a weapon available. And probably the occasional person who feels they need to stock up to defend themselves when society breaks down. How does this demographic change slowly change the dynamic of the debate? Or does it?

[Kalhoun]

It's precisely because you don't know how far it's going to go that you don't kill your attacker. Most rapists do not kill their victims. In fact, most rapists are that nice boy who's dating your daughter. For the believers in the crowd, how can this possibly be an "eye for an eye" situation? You're not judge and jury.


There is no god to judge me; there is only me having to live with myself. Most people survive rape, their minds and bodies intact. It is not in my best interest to kill my attacker unless he's trying to kill me.
I wanted to add that it is much more difficult to get past killing someone out of fear rather than necessity.

[Stealth Potato]

It's precisely because you don't know how far it's going to go that you don't kill your attacker. Most rapists do not kill their victims. In fact, most rapists are that nice boy who's dating your daughter. For the believers in the crowd, how can this possibly be an "eye for an eye" situation? You're not judge and jury.

There is no god to judge me; there is only me having to live with myself. Most people survive rape, their minds and bodies intact. It is not in my best interest to kill my attacker unless he's trying to kill me.The problem is that you can't very well wait until you find out if the rapist is going to kill you or not until it's way, way too late. Not being a woman, I'm not exactly at a very high risk of rape, but I sure as hell would never subject myself to the power of an attacker simply because he "probably won't kill me." I will do everything in my power to stop the attack, up to and including the use of deadly force.

Yeah, the very idea of having to kill or injure another person with a firearm is horrible. I hope to any applicable deities that I never find myself in such a situation; that's why caution and prevention make the best self-defense bar none. But if you're made the victim of rape or other serious assault, you're already in a lose-lose situation. One way or the other, you're going to be dealing with the consequences of the event for the rest of your life - either the guilt of taking a life, or the irrational shame of being a victim. I just don't feel like taking the chance of only having a very brief and terrifying time in which to regret my decision.

[silenus]

I find the changes in gun ownership demographics fascinating. Fewer people (although still a sizable American minority) own guns but those who do own more of them. To hear Martin Hyde tell it "hunting seems to be a dying hobby" and guns are increasingly the realm of the more well heeled enthusiast. Still some who percieve a sense of increased security from having a weapon available. And probably the occasional person who feels they need to stock up to defend themselves when society breaks down. How does this demographic change slowly change the dynamic of the debate? Or does it?

Interesting questions. Personally, I hunt very little any more. Haven't really since I moved back to California. But when I lived in Alaska I hunted regularly. Kept meat in the freezer. But since my return I have acquired a substantial number of weapons. You know how it goes...once you get into building a serious collection it just kinda...grows. A friend once noted that I wasn't going to be happy until I owned a Mauser from every country that ever issued them. I am well on my way. :D

[Bobotheoptimist]

Sure wish we could have proven Czarcasm wrong, but looks like he was right again.

[ExTank]

ExTank,

You're better than this.

There are few issues that are more prone to hyperbole and extreme silly statements by both sides than the gun guntrol/rights issue but, unless my memory serves me exceptionally poorly, in the past you've been rational and recognzed the hyperbole from both sides. Your cite in no way shows that carrying does significantly better than any other form of resistance. Nor it does it show that the possible benefit of carrying is not offset by any additional risk.

:confused: Hey, I apologized for my extremely foot-in-mouth post. As I said, I chose my words very poorly. What I was trying to say was that women, like men, have a choice when it comes to physical assailants: submit, or resist. Basic human physiology says that an average woman will have less physical strength than an average man. In order to level the playing field and allow a chance at effective resistance, the average woman must either:

1. Be a more skillfull physical combatant;

2. Possess, and effectively employ, a weapon capable of inflicting sufficient pain or damage to deter the assailant.

Without one or the other of these advantages, the average woman is at a disadvantage to an average male assailant.

I meant to imply that Kalhoun's anti-gun stance would likely deprive woman of the choice to arm themselves with what I believe to be potentially the best rape-stoppper available: a handgun.

And before this tired canard is trotted out, I will stipulate: no firearm is a magic wand, that you wave at Bad People and make them cower in fear until the police arive to take them away. Training, knowledge, and the correct mental mindset are all necessary prerequisites to effectively employing a firearm in self-defense. Without those, you may very well be more danger to yourself, or loved ones, than to any notional assailant or intruder.


Few lives are saved and few rapes prevented by gun ownership. If any depends on whose stats you want to use. Few deaths are caused by legal gun ownership. Both are non-zero but on the scale of deaths associated with gun use in this country both are small. Concealed carry by qualified people is also associated with few deaths and little protection. These are small scale effects that are likely a near wash.

Krikey! Signal before changing lanes!

My non-partisan cites made no mention of hard numbers, so I consider this a bit of a strawman, DSeid. We can rehash the Defensive Gun Use arguments again, with a reminder that a DGU /= a death. Nor does every one of them represent a murder, rape or assault that has been prevented. Many (I'd hazard maybe a simple majority, but can't say with any certainty) are just as likely to be mere property crimes such as theft.


The bulk of deaths by guns continue to be caused by guns that find their way into the hands of those who have no legal right to own one. If anything is to be done it is to impact this. Putting resources in place to enforce the laws we already have and maybe rationally closing a few loopholes (if that is what they really are and it does not significantly impact the rights of those who have a legal right to weapons, and the burden of proof is on those who want the laws to prove those points) would go a long way. To me the rest is asinine posturing from both sides. And again, I think that you at least know it.

I have consistently shown over the years, with hard data from the C.D.C., that the bulk of deaths by firearms are suicides. I have also shown, several time sin multiple threads, through the only known study of its type, that the rate of firearm ownership among a given population has little, if any, correltaion with suicide rates. In that study, Japan has almost the exact same suicide rate as the U.S.A., in spite of Japan's .01% gun ownership rate.

While a single study is hardly conclusive, amongst most gun owners it is generally intuitively held that if a person truly wants to die, the lack of a firearm isn't going to stop them.

At least one non-partisan study bears this out.



{Checks forum, decides not to comment on some others' posts. Moves onto other subjects.}

I find the changes in gun ownership demographics fascinating. Fewer people (although still a sizable American minority) own guns but those who do own more of them. To hear Martin Hyde tell it "hunting seems to be a dying hobby" and guns are increasingly the realm of the more well heeled enthusiast. Still some who percieve a sense of increased security from having a weapon available. And probably the occasional person who feels they need to stock up to defend themselves when society breaks down. How does this demographic change slowly change the dynamic of the debate? Or does it?

I'd heard gun ownership was on the upswing after 9/11. Maybe it was just a few nervous nellies who had visions of blowing away Osama as he crawled over the backyard fence. I dunno.

I know I have absolutely no pretensions of combatting TWAT with my small collection; I don't even keep any of mine loaded anymore for home defense. My neighborhood is pretty safe. Should J. Random Bad Guy come through my front door in the middle of the night, they're more likely to encounter this (http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/replicaweaponry_1947_4217447) or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Klassischer-Flegel.jpg) before encountering this. (http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg93-e.htm)

[Martin Hyde]

I don't own a gun as I live in NYC and it is illegal. My Father owns two a .30 calibre Carbine revolver and a 9mm Luger my Grandfather took off of a Nazi officer.

I prefer to be able to kill with my bare hands. ;p

Gun ownership is important so that every person can be an armed sovereign republic unto themselves.

I lived in New York City for some time and it's news to me that guns are illegal. To my knowledge, what was illegal was owning a hand gun or carrying a hand gun, except for a very small portion of the city's population that were given permits (usually ex-law enforcement.)

But getting a permit to own a rifle or shotgun was pretty easy. You had to keep it unloaded and most people I knew who owned them did so and kept them secured legally in the trunk of their cars when they took them upstate to hunt.

[Martin Hyde]

It's precisely because you don't know how far it's going to go that you don't kill your attacker. Most rapists do not kill their victims. In fact, most rapists are that nice boy who's dating your daughter. For the believers in the crowd, how can this possibly be an "eye for an eye" situation? You're not judge and jury.

Because you have a right to defend yourself with lethal force if you reasonably believe you're in danger of serious harm or death. You don't have to be assured that you're going to die in order to defend yourself with lethal force. If you can just demonstrate that you had a very good reason to believe you were going to suffer grievous harm you have a right to kill to stop it from happening.

You might morally feel you have to take whatever anyone wants to do to you up to but not including killing you. I however like the law the way it is across the country, I don't have to let someone beat me into a coma and leave me in a wheel chair for the rest of my life, I have a right to use lethal force to stop that.

There is no god to judge me; there is only me having to live with myself. Most people survive rape, their minds and bodies intact. It is not in my best interest to kill my attacker unless he's trying to kill me.

That's a personal decision. Personally I'm glad the law does not reflect this thinking.

[Martin Hyde]

Also "eye for an eye" refers to punishment post-incident. If you take someone's eye, your eye is taken from you. If you build a shoddy house that collapses and kills people, you are put to death. The Code of Hammurabi was a legal code, and it involved the government meting out punishment after the fact.

In the case of self-defense from rape, serious injury, or death, it is not "eye for an eye" because you aren't trying to do unto someone as they are doing unto you. In fact, in the case of trying to defend yourself from an attempted murder, you're trying to stop the person from murdering you. If you kill them in your attempt to stop them, it's self defense. In general it's not a good idea to say you were trying to kill them, as based on where it happens and who is the prosecuting attorney in your jurisdiction that could land you in trouble. But in general, self defense isn't a legal exception to what would normally be a felony because it allows "eye for an eye" type behavior, but because it recognizes people have a right to stop someone from seriously harming them, and that if the attacker is killed as a result of it, then the person who did the killing was acting out of preservation of life and limb, not out of vengeance (how can you act vengefully for being raped/murder if you incidentally kill someone PRIOR to them completing the act??)

[gonzomax]

I worked with a guy who was a hunter and a gun lover. His house got broken into and he thought the guy would come back. He waited in the dark for him a week later and he arrived. The guy was climbing into the bedroom window. ...He couldn't shoot him. He brought the barrel of the rifle down on the guys hand as he reached into the window. He is sure he broke some bones. He later said I always thought I could in those circumstances, but I just could not do it. A baseball bat would have served as well.

[Bobotheoptimist]

Gonzomax you've posted this story before, haven't you? Pretty sure I said about the same thing then - For his sake, I'm glad he didn't pull the trigger. I suspect that if the facts came out he would not have gotten off with self-defense. While I have an imaginary line past which an intruder stops being a problem for my insurance company and starts being a threat to my family, ambushing someone and killing them as they come in the window is a terrible idea, morally and legally. Ventilating a rapist in the act is deserving of a medal but using no more than a reasonable amount of force to protect property is prudent.
Kalhoun may think me a bloodthirsty monster ( ;) ) but I don't own anything that's worth the taking of a life. I would, however, wipe out whole counties to protect my family

(Not for revenge, mind you. And no, I can't think of any reason why an entire county would be trying to hurt my family. That was a bit of hyperbole intended to demonstrate that I consider my wife and kids to be more important than the life of anyone that means them harm)

Since ExTank started it - here (http://new.photos.yahoo.com/donegalbob/album/576460762318825540/photo/294928803179334146/51) is my first line of defense. Anyone can make it past that is obviously a serious badass.

[JXJohns]

I'm from Iowa originally. I wasn't into shooting growing up, but I didn't think anything of it particularly. We had a 20 gauge shotgun, although it hadn't been used since my dad's hunting "phase" in the 50s.

Kids I knew used bb guns and the older ones, .22 rifles, and my 6th grade teacher was an occasional black powder shooter. Rural families were used to clearing off rabbits, raccoons and such, and pheasant hunting was popular in season.

What we would have found worrisome, back there in 1970s Iowa, was people owning, and especially concealing, handguns. Property crime was low, and I never heard of the NRA back then (they certainly didn't do much lobbying). Long guns were tools - handguns were "trouble."

I too grew up in Iowa. I have even moved back. I grew up in the city rather than in the country. My experience, especially the distinction you draw between long guns and hand guns was completely opposite. Handguns were treated as the tool that they are, defense, recreation etc.

To the OP, I have 42 firearms split evenly between handguns, shotguns, and rifles. MY friends and family all own guns. It is the non owner that strikes us as strange here. For the record I live in a city with around 400k people.

[Martin Hyde]

Gonzomax you've posted this story before, haven't you? Pretty sure I said about the same thing then - For his sake, I'm glad he didn't pull the trigger. I suspect that if the facts came out he would not have gotten off with self-defense. While I have an imaginary line past which an intruder stops being a problem for my insurance company and starts being a threat to my family, ambushing someone and killing them as they come in the window is a terrible idea, morally and legally. Ventilating a rapist in the act is deserving of a medal but using no more than a reasonable amount of force to protect property is prudent.

I imagine Gonzo's friend would be in serious trouble in Michigan. Some states have very loose self-defense statutes, though. In Louisiana there is a strong tradition of being able to use almost unlimited force on an intruder. Louisiana is the birthplace of the "Kill the Carjacker" statute as well as the "Kill the Burglar" statute.

A Louisiana man was acquitted of killing Yoshihiro Hattori, a Japanese foreign exchange student who was looking for a Halloween party at the time. Yoshihiro and a friend rang the door bell of the home, believing it to be the residence where the party was being held, no one answered so they went back to their car. When the man who owned the house came out (after his wife looked out and told him to get his gun), Yoshihiro stepped onto the carport to explain they were there for the party when he was fatally shot.

Louisiana's carjacker/burglar statutes do not require any attempt to retreat. The burglar statute only requires the person acting in self defense has a reasonable belief that the burglar will use illegal force against anyone in the home.

Florida has similar legislation and passed a "Stand Your Ground Law" which likewise does not require retreat in self-defense situations.

[Kalhoun]

Because you have a right to defend yourself with lethal force if you reasonably believe you're in danger of serious harm or death. You don't have to be assured that you're going to die in order to defend yourself with lethal force. If you can just demonstrate that you had a very good reason to believe you were going to suffer grievous harm you have a right to kill to stop it from happening.

You might morally feel you have to take whatever anyone wants to do to you up to but not including killing you. I however like the law the way it is across the country, I don't have to let someone beat me into a coma and leave me in a wheel chair for the rest of my life, I have a right to use lethal force to stop that.



That's a personal decision. Personally I'm glad the law does not reflect this thinking.
I agree that many people would consider rape to be a kill offense (I don't). I also agree that if a woman thinks this way, she should be allowed to carry a gun to protect herself. However; that doesn't mean it's the best course of action and it doesn't mean that gun ownership won't be detrimental to other aspects of her life. The depression/suicide factor, the "kids found the gun" factor and the "fucker used my gun on me" factor far outweigh the one in a million chance that the woman would be raped by a stranger and have the planets align precisely so that she could use the gun on the perp effectively.

[DSeid]

Sigh ExTank. The hijack began when you questioned the veracity of stats from The Brady Institute. That quote had basically just said that few rapes are committed with guns and concluded that guns can be turned on the victim while physical resistance could not. Your "stats to counter" was a quote that said how women should resist and followed that as if that countered any of the quoted stats or provided evidence of a guns net protective effects. In it countered nothing that Brady had said since they also said that women should resist, using "self-defense".

No change of lane made, no signal required. And certainly no desire to engage in yet another debate about gun control/rights. They are tiresome and one of the reasons is the silliness that both sides engage in. And discussions that imply how wonderfully massively protective DGU would be, with every women having a concealed carry, are part of the inanity. That others engage in it is understandable, but you are better than that, that's all. Your correcting my misstatement is duely noted: most deaths associated with guns are indeed suicides. A fact that is often trotted out by gun control advocates who believe that less easy gun availability would force people to atempt with methods less likely to be as effective or at least as effective and readily available. Maybe yes , maybe no, and the stats associating suicide completion rates with gun availability have been debated before ... my personal take is that the effect is real but not tremendously large and have no desire to rehash that either.

I'm not sure if you meant to answer my question about the effect of the changing demographics. I'll ask again. Does the apparent transition of the gun ownership backbone from working class hunters to more well off collectors change the nature of the debate in any way?

[catsix]

Who qualifies as a 'well-off collector'?

Is it anyone who's got an upper-middle-class income and doesn't hunt? In that case, I'm one of those well-off collectors. I don't hunt, and I have large disposable income (SINK, ya) so as a result none of the firearms I own are specifically 'hunting' guns. I just don't use them that way.

Of course that doesn't mean that my 'collection' of firearms is a bunch of hundred-year-old muzzle-loader either. My 'collection' consists of modern, functional firearms that I use primarily for things other than hunting.

[Kalhoun]

Who qualifies as a 'well-off collector'?

Is it anyone who's got an upper-middle-class income and doesn't hunt? In that case, I'm one of those well-off collectors. I don't hunt, and I have large disposable income (SINK, ya) so as a result none of the firearms I own are specifically 'hunting' guns. I just don't use them that way.

Of course that doesn't mean that my 'collection' of firearms is a bunch of hundred-year-old muzzle-loader either. My 'collection' consists of modern, functional firearms that I use primarily for things other than hunting.
Same with Mr. K. He has some nice guns, but they're not antiques, frilly, or super-expensive. They're nice pieces in a mid-range collection. (With the exception of the little .22 I bought him.)

We are solidly middle class; not well-heeled by any stretch of the imagination.

[DSeid]

Well I am speculating off of Martin's post and reading the prices that some of you have posted. "Well off" is a relative term and certainly doesn't mean "capitalist class" but enough disposable income that one can afford a hobby that seems to cost a fair chunk of change. (I mean I'm no pauper and I hemmed and hawed over buying a new road bike that cost no more than one of some of these guns.) A different population than the group who bought a decent workable rifle mainly as a tool they'd use and/or who hunted as a matter of family tradition. Perhaps I should instead use the term "gun geeks"? It seems to capture the flavor.

I am wondering (not even proposing) if these gun geeks have a different take on gun regulations and a different approach to the debate than do those whose guns are used not primiarily as specimens but as tools.

[ExTank]

Sigh ExTank. The hijack began when you questioned the veracity of stats from The Brady Institute. That quote had basically just said that few rapes are committed with guns and concluded that guns can be turned on the victim while physical resistance could not. Your "stats to counter" was a quote that said how women should resist and followed that as if that countered any of the quoted stats or provided evidence of a guns net protective effects. In it countered nothing that Brady had said since they also said that women should resist, using "self-defense".

Kalhoun, perhaps unintentionally, attempted to hijack the thread on page one with an unsubatantiated blurb about there being more gun dealers than gas stations in the U.S. BF pretty much addressed that, and the thread was back on course until about halfway through page 2, where GuyNblueJeans attempted a second hijacking with a largely harmless IMHO blurb.

Kal called Guy on his IMHO by citing some stats. Unfortunately, those stats were provided by The Brady Center, so they are at best slightly suspect. I merely challenged Kal's cite with two of my own, gleaned with some Google-Fu, from non-partisan (in the pro/anti-gun sense) sources.

I'm sorry you feel this hijack is uneccsary, or unworthy of me. But this is Great Debates, of the Straight Dope Message Board (Fighting Ignorance Since 1973 ). If someone makes a claim here, they have to be prepared to back it up; they'd [i]also better be prepared to defend their cites.

But to crack your faulty reasoning, Kal's Brady Center stats said:


Myth: Guns protect women from rape.
Fact: Guns are rarely used by rapists - less than 2 percent of rapes are committed with guns,while almost 70 percent are committed with personal weapons (physical violence). Women would be safer knowing self-defense to fight off an attacker than using a gun which can easily be turned against them.

Myth: Women need guns to protect against stranger rape.
Fact: Stranger rape is not the greatest danger for women as most women (75 percent) are raped byoffenders known to the victim. 60 percent of rapes are committed against victims under the age of 18 who are forbidden by law to own a gun.

MythBuster#1: just because a gun is NOT often used by a rapist is no reason for a woman NOT to use a gun, a taser, mace/pepper spray/knife/keys to defend herself against a rapist. A gun can only easily be turned on the defender if said defender is unwilling to pull the trigger before the assailant gets within arm's reach. By Sarah Brady's line of reasoning, is there anything preventing a taser, a knife, or mace/pepper spray from being taken from a victim and used against them?

MythBuster#2: even if 75% of women are raped by acquaintences, that means 25% are not. Even if 60% of rapes are committed against minors who are not legally able to own/possess a firearm, that means that 40% are not.
I would not deny the 25% of non-acquaintence rape victims, or the 40% of non-minor rape victims, the choice to arm themselves with knowledge, training, and a handgun, should they feel comfortable with that option, just because Sarah Brady thinks it's a Bad Idea (and it's no surprise that she would, hey?)

Go back and seriously reread my post here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8572317&postcount=89).

Cite 1 asserts that "…..immediate and aggressive responses including fighting back are effective." Is not a handgun an aggressive response to a violent assailant? Note that I never precluded physically fighting back hand-to-hand from the force response continuum; I just think that given the disparity in size and physical strength between average men and women, it's not an optimal alternative.

Cite 2 asserts that "...(2) The form of resistance that appears most effective in preventing rape completion is resistance with a gun, knife, or other weapon;…" This directly contradicts the Brady Center's claim. And it's from a source without an axe to grind in the whole "Guns Good/Guns Bad" debate. And it support's the previous cite's assertion that immediate and aggressive responses are effective.

Kal's posting of the Bardy Center's "Myths About Guns" are positive assertions that, essentially, "Guns Are Bad," in that they are in the first case uneccessry, since most rapists aren't armed with firearms, and that a woman, being on average physiacally weaker than the average male assailant, is better off trading hand-to-hand blows rather than using an implement that might be taken away from them and turned against them.

I don't get their reasoning: a woman should be brave enough and strong enough to get into a close quarters, hand-to-hand physical altercation with a man, but shouldn't use a firearm (or other weapon) which is quite capable of stopping an attempted sexual assault literally dead in its tracks?

And in the second line of reasoning, it seems that they are saying that since most rapes are acquaintence rapes and rapes of minors, the other percentage of women shouldn't arm themselves against the off-chance of stranger-rape.

I've merely attempted to demonstrate that both lines of reasoning are faulty. I've provided my own cites, and my own line(s) of reasoning on why I believe Kal's Brady Center cite is wrong. Since Czar booted this thread from IMHO to GD, I think I've fairly observed the protocols of this forum in refuting, with a halfway decent case, that Kal's cite is wrong, in it's facts and in its reasoning.

If you feel otherwise, refute them directly, and drop the "you're better than this" crap, and the melodramatic "sighs." Guy opened this can of worms, and Kal called him on it (and rightly so, IMHO). But I am challenging Kal's cite on its own merits, without necessarily agreeing with Guy's IMHO post.

FWIW, I'm not attacking Kal's personal beliefs about use of force; that's her decision, she's indicated what she feels personaly and morally comfortable doing in a self defense situation, and I respect that.


No change of lane made, no signal required. And certainly no desire to engage in yet another debate about gun control/rights. They are tiresome and one of the reasons is the silliness that both sides engage in. And discussions that imply how wonderfully massively protective DGU would be, with every women having a concealed carry, are part of the inanity. That others engage in it is understandable, but you are better than that, that's all. Your correcting my misstatement is duely noted: most deaths associated with guns are indeed suicides. A fact that is often trotted out by gun control advocates who believe that less easy gun availability would force people to atempt with methods less likely to be as effective or at least as effective and readily available. Maybe yes , maybe no, and the stats associating suicide completion rates with gun availability have been debated before ... my personal take is that the effect is real but not tremendously large and have no desire to rehash that either.

If you didn't want to get into it, why throw this...


Few lives are saved and few rapes prevented by gun ownership. If any depends on whose stats you want to use. Few deaths are caused by legal gun ownership. Both are non-zero but on the scale of deaths associated with gun use in this country both are small. Concealed carry by qualified people is also associated with few deaths and little protection. These are small scale effects that are likely a near wash.

...into your previous post? You toss this into the debate, and then say you don't want to debate it because you find it tiresome??

You do know which forum you're in, yes? :dubious: :)


I'm not sure if you meant to answer my question about the effect of the changing demographics. I'll ask again. Does the apparent transition of the gun ownership backbone from working class hunters to more well off collectors change the nature of the debate in any way?

I haven't addressed this (yet!) because I think it was addressed well enough by someone else (Martin Hyde?), and haven't felt the need to add my "me too" agreement

[Kalhoun]

A quick Google shows there are 256,771 licensed gun dealers in the US, as of 1994. http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED374379&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&accno=ED374379

Gas stations: 168,000 http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/quizzes/answerQuiz16.shtml

[ExTank]

A quick Google shows there are 256,771 licensed gun dealers in the US, as of 1994. http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED374379&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&accno=ED374379

Gas stations: 168,000 http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/quizzes/answerQuiz16.shtml

Dig just a tad deeper, Kal.

For this, I'll even trust the Violence Policy Center:

Warning: .pdf!

An Analysis of the Decline in Gun Dealers: 1994-2005 (http://vpc.org/studies/dealers.pdf)

I'll trust their raw numbers on this (see pg. 5 of the report), if not their analysis (which I didn't delve into).

[The Long Road]

I googled for cheap handguns. Didn't find any - but I admit I skimmed. The word seems to be there are plenty on the street for sale - but I suspect these aren't the places you'd even consider. Nor would I.


Last gun show I went to had Hi-Point 9mm semi-autos for about $130. I almost bought one but had not heard of the name before so didn't want to take a chance. I have not seen these in stores so it might be mainly on the gun show circuit. The thing is heavy and simple but it's functional and I've seen good reviews. I purchased a bursa .380 from a pawnshop for $110. So based on my limited experiences, you can get cheap handguns. Low cost is certainly defined by the buyer though. My AK was $300 at a gun show and works like a charm but some might consider that expensive for a gun. Then again, I go to a range where people have $2,500 AR-15s. I'm far too cheap for that.

Side note on other posts: To me, gun shows are good for buying parts and accessories for guns you own or buying military weapons such as an AK. I've gone to gun shows and priced certain models and then called my wife to google the price. Everytime I did this, if the price was lower at a gun show, it was because it was used. I'd rather buy a gun at a local store I can go back to if I have problems even if I pay $20 - $30 more.

[Kalhoun]

Dig just a tad deeper, Kal.

For this, I'll even trust the Violence Policy Center:

Warning: .pdf!

An Analysis of the Decline in Gun Dealers: 1994-2005 (http://vpc.org/studies/dealers.pdf)

I'll trust their raw numbers on this (see pg. 5 of the report), if not their analysis (which I didn't delve into).So...I was right. Just old stats. Glad to see someone saw the light.

[Lizard]

I've lived in urban/suburban Southern CA all my life.

To the best of my knowlege, no-one in my family nor my friends' families owns a gun. The sole exception is my grandfather's WW2 service gun, which he has framed behind glass, and doesn't own any ammo for.

I have never touched a gun, and gods willing I never will. I am going to visit some friends who live in rural KY at the end of this month, and I know they have several guns. I don't feel safe about that, and if I didn't know that they'd laugh me out of the state I'd ask them to store them somewhere else while I'm there.

It's sorta like someone said above - there are 3 kinds of people in L.A. who have guns, cops, criminals, and liquor store owners. And not even all of that third category have 'em.
*Ahem* perhaps you're referring to someone else, but I know I posted something like that I was, however, referring to New York.

Your friends might very well laugh you out of the house . . . but why let it come to that? You say you don't "feel safe," yet admit you've never touched a gun in your life. Tell them before you go that guns make you nervous, and ask if they could store them out of sight. Once you're there, tell them you're curious because you've never even touched a gun, and ask if they would show you theirs just once to help you get over your (irrational) fear. Maybe they'll even let you fire it. There's no point in being scared of something you know nothing about. Knowledge dispells fear. If you still get nervous around guns even after handling or firing one, well, at least you can say you put out the effort to broaden your horizons.

[Leaffan]

I've barely ever seen a gun, and have never even touched one.