I respectfully suggest your opinion of gun collectors is predicated on a personal lack of affinity for weapons, which is simply a matter of individual preference or conditioning. However, I acknowledge and respect your obvious intelligence and would appreciate knowing your thoughts on my recently posted thread entitled, Why do I like guns?
(Quote)
Why Do I Like Guns?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While Creationists will reject all I have to say here, if they have a more plausible explanation for why some people have a strong affinity for firearms (other than the over-used small penis Freudianism) I'd be interested in reading it.
At the stage of his evolution, when evolving Man came down from the trees and moved about on the ground, he became easy prey for a variety of well-armed predators whose turf he chose to occupy. Because without any specialized natural weapons, such as large canine teeth, sharp claws, or exceptional strength and agility, he was, as Desmond Morris aptly described him, The Naked Ape. And had he remained so poorly equipped for survival in a violently dangerous world the human species would have occupied no more than a mere moment in a history of which there would be no record.
But this pathetically vulnerable creature had something very special going for him. It was an exceptionally active and versatile brain, a cerebral mutation which enabled him to realize something that altered the universe he'd come to inhabit. He discovered that he could stand erect, pick up a stout fallen tree branch, and swing it hard enough to severely injure or at least repel just about any of the frightening predators which had previously ravaged his kind at will. And he thus graduated from the status of naked ape into that of Man -- the weapon maker. Eventually the most fearsome predator of all.
In the epochs that followed, the evolving brain of this thinking animal produced such progressively lethal devices as stone axes, spears, and flint-napped daggers, weapons which enabled him to easily and effectively defend against any other creature in his world but one. His own kind.
I am an accomplished competitive archer. I don't hunt and all of my equipment is specifically designed or adapted for target shooting. But with a hunting bow I could easily send a razor sharp broadhead hunting arrow into a man-size target at ninety meters. And I often wonder about the naked ape whose brain enabled the leap forward from standing toe-to-toe with another stone ax-wielding homo-sapiens, to that of an application of the applied physics of stored energy and motion made possible by combining a flexible tree branch, a strand of strong hide, and a straightened, sharpened stick. I believe that burst of inventive brilliance to be a development in weapons technology which rivals if not surpasses the historic significance of the the atomic bomb.
For centuries the bow and arrows reigned as the ultimate weapon, epitomized by enabling a small group of vastly outnumbered English archers to defeat the French at the Battle of Agincourt. But using the bow effectively is much easier said than done. The fact is it takes years of long and arduous practice and the development of special muscles to acquire the skill needed to make effective use of the bow as a reasonably accurate long-range weapon.
So the next stage in the evolution of weapons technology was the crossbow, which anyone who is strong enough to cock it can make fairly effective use of at up to a fifty yard range, beyond which the trajectory of the bolt (arrow) begins to drop significantly.
The Chinese are credited with the discovery of gunpowder and creation of the earliest firearm, a crude hand-cannon that propelled rocks for a short distance with little to no accuracy. But that burst of science-based ingenuity gave rise to a relatively rapid progression of increasingly brilliant developments in the brief history of firearms, culminating in the examples of modern "assault" rifles, sniper rifles, machine guns, revolvers and automatic pistols.
The bottom line to all this is the question; why do I like guns? And the answer is without them I am a naked ape.
A disarmed man is like a de-clawed cat.
(End quote)
While I agree the primary purpose of guns is to inflict lethal injury, having the ability to do that does not necessarily indicate a desire or intention to do so.
I'm sure you know there are many schools that teach a variety of martial arts. Students, including my oldest granddaughter, who achieve a high level of proficiency in karate, for one example, are capable of inflicting severe to lethal damage to another person using their hands, feet, or a number of specialized weapons. While there undoubtedly are individuals who are inclined for one reason or other to wrongfully make use of their lethal skill the vast majority of martial arts aficionados diligently avoid any such encounters.
Very thoughtful post, and thank you for your ability to discuss things well!
I am by no means as against guns or your basic position as you think --- I have guns, I go to gun ranges, I use guns as tools (we have a farm), though certainly I am no collector or gun glorifier. I have also taken martial arts classes, like your granddaughter, and greatly approve of women learning these skills --- better that first, IMO.
The points you make in your excellent essay are these, I think: 1) "man is man's wolf," as a Latin saying had it -- we are our own most important enemies by far. I agree: intraspecific evolution is what humans do, we take over each other's resources and kill the occupants of the land we want who have the stuff we want. 2) Historically, most weapons were too hard for most people to use for defense, since they took much training and practice and strength. 3) Guns are the Great Equalizer. Even women can defend themselves now that there are guns.
I agree with all this. However, it's not relevant to my fundamental point, which is not anti-gun but anti-glorying in guns, anti-fantasy of killing lots of people. I would think a person who can reach one or a few guns in the house is not as dangerous as anyone who is storing up 20 assault rifles and Glocks with high-capacity magazines: there is something wrong with people who are simply collecting weapons designed to shoot other people, far more than he could POSSIBLY use, more even than if he wanted to arm the neighborhood!! Who can use 10 or 20 guns? Who has reason to? Having that many weapons is not about self-defense -- it's about fantasies of killing lots of people. It's a marker for mental illness, I fear.
I'd respect anyone with a pistol and a shotgun in the house. Someone with 10 assault rifles or even just 4 of them and several semi-automatics with high-capacity magazines? That's a crazy person who may well go off the rails and into a shooting spree where he runs out to kill children and strangers at a school or mall. It's a very bad sign!
You see that I am making a very different point than you did. You justify self-defense via weapons that anyone, old or young, male or female, can use. I agree with that. But to have far more weapons than anyone could possibly use? That's not a good sign. If a person is doing that, it's a marker to watch out, he may well be dangerous to innocent people if or when he suddenly goes off.
You're just getting mad, now, because I don't agree with you. 
