For the same reason people who ask random questions of gun owners sometimes get non-responsive or unsatisfying answers.
Satisfying your curiosity is not my priority.
Enjoy,
Steven
Does “Why do you have…” mean the same thing as “Why do you need…” though?
(Euro guy crashing the discussion)
What I - from my POV on the other side of the pond - find sort of fascinating with American gun discussions is the impression that many American gun owners self-identify, apparently primarily, as a “gun owner”.
I own guns. I know a bunch of people who own guns. I can’t imagine anyone of those self-identifying as a “gun owner”. They are hunters or sports shooters (EDIT: And sometimes - in fact rather often - both). Gun ownership isn’t the important part, gun ownership is incidental. The gun is simply the tool we use for our hobby. I have no problem whatsoever explaining why I’m a “gun owner”: I’m a hunter, and to be able to hunt you have to have a gun. Then, of course, I sometimes get into a totally different discussion, why do I hunt? :rolleyes:
Anyway, I’ve got a totally honest question, completely without snark or hidden agendas: Why do I have the impression that a lot of American gun owners primarily self-identify as “gun owners” instead of hunters, shooters or whatever you do with your gun that requires you to own a gun?
Once again, “want” and “need” are two different words. Asking someone why they want to eat ice cream will bring forth a different answer than if they are asked why they need to eat ice cream.
Why do a lot of motorcycle riders in countries all over the world identify as motorcyclists, rather than dirt bikers, road bikers, sport bikers, or cruiser riders?
Because, often events that affect one group also affect the larger group as a whole. Better to speak with one large unified voice than several small voices.
Along the lines of people identifing themselves as carpenters instead of hammer owners?
Something like that, yes.
As I understand gun ownership in most of Europe, you must demonstrate a “valid” reason for wanting the gun and membership in a shooting or hunting club is often part of the requirement. Here, we can own guns for no other reason than wanting to own the guns. Some hunters identify as hunters, some sport shooters identify by their sport. Some, like myself, use their guns for several purposes and “gun owner” is just short hand for all those purposes.
But that’s exactly my point: Motorcyclists, not motorcycle owners.
Asking the want question of strangers is presumptive or fishing. Either you are assuming for some reason they own guns, or through the response you are answering the unasked question, which of you are gun owners?
Thank you to all for the answers.
That “Because I have the right” was a shorthand for “Mind your own business” never occurred to me. :smack: (I think failure to make this link may be an example of my Asperger’s syndrome.)
As I say, I don’t consider the gun debate of prime importance either way. (I would include gun control and gun rights as examples of tangential single-issue obsessions which I wish American voters would stop using as criteria for choosing political candidates.)
Not everybody who owns a gun shoots in some “category” that you’d find satisfactory. Some don’t shoot at all. They may collect or simply own a gun or two. What title would you like a person who owns a gun for self-defense to give himself?
Because “gun enthusiast” has a negative connotation in the campaign of public image. Same reason, very few motorcyclists in America identify as “bikers”. It has a negative association. Whereas motorcyclist and gun owner are much more image neutral.
Self-preservationist? 
I guess this is the core of what I really don’t “get”. Personally, I just can’t see the point in spending good money on something I wouldn’t use. Be it a gun, a motorcycle or any other thing costing me money which I could just as well spend - better - on something I would be using on a fairly regular basis.
You’ve just made the most amazing circular argument I ever saw!
“I answer ‘I have that right’ because I have that right.” 
Not that I disagree with those who say a lot of these questions are precursors to an unwanted debate or argument, and that this is a good tactic for ending it before it begins.
I’d argue, though, that there are some people who answer that because they think that it is the answer to the question, rather than trying to deflect an unwanted interrogation. Not everyone; probably only a minority. And those people are the ones I fund myself confused about. To paraphrase Star Trek, does that mean they feel that if they can do a thing, they therefore must do that thing? And how far does their logic extend? They have the right to be extremely rude to every passerby they see; do they therefore do so, because they have that right? If not, presumably “because I have the right” is not actually the genuine answer to the question; but some do seem to believe it is.
They have many rights which they don’t exercise. They have the right to engage in hard core bondage, but many don’t. This surely implies the true answer is “because I want to”, not “because I have that right”.
Or I could just be curious as to why you own guns, and wouldn’t mind receiving answers from those who wouldn’t mind answering such a question. Nowhere in that question is a requirement that all gun owners answer whether they wish to or not, and nothing is stopping you from ignoring the question if you so please. Again, on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, I see no better way to do so than to ask questions.
In light of the answers by some gun people, may I just say that I don’t support gun rights mainly because I like pissing off paranoid people? 
Of course, if their answers are nuanced and honest, and given with good faith, then my answer changes to me supporting limited gun rights based on need, and always erring on the side of safety. Since there are more accidental and criminal uses of guns than ones used in defense, I think it is prudent to restrict gun use to a degree that protects people from being unwantedly shot
I might give an answer consistent with my cultural background, and this being the Pit I might get away with it without Warnings, but I think it’ll suffice to say that that concept (owning a gun for self defense purposes) is totally alien to me. It’s a cultural thing, I guess.
It makes some sense, when you consider the nature of the gun control debate in America. Lots of us are afraid of guns, and would like very strict laws (or even outright bans) governing their use and possession. It comes up frequently in political debate, and legislation (especially on the local level). It’s a hot-button issue for us. Your community will have its own hot button issues that dramatically divide people along ideology.
The right to own and carry guns is so embedded in our culture that it’s in our Constitution, which isn’t a particularly long document. Our history STARTED (rather recently, as far as histories go) with private gun ownership playing a very important role. It shouldn’t be any surprise that when someone wants to point out that gun ownership might be a historical anachronism not really compatible with the present-day, a large group of people feels like they are personally being singled out, maybe even overreacting with their displays of solidarity and outrage. Gun ownership is an identifying characteristic because gun owners feel they must work together to prevent erosion of their culture. It’s the same reason gays band together and make being gay their identifying characteristic in places where they feel they need to gain political momentum. In places where being gay is no big deal and non-controversial, there are much fewer people using their sexuality as a primary identifying characteristic. Likewise, in the places in America where gun ownership is so common that almost everyone owns a gun, they only become Gun Owners when there are gun non-owners in the discussion.