# Are giant "hand cannon" revolvers practical guns or macho novelties? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 6, 2006, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-giant-hand-cannon-revolvers-practical-guns-or-macho-novelties/355667 "2006-05-06T14:04:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2006, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-giant-hand-cannon-revolvers-practical-guns-or-macho-novelties/355667/41 "2006-05-07T14:49:15Z")
> [@Martini Enfield](#): > > I just wanted to add that, until the mid -1920s, Gentlemen in the UK were expected to carry handguns with which to defend themselves from ruffians, scoundrels, and ne’er-do-wells. ??? Do you have a cite for that? I can’t claim to be an expert in the area, but I’ve read a hell of a lot of fictional and nonfictional works from nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Britain, and I never got the impression that carrying handguns was standard practice for civilian gentlemen. Hell, even Holmes and Watson didn’t pack heat on most occasions—just when they were heading off to confront the bad guys. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2006, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-giant-hand-cannon-revolvers-practical-guns-or-macho-novelties/355667/42 "2006-05-07T15:17:45Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > ??? Do you have a cite for that? I can’t claim to be an expert in the area, but I’ve read a hell of a lot of fictional and nonfictional works from nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Britain, and I never got the impression that carrying handguns was standard practice for civilian gentlemen. > > Hell, even Holmes and Watson didn’t pack heat on most occasions—just when they were heading off to confront the bad guys. [Granted it’s only an Amazon review](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674007530/002-8365488-8168068?v=glance&n=283155), but there does seem to be the impression that the British traveling public was often “armed to the teeth” prior to gun control. > [@](#): > > Another strand Malcolm illuminates is the changing nature of British law enforcement. Britain only acquired policemen in the modern sense in the middle of the nineteenth century, under the leadership of Sir Robert Peel (hence the nickname “Bobbies”). Prior to that time, the general public was expected to – and did – assist in the apprehension of lawbreakers. The general public was, of course, armed to the teeth. And (see above) Britain had low crime rates [Interestingly this page claims British gun control began as a response to fears about communism.](http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2006/03/concise-history-of-gun-control-in.html) > [@](#): > > Significant restrictions began in 1920 with the 1920 Firearms Act, which was introduced because the government feared a communist revolution along the lines of the Bolshevik Revolution that was occuring in Russia at the time, not to mention the Easter Rising of 1916. They also feared the fact that unions all over the country were calling for a general strike and becoming increasingly militant. Clearly, the 1920 Firearms Act had nothing to do with crime; in fact, it is yet another textbook example of why gun control is only ever about power and control. By allowing the government to get its foot in the door in an area it had no right to interfere with, the British people had dropped a serious clanger: the door was now wide open for progressively more severe assaults on the right to keep and bear arms, culminating in the 1997 Firearms Amendment Acts, which were very much the final nail in the coffin. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2006, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-giant-hand-cannon-revolvers-practical-guns-or-macho-novelties/355667/43 "2006-05-07T17:29:55Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > Well, if we are going idealistic… 😃 > > Peace, Love, Dope and Tie-Dye sounds good and all, but the genie has been out of the bottle since the 1400s. You can’t get rid of all the guns, and so long as one is in the hands of a Bad Guy, it behooves a Good Guy to be able to protect his and his own from said Bad Guy. > > That, and they are just plain fun to shoot! Well ,I assume you’re a good guy. How many bad guys have you taken out? How many have you had the opportunity to take out? Even something like 1% of cops discharge their pistols in their _careers_. Some European countries have rid themselves of guns and they’ve certainly had them around longer than this continent has. I don’t doubt that they may be fun to shoot at times and that they can be for recreation or hunting, but should we limit what is used to hunt? ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2006, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-giant-hand-cannon-revolvers-practical-guns-or-macho-novelties/355667/44 "2006-05-07T17:44:23Z")
> [@The Long Road](#): > > Since the threads going all over the place, I’ll throw out two different opinions. > > I don’t see the large pistols as anything more than something to brag about at the shooting range and try to impress everyone. Most visits to the shooting range involve comparisons much the same way custom car shows generate comparisons between participants. “I’ve got a rail on my AR and have a laser sight attached to it” or “My Red Dot scope make getting on target really easy”. I can see the guy firing these things at the range getting plenty of comments and watchers as he fires it. You might not want to own a Harley but someone riding one still looks cool and you might feel a twinge of envy. Being a cheap person myself, when someone in the next lane starts bragging about his $1500 - $2000 AR, I mention that my AK cost $350 and while it may not always be as accurate, I’ll go for cheap and reliable before buying something more expensive than a big screen TV. > > As for handguns and defense, I see them as my preferred defense weapon in one place only, my car. In my house I have a 12 gauge pump and in any situation involving distance I have rifles. My shotgun or rifles won’t work in the confines of a car so I go with the handguns. One is a .45 and one is a .40 and I won’t go smaller than those except for target practice. I figure if shots are exchanged, most likely the majority of shots will not hit the target so the one or two that hit a moving target that is shooting at me MUST be either kills or disabling shots. I’m certainly not going to trust that to a .22 so I can later brag about my fine shooting skills. My goal is to simply put down the person shooting at me. I’m sure as shit not going to end up like Reginald Denny did during the King riots. > Side note, since Katrina every gun show in New Orleans has been packed to the point of not being able to walk down the aisles. Another hurricane hits and I expect World War III to erupt. Isn’t that also a bit sad and perhaps points to a fault of someone or something’s? (read: society of humanity, let your bias be the guide). Gun shows are packed after Katrina because people feel they need these things for security. This guy even talks about how he has a gun in the car, which, as fat as I’m concerned, a recipe for disaster. Is life really that much more different down there after the hurricane? If there were a secutiry force that could provide guaranteed 100% coverage no matter what the disaster, do you think it’d have any effect on the rate of gun ownership? ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2006, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-giant-hand-cannon-revolvers-practical-guns-or-macho-novelties/355667/45 "2006-05-07T17:57:31Z")
The gun culture, outside of “I want to own one because it looks cool and never really plan on firing it”, I simply don’t get. I can see going to a shooting range. It’s not my cup of tea, but I can see it. And I can even see how gun enthusiassts can thrive. If there’s a product, there are bound to be two people that like it, and they’ll find a way to talk about it. Hell, look at customized Japanese import cars (another thing I simply don’t get). When it’s for collecting, a hobby, or for hunting (cause…you know…hunting is a hobby), I can see it. I can’t fathom the need for one for self defense. Having one just because they have one sounds like a bad idea. That logic, put on the big stage, leads to an arms race and everyone walking around like some hero in a cop movie when he has 15 guns and knives hidden on his body in various places. True, ammunition can be made, but what percentage of the population knows how to or would even bother with making it? I am also willing to concede that, if ammunition were made illegal, some scoundrels would learn because, dammit, they like their guns. So, would making ammunition VERY expensive make any impact? Any gun person willing to meet me halfway? I think I’ve made me plenty of compromises here. Here’s the hairy part: Parroting “the right to bear arms” is not applicable. Yes, it’s in the Constitution, but those WERE different times. You can’t point to that as proof of your position and not acknowledge that it was used for a different time, then cling to it for our times and expect it to stick with equal force. Also, as a bonus question, would you change “the right to bear arms” clause if you could? I assume it will lead to a resounding “NO!”, but what if compromises are reached? Of course, the NRA wouldn’t stand for any of it. I don’t expect zealots to find a counter argument moving, instead, I’m appealing to the more (seemingly) sensible pro-gun people of the Dope. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2006, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-giant-hand-cannon-revolvers-practical-guns-or-macho-novelties/355667/46 "2006-05-07T18:17:29Z")
> [@Least Orig](#): > > When it’s for collecting, a hobby, or for hunting (cause…you know…hunting is a hobby), I can see it. I can’t fathom the need for one for self defense. Well, to some extent, the self-defense aspect is part of the hobby. A number of people do have a rational use for guns for self-defense (including self-defense against non-human critters). But plenty of others just like to **think** they need a gun for self-defense, because it’s part of gun mystique and gun culture. > [@Least Orig](#): > > Here’s the hairy part: Parroting “the right to bear arms” is not applicable. Yes, it’s in the Constitution, but those WERE different times. You can’t point to that as proof of your position and not acknowledge that it was used for a different time, then cling to it for our times and expect it to stick with equal force. > > Also, as a bonus question, would you change “the right to bear arms” clause if you could? As a non-gun-owner, I certainly would. However, I wouldn’t support any laws banning guns (at least, few or none more stringent than the gun laws we’ve already got in the US). It’s not gun ownership (by responsible law-abiding people, of course) that I have any problem with. It’s the Second-Amendment-idolizing “Minuteman mindset” that romanticizes any form of gun ownership into some kind of noble heroic defense of freedom. Like that bumper sticker that says “A man with a gun is a citizen; a man without a gun is a subject”. Aw, fuck that noise, you John Wayne wannabe. Your gun doesn’t give you any more real power or independence vis-a-vis the government than anybody else has. If the mean old Nanny State really turned out in force to get you, not even your S&W .500 would win the day. Stop acting as though your gunslinger fantasies have anything to do with the actual responsibilities of democratic citizenship. So I say, keep the guns, but get rid of the Second Amendment. IMO, gun ownership is perfectly justifiable for a wide variety of reasons. The vast majority of rational people can be trusted with firearms if they’re properly trained and informed about how to deal with them. It’s the self-laudatory bloviating gun-worshiping rhetoric that’s the real danger to society. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2006, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-giant-hand-cannon-revolvers-practical-guns-or-macho-novelties/355667/47 "2006-05-07T18:34:09Z")
What are the justiafiable reasons then? ---
**Author:** ![T\_SQUARE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9de053/32.png) [@T\_SQUARE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/T_SQUARE)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2006, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-giant-hand-cannon-revolvers-practical-guns-or-macho-novelties/355667/48 "2006-05-07T18:40:16Z")
> [@Least Original User Name Ever](#): > > I can’t fathom the need for one for self defense. What is there to fathom? I am less likely to be murdered in my home because I have a gun. This is a positive thing to me. I admit, my murder is very very unlikely with or without me owning a gun. However, neither is me perishing in a house fire, but I still have smoke detectors. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2006, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-giant-hand-cannon-revolvers-practical-guns-or-macho-novelties/355667/49 "2006-05-07T18:48:54Z")
> [@T\_SQUARE](#): > > What is there to fathom? I am less likely to be murdered in my home because I have a gun. That’s _highly_ debatable. ---
**Author:** ![T\_SQUARE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9de053/32.png) [@T\_SQUARE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/T_SQUARE)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2006, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-giant-hand-cannon-revolvers-practical-guns-or-macho-novelties/355667/50 "2006-05-07T18:52:27Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > That’s _highly_ debatable. I am talking about me, a trained firearms user. Not Joe Everyman. The “A gun is X times more likely to kill an innocent person than a bad guy” does not apply to me. For starters, I live alone, there are never kids in my house, I am not suicidal, and I know how to use a gun properly. ---
**Author:** ![bdgr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@bdgr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bdgr)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2006, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-giant-hand-cannon-revolvers-practical-guns-or-macho-novelties/355667/51 "2006-05-07T19:19:25Z")
> [@MrJackboots](#): > > From a much earlier thread that I can’t remember, except for this… > [Super Shorty?](http://www.serbu.com/shorty.htm) Thats cool, but a lot of hoops to jump through to own it.l ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2006, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-giant-hand-cannon-revolvers-practical-guns-or-macho-novelties/355667/52 "2006-05-07T19:20:33Z")
Yeah, it’s a good thng the UK has such restrictive firearms laws… [England has worst crime rate in world](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/12/01/ncrime01.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/12/01/ixhome.html) > [@](#): > > England and Wales have the highest crime rate among the world’s leading economies, according to a new report by the United Nations. > > The survey, which is likely to prove embarrassing to David Blunkett, the Home Secretary. shows that people are more likely to be mugged, burgled, robbed or assaulted here than in America, Germany, Russia, South Africa or any other of the world’s 20 largest nations. Only the Dominican Republic, New Zealand and Finland have higher crime rates than England and Wales. It’s also my understanding that the UK has a much higher incidence of ‘hot’ household burglaries, where the burglars break in while the family is home. It’s easier to find the goodies when you can intimidate a family member to show you where they are. In the U.S., it’s more likely that a burglar will wait until no one is home, to reduce the risk of being shot. ---
**Author:** ![bdgr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@bdgr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bdgr)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2006, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-giant-hand-cannon-revolvers-practical-guns-or-macho-novelties/355667/53 "2006-05-07T19:28:04Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > For the cops and military, not necessarily for everyone. Does everyone need an RPG ? Nope, and they cant own one under current laws > [@](#): > > First, as pointed out earlier, Britain did it. Britain is tiny. And they never had near the number of guns we have. > [@](#): > > Second, where do you think criminals get their guns ? From homes, that’s where. It’s rather easier than stealing them from the Marines. They get them from a lot of places > [@](#): > > Third, you’re at least as likely to kill you and your own by accident, probably more so. No, I’m not. Everyone in my family has owned guns for as long as I can remember. Most of the people I know own guns. None of us have ever shot a family member. Several of us have use guns in self defence, without firing a shot. I have done so twice. Most of the time when guns are used in self defence thats the way it usually works. > [@](#): > > Fourth, the criminal will likely win any such confrontation, since he’ll shoot you first, or from behind. Why do you think the cops are so careful around someone they think might be armed ? The criminal almost always runs when he sees a gun. One of the incidents I mentioned he was armed with a butcher knife. He ran. > [@](#): > > And if he’d been murderously violent, he’d have shot first; criminals do that sort of thing. Better if he had no access to guns; you can outrun a guy with a knife, but not a bullet. I cant. I dont run very fast. Niether can my wife. I’ll just hold him at gun point or shoot him instead, but thanks for the suggestion. > [@](#): > > For you, or the people whom you might accidentally shoot by accident if you get startled ? Walking around with the gun pointed level and ready to shoot sounds like a good way to shoot your wife/daughter/husband/son when they get up in the middle of the night to go to the bathroom. Only if your a moron. Morons shouldn’t own guns, I’ll give you that. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2006, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-giant-hand-cannon-revolvers-practical-guns-or-macho-novelties/355667/54 "2006-05-07T19:33:53Z")
> [@bdgr](#): > > They get them from a lot of places Last I heard, most illegal guns were stolen from homes. > [@bdgr](#): > > The criminal almost always runs when he sees a gun. One of the incidents I mentioned he was armed with a butcher knife. He ran. Well, duh. Guys without guns seldom shoot people; it’s hard to throw the bullets fast enough. > [@bdgr](#): > > Only if your a moron. Morons shouldn’t own guns, I’ll give you that. Glad to know you are a superhuman who’s finger won’t twitch when surprised. ---
**Author:** ![bdgr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@bdgr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bdgr)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2006, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-giant-hand-cannon-revolvers-practical-guns-or-macho-novelties/355667/55 "2006-05-07T19:41:10Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Last I heard, most illegal guns were stolen from homes. > > Well, duh. Guys without guns seldom shoot people; it’s hard to throw the bullets fast enough. Most criminals dont have guns. I’m more worried about someone with a knife, or a blunt weapon. A friend of mine used his .45 to save his own life about a week ago. Road rage incident where a guy charged him with a pipe when he got out of his car. He had a carry permit and drew his .45 and held the guy at gun point until the cops got there… > [@](#): > > Glad to know you are a superhuman who’s finger won’t twitch when surprised. Nothing super human about it. Just takes a little common sense…for instance you dont put you finger on the trigger until you know what you are going to shoot. People use guns in self defense an awfull lot in this country, rarely do they blow away junior for getting up to pee. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2006, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-giant-hand-cannon-revolvers-practical-guns-or-macho-novelties/355667/56 "2006-05-07T19:41:39Z")
> [@Least Original](#): > > What are the justiafiable reasons then? 1. Hunting 2. Sport shooting 3. Self-defense 4. Hobbyist collecting 5. Just plain liking the dirty old things. Mind you, I’m not saying that I think there should be **no** restrictions on gun ownership or use. Just because you happen to be a rational, sensible person doesn’t mean that you should be completely unregulated when it comes to dangerous weapons. I just don’t think that there’s a plausible case to be made for the position that guns are **so** dangerous that we should get rid of them. Lots of other things are dangerous and require a good deal of regulation, and nonetheless manage to cause a lot of damage anyway despite the regulation, but we accept that risk. If lots of sane, law-abiding people really want to own guns, I think that we as a democratic society should be willing to accept that risk, within reasonable limits. But I don’t think that we therefore have to buy the argument that Americans should have a constitutional **right** to own guns or that gun ownership is somehow specially vital to citizenship. As I say, I think the biggest problem with our gun culture is the widespread fixation on gun ownership as some kind of holy birthright that somehow makes you more of an American or more of a citizen. This is the sort of thing that dangerously distorts the value and role of guns. People who ordinarily wouldn’t own guns, and in some cases shouldn’t own guns, get caught up in their glamor as an iconic symbol of patriotism or independence or masculinity or what have you, and start regarding them primarily as icons, whose paramount purpose is just to be flaunted anywhere and everywhere like flags, instead of as tools with practical purposes and real-life dangers. Guns ought to be fundamentally regarded in the same common-sensical way as cars and chainsaws and swimming pools and other dangerous items: they’re things many people have a use for but nobody has a sacred right to. Their construction, sale and use should be regulated for safety purposes, but we should not expect to make them totally risk-free, or expect that responsible people who want to own them should have to do without them entirely. And I say that as a lifelong non-gun-owner who has no intention of ever getting a gun and who would probably never notice any impact in my own life if all guns were banned forever tomorrow, so I don’t think I can be accused of irrational gun-nuttery here. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2006, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-giant-hand-cannon-revolvers-practical-guns-or-macho-novelties/355667/57 "2006-05-07T19:49:31Z")
> [@bdgr](#): > > A friend of mine used his .45 to save his own life about a week ago. Road rage incident where a guy charged him with a pipe when he got out of his car. He had a carry permit and drew his .45 and held the guy at gun point until the cops got there… And if the other guy had a gun, instead of a pipe ? > [@bdgr](#): > > Nothing super human about it. Just takes a little common sense…for instance you dont put you finger on the trigger until you know what you are going to shoot. Which means a criminal with a gun would kill you easily. For that matter, so would the hypothetical “criminal waiting around the corner to grab you” you mentioned earlier. > [@bdgr](#): > > People use guns in self defense an awfull lot in this country, rarely do they blow away junior for getting up to pee. And I’ve heard the exact opposite, not that I really trust either sides statistics. ---
**Author:** ![bdgr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@bdgr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bdgr)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2006, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-giant-hand-cannon-revolvers-practical-guns-or-macho-novelties/355667/58 "2006-05-07T19:56:36Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > And if the other guy had a gun, instead of a pipe ? He would have shot him or been shot. Better chances than if the guy had a gun and my friend was unarmed. > [@](#): > > Which means a criminal with a gun would kill you easily. For that matter, so would the hypothetical “criminal waiting around the corner to grab you” you mentioned earlier. Nope. It doesnt take much to move your finger from outside the trigger guard to the tigger. But its not going to happen from an inadvertant twitch Yeah, the bad guy can still get you in any case, but you have better odds and thats what its all about. Giving yourself a better chance of defending yourself and your family. And I’ve heard the exact opposite, not that I really trust either sides statistics. [/QUOTE] The old “you’re more likely to kill a family member or friend” comes from a flawed study in which people who lived in the same apartment building were considered family and rival gang leaders and drug dealers were considered friends because they knew each other. It also only counted self defense and when the defender shot the bad guy, which in real life rarely happens. Usually the sight of a draw weapon eands the conflict. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2006, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-giant-hand-cannon-revolvers-practical-guns-or-macho-novelties/355667/59 "2006-05-07T19:57:17Z")
Convenient. You pretty much took the discussion right where I was going to take it, **Kimstu**. **bdgr** , sorry, a place that has people with guns in cars in case of road rage and then holding people with a pipe at bay until the authorities get there is not a place I’m happy being. Next thing, we’ll be singing the praises of vigilantes. A friend of mine got into a car accident many moons ago and didn’t wear his seat belt. The accident was such that if he had worn his belt, he would almost certainly have been very seriously hurt, if not, killed. Pointing out an extreme circumstance in either case isn’t the basis for an argument. You’re merely proving that weird stuff happens sometimes, much as my old friend’s argument against seat belts. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2006, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-giant-hand-cannon-revolvers-practical-guns-or-macho-novelties/355667/60 "2006-05-07T20:01:07Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > 1. Hunting > 2. Sport shooting > 3. Self-defense > 4. Hobbyist collecting > 5. Just plain liking the dirty old things. > > \ Can we combine 1 and 2? In that matter, what about 4 and 5? Any pro gun person want to comment on any subtleties? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-giant-hand-cannon-revolvers-practical-guns-or-macho-novelties/355667.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-giant-hand-cannon-revolvers-practical-guns-or-macho-novelties/355667.md?page=4)