Handgun ownership surges in new groups (Women, gays, liberals and college kids)

Charlotte Observer ^ | Dec. 12, 2011 | Ken Wells

[Between the Lines]

Robin Natanel picks up a compact black pistol, barrel pointed down range. Gripping the gun with both hands, she raises the semi-automatic and methodically squeezes off five shots. If the target were a person's head or heart, he'd probably be dead.

Natanel is a Buddhist and self-avowed "spiritual person," a 53-year-old divorcee who lives alone in a liberal-leaning suburb near Boston. She's a tai chi instructor who invokes the benefits of meditation. And at least twice a month, she takes her German-made Walther PK380 to a shooting range and blazes away.

Natanel is one of a growing number of people in groups once considered anti-handgun - women, liberals, gays and college kids - who have been buying weapons. They are part of a national trend: Domestic handgun production and imports more than doubled over four years to about 4.6 million in 2009, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

The surge has been propelled by shifting politics and demographics that have made it easier and more acceptable than at any time in 75 years for Americans to buy and carry handguns. Post-9/11 fears seem to be a factor, as are the pro-gun politicking of the National Rifle Association and the marketing, particularly to women, by handgun manufacturers. Events like the Dec. 8 fatal shootings on the Virginia Tech University campus reinforce a feeling that the world is an unsafe place, even as violent U.S. crime rates fall.

Two years ago, an ex-boyfriend broke into Natanel's house when she wasn't home. The police advised a restraining order. Instead, she bought pepper spray and programmed the local police number on her cellphone's speed dial.

"I was constantly terrified for my safety," she says.

Ultimately, she got the pistol.

Natanel found it was no trouble to purchase the Walther, a brand favored by movie superspy James Bond, or to locate experts to train her. Her circumstances won her a concealed-carry permit in a state with tough gun-control laws.

"I'd never considered a gun," Natanel says. "...I didn't think anyone should have them."

'Clear societal change'

Twenty years ago, 76 percent of women felt that way about handguns, and 68 percent of all people in the country were wary enough of firearms of any kind to tell Gallup pollsters that they backed laws more strictly limiting their sale. Then what Gallup calls "a clear societal change" began.

In October, a Gallup poll found record-low support for a handgun ban - at 26 percent among all responders and 31 percent among women.

The poll, which has tracked gun attitudes since 1959, documented a record-low 43 percent who favor making it more difficult to acquire guns and record-high numbers of women and Democrats saying there is a firearm at their home. Forty-seven percent said someone in the household owns at least one gun, the highest reading in 18 years.

Skeptics object

Americans who have acquired handguns for protection are living with "serious delusions," says Caroline Brewer, a spokeswoman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. She contends that few are trained rigorously enough to deploy their weapons in the shock and heat of an attack, that they'll shoot innocent bystanders, and that more times than not their firearms will be turned against them.

[calex59]

What a rube. I want to get a colt .45 single action cowboy style revolver.

Actually, I have a Taurus .45 long colt caliber and it is double action. Far superior to the colt single action for home defense. I really have many handguns that I keep stashed around the house, but the .45 is my favorite.

[archy]

I’m down to one adult child at home, with my wife and I. Both me and my dog are getting a bit long in the tooth. I never owned a firearm with small kids in the house because I didn’t feel I needed it, and I was afraid I’d slip and one of the kids would gain access.

So, now I’m starting to think about getting a gun. Couple of questions: What’s the best bang for the buck in a home protection firearm? (pun intended). And, what is the proper way to store said firearm for safety, yet accessibility in the event of a break in?

First, the good news: Your age is such that your most important role at this point is that of example and instructor. You'll know that you're pretty good with the equipment you choose, whatever choice you choose to make, when someone else asks you this same question or something similar and hasn't the faintest clue that your experience and expertise with that hardware isn't the result of lifelong familiarity and professional training, but has been more recently acquired.

About the advice you've gotten regarding handguns: yes they're useful. Yes, you should have a good one. But no, you should probably not put all your self-defensive considerations into a single basket, even if it's a very good basket. The handgun takes considerably more effort to develop expertise with, even passable expertise, and you're working for something far above just a *passing grade."

Too, the handgunner is at a disadventage against those with superior weaponry. Accordingly, it's better to begin those considerations on at least equal terms with a potential adversary/adversaries, with the fallback plan being the use of a defensive handgun in extremis. About the only real downside here is that you won't have the firm, solid confidence of being partnered with your sole means of defense- think of a cop of the 1950s/60s with his handgun, or an infantryman with his rifle. It is sometimes said beware of the man with one gun- he very likely knows how to use it very well. It is more commonly said that you shouldn't have all your eggs in one basket.

When the carloads of federal marshals and border patrol agents raided a home in Florida a few years back they had no fear of a few- and there were more than a few- upset neighbors: the childsnatchers were wearing soft armor bulletproof vests fairly capable of resisting the effect of handgun fire; and any physical threat from the neighborhood could have been met with acidic pepperspray, pistol and submachinegun fire. Neither would counterfire from a neighborhood watch with submachineguns have been particularly effective; most are of the same caliber as the handguns that were at the scene. More rounds, a bit less concealable- no great advantage there.

Now consider that many of those in the crowd were veterans of the Brigada 2506 attack on Cuba at the Bay of Pigs on behalf of the U.S. CIA, and others were sons and nephews, grandsons and yep, daughters and granddaughters of those soldatos viejos and others, veterans of other wars as well or istead. The federalized police acting as agents of Fidel Castro's communism may not have been too concerned about a dozen or two dozen handguns in the crowd they intimiodated with their foreign-made assault weapons, but frightening properly trained and equipped riflemen would have been another matter. Even the respite of a standoff would have given a rifle-armed neighborhood time to aswesemble and double the number of potential combatants, triple it, or more. Such things have happened before, early in our country's history, and it has happened since, in McKinn County, TN. When it happens with enough frequency and effect, those who would use armed force as their personal monopoly remember for a while that it is not theirs alone- and remain at least somewhat more reasonable, at least for the time it takes them to scheme, or forget.

So my answer to your question is: the weapon you need- among others that supplant it- is the Rifle. The infantryman's tool, the Queen of Battles has been taught and learned by every soldier in service to this country during their Basic Training, and to greater degrees of skills by those who go on to other combat arms assignments. Your first tool should be a good accurate and powerful fighting rifle; it can be supplanted- not replaced- with a more concealable handgun later and its effect can be added to with the acquisition of a shotgun, which may offer a few additional options not well-covered by your particular choice of rifle. But get and learn the rifle first.

Which rifle, what kind? There are several good choices, many, in fact. But three immediate candidates come to mind.

The first is the M1 Garand rifle of the Second World War and Korean War periods. General George Pattonc called it the greatest battle implement ever devised... But his personal observation of such matters came to an end with his death in 1945, and there have been additional candidates come along since then. Nevertheless, the Garand can still be a particularly effective tool, especially in the hands of a real expert with one, and most especially against some poor goof with nothing but a handgun who thinks he is perfectly equipped to force others to do as he says. A good shot with a Garand can make a killing shot with an M1 at a half-mile, and an expert can stretch that to a kilometer or more. The National Matche competition for the service rifle is condusted at 600 yards, about six city blocks away. General Pattion's advice about the Garand still pretty much holds true in the daytime, though the rifle he so admired is a bit heavy at around 12 pounds, loaded, and holds but eight shots between reloadings- which can be accomplished within a second, with practice. It was the standard for American troops from 1936 to 1959, and if you had the responsibility and privilage of serving in the military during that period, I'd certainly reccomend that you get reacquainted with your old friend.

For a few years, from 1959 to 1967, the US Army's standard long arm was the M-14, a reworked M1 with a slightly shorter cartridge that allowed the *new* design to operate with a 20-round magazine. The loaded magazine, of course, weighed about as much as three of the Garand's eight-round clips, and took a bit longer to change. Then in '67, the Army found troops in Vietnam clamoring for the Army's M16 version of the Armalite AR-15 rifle used in small numbers by the Air Force. Thousands, hundreds of thousands were fieldedm whereupon manufacturing and ammunition shortcomings revealed weaknesses, whereupon the M16A1 version appeared. In the early 1980s, the militarys' Joint Services Small Arms Program developed the M16A2, an even heavier version of the M16A1 that when loaded approached the weight of the old WWII M1 Garand empty, but offered daytime accuracy out to around that 600-yard match distance range. Indeed, at the National Matches you'll now mostly see finely-tuned M16A2 rifles in the hands of most of the competitors. So far as the grunt soldiers are concerned, you'll more likely see the M4 carbine instead, fitted with a 14.5-inch barrel instead of the M16A2s 20-incher, helping the M4 lose a little of that weight. The range of variants from 1967 to 2011 is impressive, and again: the choice of the Amewrican military deserves strong consideration. Soldiers, Marines, Sailors and Airmen from Vietnam, Beirut, Panama, Grenada. Kuwait, Somalia, Iraq and Afghaistan have stood against our national foes with an M16/M4 in hand, and if such foes, national or personal should come your way, it would be most fitting if their intentions were forestalled at the rifle that has served the Nation as well. But there is another choice, and it's also a good one.

During the Second World War one country, one of our allies at the time, utilized more submachineguns than any other. They saw firsthand the advantages of the weapon and they saw firsthand its faults. They considered an eventual replacement for the millions of those war-wears SMGs and many of their obsolete bolt-action rifles, and in 1947 the clear winner had appeared. Submitted by a war-wounded tank sergeant named Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov and his brainchild adopted in 1947 was designated AK47. Like the American M16, it's gone through several variations and variants- and like the M16/M4, it's still in service. In 1956, a two-pound lighter that used a stamped rather than machined forging main receiver, amd around 1974 a new model with a bullet diameter more akin to that of that of the M16 was developed and fielded. There are more than a hundred million of them in the world, in those models and versions and others, as licensed and unlicensed copies and as inspiration for other designs inspired or not, which elicit the same response from a knowledgable user or observer: Hey, it's just like a Kalishnikov inside....

Russian Guards soldier or desantnik paratrooper, fanatical Islamic terrorist or unschooled Africal tribesman, the AK is so commonplace outside this country that it really is a good idea for anyone planning to go outside this country's borders to at least learn the basics of the AK's operation- and to consider owning one. It's almost certainly the most common personal weapon win the world. And it can serve you with its blessings about the same as it can any of those other users: it's reliable to the extreme, so much so that it's become the standard to which others are judged, and accordingly requires minimal maintenance, can be learned with as little as a day's informal instruction, is reasonably light and usually fairly inexpensive.

These three then. Garand, M4 or Kalishnikov. One would be the likely better or best choice for you, depending on ability, eyesight, physical condition and at least a dozen other factors. Budget is a matter that deserves thought, but of course we're talking about a tool as important as your life upon which it might depend.

Happily, there's an extensive and detailed book about the matter, going into the subject in much greater and better detail than I have here. It's called The Art of the Rifle, which I see Amazon has in hardback for around $70, or can be had in paperback *here* for a bit over $20.

It has been said more recently and in other ways, but: "No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave."

-- "Political Disquisitions", a British republican tract of 1774-1775

Let me know if I can assist you in your considerations in any way.

[yarddog]

Remember those double barrel shotguns (Lupos), that Michael Corleone’s bodyguards carried while he was in hiding in Sicily?

I always thought they were a very good choice for self defense. They are limited to two fast shots, which is nearly always enough plus with an 18” barrel they are several inches shorter than a pump or auto. They also are very intimidating.

I guess technically a short barrel pump or auto would be more effective. I still think I would choose the Lupo because of it’s handiness.

One could do far worse than a Ruger 10-22 and a high quality 30 round mag. Even the standard ten round would be enough.

Having had the unwelcome and unpleasant duty to put down several dogs, I have been disturbed and surprised just how gruesome a soft point .22LR from a rifle barrel can be. Any soft point bullet from a .22 on up from a rifle or powerful pistol will do real damage to flesh.

[Talisker]

Homosexuals with guns is a really dangerous combination. The males will use a gun to the head of every young boy—is that their game?

No, posting depraved fantasies is YOUR game. Go get help, starting with better training as a shill. Better yet, go back to guard duty - you should never have been allowed to work a keyboard.

[calex59]

My god, your long rambling idiotic answer to this person’s question is among the dumbest things I have ever seen on FR. You are more concerned with showing off your knowledge of firearms then you are in helping this person obtain a weapon for self defense. Get a clue and grow the f*** up.

[archy]

Nothing sends a chill down an intruder’s spine like the distinctive sound of a pump. And you don’t have to be particularly accurate - just point and shoot.

You've never heard that little pop! that the igniter cartridge for an M2A1-7 flamethrower makes just before it ignites the pressurized fuel stream, have you. MUCH worse than Mr Shotgun going clickety-clack down the track, I assure you!

And if it doesn't exactly send a chill down Mr. intruder's spine, it'll at least warm his heart. Also his toes, hair eyes, ears, nose and throat and everything else. I just LOVE surprises, and I hope he or she does too....

Oh, particularly accurate? hahahahahahahaha....

[archy]

Natanel is a Buddhist and self-avowed "spiritual person," a 53-year-old divorcee who lives alone in a liberal-leaning suburb near Boston. She's a tai chi instructor who invokes the benefits of meditation. And at least twice a month, she takes her German-made Walther PK380 to a shooting range and blazes away.

And the point is?

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."

-- The Dalai Lama, at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland, Oregon, May 15, 2001.

[yarddog]

Wouldn’t a pet dragon be just as effective? I am not sure how hard they are to train tho. You would not want them lighting up every one who comes to the door.

[Hugin]

A lot of folks will tell you a 12 GA shotgun is the ideal home defense gun. IMHO it is the ideal gun for stoping someone from breaking through your door or window, not always so ideal when someone has already broken into your house. Long guns are hard to turn and aim in confined quarters, and can be taken away more easily than a handgun. Moreover there may be times when you want to answer the door without having scaring some innocent person.

My first choice would be a handgun, and if you’ve never owned one before a short barreled revolver. It’s very simple to use, there’s no safety to worry about, never jams, and if you have a bad round you just pull the trigger again. You can slip it into a pccket with your hand on it to answer the door, and also if you ever want to carry it concealed. You can keep it next your bed for quick access, and lock it up when you are not home. Moreover, you should be able to pick up a decent used 38 Special for under two hundred. Smith and Wessons are great but pricy. Taurus, Ruger, Rossi and Charter Arms all make fine, reliable relvolvers for a lot less.

Once you have that, a shotgun would be a fine choice for a 2nd gun with much more firepower, when you have time and room to use it.

[FreedomPoster]

That’s OK. At least if you didn’t already know about it, you now know about Box O’ Truth. It’s just an all around awesome web site. Well worth spelunking through.

[Secret Agent Man]

Face it, gays live an extremely high risk lifestyle. High risk sex with strangers. Essentially prostitutes that do it for free.

They die young, they do a lot of stupid, risky things that sometimes get you killed. And they do them voluntarily.

Sometimes the people you want to have anonymous sex with, that you don’t know, turn out to be the people that might kill you.

Matt also chose to be unarmed while doing extremely risky behavior. Lots of people make the conscious choice to believe nothing bad will ever happen to them.

Even if he did have a gun, they could have always surprised him and taken him off-guard. Having a gun doesn’t always mean that guy wins.

I have a lot less sympathy for people that die doing perverted, dangerous, stupid things by their own choice and place themselves in a situation that kills them.

[Smokin' Joe]

In a 'long' gun:Remington 870 tactical Lots of bang for the buck, can load everything from beanbags to birdshot to buckshot to rifled slugs, short enough to work indoors.

The more accessible a long arm is, generally the less secure.

On top of a china hutch or up out of general reach/sight of the kids, tube full, action empty and slide back (so when you retrieve it you only have to run the foregrip forward and you're ready).

A special place in the bedroom might be a consideration as well.

YMMV, and your situation (how many kids, how many kids' friends (generally the greater risk), how old, how well versed in firearms safety your household is (the bottom line is that the most 'dangerous' person who enters your house--not a criminal, but a family member or guest--will be the deciding factor in avoiding any unwanted handling of the firearm) the geometry of your home and furnishings, etc.) will determine the best accessible storage option for you.

Keep in mind that a shotgun, even with 'mere' birdshot rounds can deliver fearful and often fatal wounds at close range, and you don't want to take any chances on someone mishandling the weapon and causing unwanted injury/death.

[blackdog]

A 12 gauge shotgun with spreader loads from Orvis. Just point in the general direction and anything within twenty yards is put down. Shot is spread in about a twenty foot circular pattern, so aiming is not required. Projectiles(rounds) will not exit thru walls or structure, so you can't harm family members accidentally.

Kinda like a criminal fire extinguisher.

[Smokin' Joe]

Most Libertarians I know don't want the government to 'redistribute' anything to them, they just want to be left alone. The only sense of entitlement I have seen is that they are entitled to do what they want so long as it doesn't interfere with others' rights to do pretty much the same. That isn't so much self entitlement as a raw concept of Liberty.

The OWS crowd aren't Libertarians, just useful idiots, communists, other paid agitators, miscellaneous drifters/grifters, and some union folks.

[Frank_2001]

Not many “innocent bystanders” in the bedroom at 4AM.....

[from occupied ga]

How much do you want to spend? $500? $1200? $7000?

$500 get a .357 revolver ** Best choice for a novice

$1200 .357 revolver and AK for backup

$7000 uzi ** my favorite

[from occupied ga]

see post 116 and consider that the threat is the UNORGANIZED criminals. My opinion is that a SMG is ideal home defense against 95% of the likely threats, except for the egregiously and artificially high cost (thank you Ronald Reagan for signing that one into law).

[wastedyears]

Homosexuals with guns is a really dangerous combination. The males will use a gun to the head of every young boy—is that their game?

So should we ban them from using all firearms because of something they may do?

[Neoliberalnot]

I don’t believe ANYONE should be killed because he is gay.””

How bout if he is vectoring deadly infectious diseases to other innocent people. Any concern for the more than 1 million dead of HIV when just a few decades ago we had a single case. Would you condemn someone for passing a slow death to another innocent person, such as your son?

[Neoliberalnot]

It is your misfortune that you have not worked in the public health arena. You have no idea of the disgusting and deviant ways these sick creatures vector dozens of different diseases to other innocent creatures. Go live in the San Fran area for a few years and work for the CA dept of Public Health so you get close and personal with the rimmers, felchers, the nambla members, and those who have sex partners in filthy public restrooms. You might learn that the life is not the will and grace show as promoted by hollywood. The hallmark of a liberal progressive is one whose arrogance is only exceeded by their ignorance.