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.
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.
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 [It’s Taking Longer Than We Thought]). If someone makes a claim here, they have to be prepared to back it up; they’d also better be prepared to defend their cites.
But to crack your faulty reasoning, Kal’s Brady Center stats said:
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?)
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.
If you didn’t want to get into it, why throw this…
…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 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
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.
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.
