Prometheus 6

P6,
You'd consider my collection an "arsenal", but despite our disagreements I don't think I scare you do I? The fact is most people that own firearms own more than one. & there are many with what you'd consider an "arsenal". (How many constitutes an "arsenal" anyway?) Take the number of incidents like this one & then look at the number of firearms & the number of firearms owners. Statistically it'll be a bit more reassuring for you.

But to give you an idea here's what a typical hunter should have if he wants to persue several types of game:

A .22 rimfire caliber rifle for small game.
A .22 to .25 caliber centerfire rifle for varmints
A .25 to .30 caliberrifle for deer sized game
A .27 to .35 caliber rifle for elk sized game
A .30 to .40 caliber rifle for moose & bear sized game (which would pretty much be moose & bear)
A lightweight shotgun for upland birds
A slightly heavier, longer shotgun for waterfowl
A shotgun set up to fire slugs for shotgun only deer hunts.
A short barreled rifle sighted shotgun for turkey

Add on a .22 pistol for small game &/or trapping, a pistol larger than .40 caliber for small to medium large game. I'll omit discussion of muzzleloaders for muzzleloading season or the differen types of each caliber rifle for hunting under certain conditions.

That's 11 guns. Would that be an "arsenal"? & would it scare you for a hunter to have that many even though they all serve a specific purpose?

Most people can get by with less for a number of reasons, but it's kind of like telling a golfer they can only have a 9 iron, 3 iron, putter & sand wedge. Sure, it can be done but it's less than ideal.

Add on variosu shooting games (skeet, hi power rifle, bowling pins, bullseye pistol, etc...) & it becomes difficult to do everythign well unless you have the right tool for the job.

Me? I hunt a little (actually considering my luck "hiking under false pretenses" is more accurate a description)& I compete (occassionally) with rifles. I carry pistols for protection & I collect (or at least try to) certain types of rifles. But barring someone trying to kill me or someone I care about (or even don't care about if it's not justifiable) then I'm not a threat to anyone.

Judge people not by what they own, but by what they do with it. Or not. I'm just trying to illustrate that gun owners, even "arsenal" owning gun owners aren't as scary as you seem to think.

I said "arsenal" instead of collection or "a whole lot of" on purpose.

If you had all those weapons in your truck at once, yeah thatwol scare me. If you owned 15 of the same sort of assault rifle that would be a bit worrisome.

Rational is all I'm looking for.

k, define "arsenal".

& assault rifles.. well short version is assault rifles are full auto & heavily regulated by the National firearms Act of 1934. A lot fo firearms look like assault rifles but function completely differently. Just so ya know.

The problem is to be rational about this then everyone has to be on the same level of understanding. The gun control lobby has been really good at distorting the language used & thus when they say "assault weapons" for instance everyone typically thinks of machine guns when in fact they're just talking about rifles that look like machine guns but function like hunting rifles - more or less. Correcting the press could be a full time job, especially on the gun issue. & most people get most of their knowledge about guns from the press.

But what would you consider an "arsenal"? How many guns & how much ammo?

I have no use for gun control, but I don't really have any beef with p6's expressed concern. I insist that gun owners be rational as well.

There are plenty of people distorting the rhetoric involving guns, and misuse of "arsenal" and "assault rifle" are among those, but I don't see where this is a good example of that.

dwshelf,
I'm not accusing P6 of distorting the term. I was pointing out that the term is commonly distorted & asked him to clarify what he means by "arsenal". Once I know what exactly he means when he says "arsenal" then we can have a common starting point to discuss rational & non rational options. But for the record it's the press & gun control lobby that have distirted the term. Unfortunately they've been quite succesful at it, hence my asking P6 to define what he thinks it means.

When I say "arsenal" I mean more weapons for no good purpose than there's any need for.

P6,
K - define "more weapons for no good purpose than there's any need for".

I'm not trying to be difficult (my ex keeps telling me that occurs naturally) but there's a world of difference between how you'd qualify that & how someone else would - both of which could be viewed as rational from the respective perspectives.

I have more weapons than I "need", but each one occupies a specific function that I want it to. I could get by with two or three, but while capable of doing certain tasks they wouldn't be the most effecient at it.

But this is about me trying to find out your perspective - how do you go about determining what's in excess to what a person "needs"?

But this is about me trying to find out your perspective - how do you go about determining what's in excess to what a person "needs"?

I don't. The person that "needs" it must do that.

Who "needs" to buy 5-10 weapons per month?

Who does buy 5-10 weapons per week? Some guy on his way from Pennsylvania to Camden...

I think many parents in this country are becoming dangerously unhinged in gross and subtle ways about their children's involvement in sports. Yesterday evening, Sunday, I took my troops to the pool at the YMCA where we belong so that they could frolic and splash in the water until 7:00 pm. When we arrived at the pool there was a family already there - a girl who looked to be about 14 and her brother who was probably about 10 or eleven. The two of them were swimming lap after lap while they parents walked along the side of the pool giving them instructions and correcting their strokes. At one point the two kids were allowed to take a break and they spent their time watching my kids splash around doing belly flops and cannonballs.

The brother and sister looked at my kids with such longing as if they wanted nothing more than to play for awhile rather than swim laps. Later, after they had left, I asked the lifeguard about them. He said that the kids were at the pool every evening doing laps for an hour or longer and that he, too, had noticed them looking enviously at my kids.

I don't believe that this couple are bad parents. Despite the fact that they left the pool before we did, my children and I exited the building before they did. We were sitting in our vehicle when they came out of the building and the mother had her arm around the daughter and the father and son were walking ahead of them laughing and talking. I think they are a close knit loving family. I do wonder, though, about, the wisdom of making your children swim laps for an hour every evening with the hope that they will win races, collect trophies and, perhaps, secure scholarships to schools with prestigious swim programs.

Texas high school football, however, is an example of collective insanity. Shooting a coach!!