# Partial psychology behind gun ownership (NOT a gun control thread!) **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 20, 2018, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-psychology-behind-gun-ownership-not-a-gun-control-thread/814509 "2018-05-20T16:46:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![nelliebly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nelliebly/32/5422_2.png) [@nelliebly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nelliebly)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2018, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-psychology-behind-gun-ownership-not-a-gun-control-thread/814509/21 "2018-05-21T04:50:41Z")
> [@elfkin477](#): > > Sure, quite a lot of things. The pencil as we know it, with a wood casing and eraser, is pretty much the same writing tool as it was just before the civil war. A great many household items are the same as they’ve been for a hundred years or more: how much innovation do you suppose there’s been in bedding, plates, bowls, spatulas (invented in the 1520s,) cutlery, desks, tables, chairs, art supplies like paints and pastels & chalk, and so on? There are variations on themes, of course, but you could show any of these things to a person from 1911 and they’d know exactly what they were. I’ll add crutches. Dickens’ Tiny Tim would easily recognize a crutch from today. When I had to be on them for a torn calf muscle, I kept wondering why the design hasn’t improved in thousands of years. I wanted hover crutches. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2018, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-psychology-behind-gun-ownership-not-a-gun-control-thread/814509/22 "2018-05-21T10:22:16Z")
> [@Lizard](#): > > I guess if I had to sum up a bigger point, it is that I think one of the reasons guns remain as popular as ever is because for a certain segment of the population they represent a rebellion against the changes that time has brought to American society. Guns are a physical reminder that SOME things don’t, haven’t, and probably won’t change much. > I wonder: does the fact that the majority of people I run into at the range consist of men older than 50 have anything to do with this? How does this square with the popularity of tacticool shit, including any-and-all the electronified gun bling one’s picatinny rail can hold? ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2018, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-psychology-behind-gun-ownership-not-a-gun-control-thread/814509/23 "2018-05-21T11:19:30Z")
Sure, for some segment of gun owners, there is a certain appeal to the historical context or mechanical elegance of various firearms. A much larger segment own them for utilitarian reasons such as hunting or home defense. But I think there is a non-insignificant percentage of gun owners who own multiple guns because it makes them feel like a Big Man. ---
**Author:** ![Baal\_Houtham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baal_houtham/32/13604_2.png) [@Baal\_Houtham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baal_Houtham)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2018, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-psychology-behind-gun-ownership-not-a-gun-control-thread/814509/24 "2018-05-21T12:11:38Z")
I used to compare guns to cameras. Both are common handheld mechanical devices that perform a simple function. Both have seen thousands of variations designed to improve efficiency or to handle special circumstances. Both have been refined by over a century of industrial/scientific competition. The gun propels a small piece of metal through the air at very high speeds in a straight line. The camera exposes a light sensitive surface to a controlled amount of focused light for a controlled amount of time. (Yeah, definitions are never perfect.) ---
**Author:** ![Lizard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@Lizard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lizard)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2018, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-psychology-behind-gun-ownership-not-a-gun-control-thread/814509/25 "2018-05-21T22:33:52Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Sure, for some segment of gun owners, there is a certain appeal to the historical context or mechanical elegance of various firearms. A much larger segment own them for utilitarian reasons such as hunting or home defense. **But I think there is a non-insignificant percentage of gun owners who own multiple guns because it makes them feel like a Big Man.** If you mean they own them because (rightly or wrongly) it makes the owners feel empowered, than I absolutely agree. That is definitely one reason why I own them myself. I do not consider this to be incompatible with other things I’ve said and other types of motivation. I also think it’s not all that different from the egoistic reasons other people buy fancy cars, gadgets, or clothes. We’ve all got _something_ to prove, either to others or ourselves. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-psychology-behind-gun-ownership-not-a-gun-control-thread/814509/26 "2018-05-22T16:04:24Z")
Lizard, can you consider opening a thread on how many pressure cookers you own, and the evolution of the design of pressure cookers as an IED? ---
**Author:** ![Lizard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@Lizard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lizard)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-psychology-behind-gun-ownership-not-a-gun-control-thread/814509/27 "2018-05-22T16:09:47Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > Lizard, can you consider opening a thread on how many pressure cookers you own, and the evolution of the design of pressure cookers as an IED? ??? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-psychology-behind-gun-ownership-not-a-gun-control-thread/814509/28 "2018-05-22T17:21:44Z")
> [@Lizard](#): > > The Barrett M82 .50 is recoil operated. This is the same operating system as the Maxim machine gun, designed in the 1880s. Only the details (size, materials) differ. Nothing original there. > As for cars, the point was not that they would be recognizable, the point was understanding how they work. Guns work the same as they always did. Cars? Not with computers and electronics galore they never had until relatively recently. A computer running the engine, a touch screen for the stereo (and: a stereo), digital displays, dual climate controls (and: climate controls) perhaps Bluetooth, cruise control, and hell, push-button ignition with a radio-tagged key fob. You can’t tell me anyone in 1911 would’ve understood _any_ of those things. You are saying that adding on a targeting laser, or a low light vision scope would fundamentally alter the way that a gun works to the point where someone from 1911 wouldn’t understand it? That’s what you are trying to say by saying that having electronics for driver and passenger interaction would confuse people. At the very best, all you are saying is that unlike guns, cars have had a hundred years of improvements for safety, reliability, and efficiency, and that gun technology is stuck with what we had over a hundred years ago. ---
**Author:** ![Lizard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@Lizard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lizard)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2018, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-psychology-behind-gun-ownership-not-a-gun-control-thread/814509/29 "2018-05-23T01:22:28Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > You are saying that adding on a targeting laser, or a low light vision scope would fundamentally alter the way that a gun works to the point where someone from 1911 wouldn’t understand it? That’s what you are trying to say by saying that having electronics for driver and passenger interaction would confuse people. This is a straw man. _Adding_ things to a gun does NOT change how the gun itself functions, because it doesn’t depend on those things to work. The thing the person from 1911 wouldn’t understand would be the laser or the low-light scope, not the gun. Every major type of firearms action–recoil, blowback, gas operation, etc.-was worked out mechanically before World War II, most of them before 1920. Everything since then has been variations on a theme. > [@](#): > > At the very best, all you are saying is that unlike guns, cars have had a hundred years of improvements for safety, reliability, and efficiency, and that gun technology is stuck with what we had over a hundred years ago. Mostly, no. My main point was meant to be that the _ **operating principles** _ of projectile firearms will probably never change, because the laws of physics don’t change. Guns today are FAR safer and more reliable than they used to be. It’s possible to reassemble a Colt 1911A1 such that it will fire without pulling the trigger. (I learned this the hard way.) No modern gun would be sold with a flaw like this. Modern ammunition also more powerful for its size, and uses deadlier bullets than ever. And just to add to the pile of long historical connections: Almost every major pistol caliber–the 9mm, .45 Auto, .22 Long Rifle, .380 Auto, .38 Special–was created before World War I also. “Recent” in that realm is the .40 S&W, which is STILL 30 years old. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2018, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-psychology-behind-gun-ownership-not-a-gun-control-thread/814509/30 "2018-05-23T13:53:13Z")
> [@Lizard](#): > > This is a straw man. _Adding_ things to a gun does NOT change how the gun itself functions, because it doesn’t depend on those things to work. The thing the person from 1911 wouldn’t understand would be the laser or the low-light scope, not the gun. Every major type of firearms action–recoil, blowback, gas operation, etc.-was worked out mechanically before World War II, most of them before 1920. Everything since then has been variations on a theme. I don’t disagree that it has exactly as much straw as claiming that the touch screen radio of a car would make a car hard to understand. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-psychology-behind-gun-ownership-not-a-gun-control-thread/814509.md?page=1)