Minimalist Gun Collection

[SabbathWolf]

I try to pick from different catagories.
My idea of "minimalist" is not to have 3 or 4 guns that are basically the same thing.

I also try to cover my bases as far as having something for Close Range, Medium Range and Long(er) Range.


I have:

1) Revolver
1) Semi-Auto Pistol
1) Pistol Caliber Carbine
1) Semi-Auto Rifle/Carbine
1) Bolt Rifle with Scope

Calibers include 9mm, 38spl, 357 magnum, 45acp, 7.62x39 and 308.

I'd like to include 22lr and 12ga some day, but that's about it.

 

[wickedsprint]

Whose belief? Obamas? Hillary? Chuck U. Schumer?

Yeah, I disagree with them, too.

You've put yourself on a very slippery slope. Who, exactly, gets to define "need?"

"I need a gun to hunt," you say.

"You don't 'need' to hunt, go to the grocery store instead," they reply.

"I need a gun for home defense," you cry.

"No, you don't, buy good locks, an alarm system and call 911," they smugly respond.

"But I like to shoot for recreation," you whine.

"Take up golf. See? You really don't 'need' any guns, do you!"

If YOU just have one job you need a gun to handle, that's fine, but don't apply your self-restrictive "needs" to others.

First off, I'm not saying you should only have one gun. I'm not advocating any restrictions on your liberties. Our only disagreement is over a definition of a word, not an ideal gun collection.

Need should be defined by the user...but you're still using need and want interchangeably. There's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting more than 1 gun...I own more than 1...but I don't actually "need" any of them.

The spirit of the topic is "minimalist"...which means to me the absolute minimal amount of guns to accomplish "actual needs".

There's a funny quote that comes back to your tool analogy. "when the only tool you have is a hammer, it's funny how all problems start to look like a nail".



.

 

[David E]

I own more than 1...but I don't actually "need" any of them.

Odd.

Most of the rest of us DO need them.

Your "needs" or "wants" have nothing to do with anyone besides yourself. Stop thinking otherwise.

 

[wickedsprint]

Odd.

Most of the rest of us DO need them.

Your "needs" or "wants" have nothing to do with anyone besides yourself. Stop thinking otherwise.

If your needs or desires can be solved with another tool other than a firearm, you don't "need" a firearm..you WANT a firearm. (which is perfectly fine and our right under 2A)

Generally when you truly NEED something, there is no other option. For hunting and self defense there are a plethora of readily available options available that have satisfied man's NEEDS for literally thousands of years.

If guns cost $30k, would you still have 5?

I bet if new cars were only $500, we'd be arguing we "need" at least 5 automobiles...

 

[SabbathWolf]

If I had 5 automobiles....I would "need" cheaper insurance rates for sure....

 

[David E]

If your needs or desires can be solved with another tool other than a firearm, you don't "need" a firearm..you WANT a firearm. (which is perfectly fine and our right under 2A).

My needs require multiple firearms. Substitutes like 911, grocery stores, golf, etc, won't cut it.

Your argument seems to focus on "need vs want.". It ignores that whole "freedom" thing.

You don't need a car. Buy a bike, use public transportation or walk. Same "logic.".

Enough derailment.

To properly address a minimal selection of guns, one needs to first identify his needs. (there's that word again!)

Some don't "need" any, preferring instead to rely on others to provide for their needs. (protection, food, etc)

Others "need" at least ten.

 

[wickedsprint]

My needs require multiple firearms. Substitutes like 911, grocery stores, golf, etc, won't cut it.

Your argument seems to focus on "need vs want.". It ignores that whole "freedom" thing.

You don't need a car. Buy a bike, use public transportation or walk. Same "logic.".

Enough derailment.

To properly address a minimal selection of guns, one needs to first identify his needs. (there's that word again!)

Some don't "need" any, preferring instead to rely on others to provide for their needs. (protection, food, etc)

Others "need" at least ten.

I see our disconnect.

I'm looking at minimalist from a bare bones survival point of view. That's what I think when I hear that word.

You're coming at it from a quality of life point of view...as I suspect most of the other posters are.

No biggie.

 

[David E]

I see our disconnect.

I don't think so.

I'm looking at minimalist from a bare bones survival point of view.

That's not what was said in the OP. it said "to cover all situations in N America." Nothing mentioned at all about a "bare bones survival point of view."

When you say "one gun is all you need," and "no one needs to CCW, we choose to," THAT is where our disconnect is.

 

[GunsAreEssential1975]

I wasnt gonna chime in, but I'm bored and all my kid wants to do is watch tv. So here's my minimalist list.
1) single shot 12 ga. For hunting
2) savage bolt action chambered in 30-06 for long range hunting/defense
3) High capacity handgun, in my case a glock 22 for defense
4) .22 pistol for hunting/ target practice.
There we go, thats it. That was fun. Now back to my cartoons

 

[TJ AK-74]

Obviously a firearm isn't an actual "need" in the true sense of the word, as people are not physically reliant on guns like they are on food, water, and air. In the broader sense of the word "need", there are legitimate things that are not merely "wants" but would be considered "needs" by the average/normal/reasonable person. Such "needs" include shelter, clothing, transportation/mobility, relationships, personal protection, health, etc. Using the reasonable definition of "need", one could easily make the argument that a firearm is a legitimate "need", not a "want".

For instance, one "could" successfully defend himself with an item other than a gun in SOME circumstances. However, there are some situations where talking your way out of it and/or running is not an option and your only choice is to give up and die or defend yourself. If your assailant is armed with a firearm, the only way to survive may be to also have and use a firearm. Therefore a firearm is a "need".

 

[T.R.]

This is all I need:

SHOTGUNS
- double barrel side X side 16 gauge for upland game
- pump 12 gauge for waterfowl and slug barrel for deer/bear

RIFLES
- 30-30 with 4X scope for forest and foothills deer
- .308 with 2X-7X scope for all other big game
- .22 MAG with 3X-9X scope for varmints
- 50 caliber modern ML rifle with 1.5X-4.5X scope for deer

HANDGUNS
- 22LR double action revolver
- 357 MAG double action revolver

TR

 

[wickedsprint]

I don't think so.



That's not what was said in the OP. it said "to cover all situations in N America." Nothing mentioned at all about a "bare bones survival point of view."

When you say "one gun is all you need," and "no one needs to CCW, we choose to," THAT is where our disconnect is.

I respect your opinion, but I disagree. Enjoy your evening.

 

[RBid]

For this reply...
"need" is a looser form, rather than biological need. It encompasses security and 'sense of security' considerations.

I'm also looking at my personal/individual needs, rather than making adjustments or additions to supply other people.


Current state needs:
2 handguns, 9mm+ caliber. 1 for ccw, 1 in case something happens to the other.

"SHTF" needs:
as above, plus 1 rifle, scoped, in .308 or other hunting/man-stopping flexible cartridge

Lots of rounds.

 

[JShirley]

Okay, if we're down to quibbling, obviously everything that needed to be said, has.

We all have different ideas, experiences, and budgets. Choose wisely...and practice.

John