Do Boomers consider themselves lucky regarding guns?

[Armybrat]

I remember a 10/22 that I bought in 69 that cost me around $85. Bought a 1965 Malibu SS 327 in 1969. The original price tag new was $3200. That won't buy a 250cc ATV now, but the minimum wage was $1.65 then.

I am a “pre-boomer” (1944)
I bought this ‘67 Malibu Sport Coupe with the 283 & 3 on the tree new for $2,685. Payments were $83/month.
The pic was taken at Easter, 1968. That lump in her belly is now a senior VP of a major regional agriculture bank system.

 

[Palladan44]

Guns are tools, and back then then was a more of a utilitarian mindset. Speaking in terms of your "average" middle class American here, there are exceptions to the rule, of course on both ends.

1- Deer rifle
1- .22
1- Shotgun
1- Automobile for the whole family.

There was nothing wrong with this, but it represents the vast majority of boomer era people that I know.
Having a big gun collection is something that many boomers have built up through the decades toward the later half of the century, many of the collections beginning with WW2 surplus, you all know what I mean.....
But go back to the 40s, 50s and early 60s and you didn't find many Average guys like most of us here with collections like we have now. 30, 40, 50 guns being a modest collection for an Amateur. 100+ gun collection is common among middle class gun enthusiasts today.
This is just a thought and I may be jumping to a hasty generalization here.

 

[earlthegoat2]

IF I could keep the knowledge, wisdom and assets I've accumulated during my lifetime and exchange places now with a millenial I'd do it in a heartbeat.

I think you might be pretty disgusted by your peers but I think that may not be the point. BTW, millennial here. Born in 82.

I had the distinct pleasure of turning 18 and then 21 during the AWB of ‘94 years. I remember the ARs of the day skyrocketing in price and normal capacity magazines disappearing.

I also remember 1911s becoming the new hotness of which I bought as my first gun in the form of a Para Ordnance P-13 complete with 2 standard capacity mags. I don’t remember exactly but I think I paid around $400 for it. A year later I paid $250 for a Marlin 17V 17HMR rifle as my first rimfire. Honestly, these two guns have not gained a ton of value. Maybe kept with inflation.

All the really cool stuff was out of my grasp or I wasn’t interested in it. Mainly Milsurps. I didn’t care for them at the time. They were really cheap in 2003 when I turned 21 and started buying my own guns. I particularly remember SKSs selling for $99. I didn’t want one because of bad scope mounting options in that time. Mausers, Mosins, SKSs, K31s, and Enfields were blowing up the market. All around 75-100 bones.

 

[AlexanderA]

I am a “pre-boomer” (1944)

Same here. Born in February of 1945 -- WW2 was still going on.

The pic was taken at Easter, 1968.

March of 1968 was when I bought my first AR-15. It cost $215, which was a lot of money for me back then. But I was finishing law school and had a good part-time job at the IRS, so I figured I could stretch the finances. That was my most expensive gun up to that point.

Guns are tools, and back then then was a more of a utilitarian mindset.

My AR was in no sense a "tool." I mostly wanted it to get a feel for what the guys in Vietnam were using. My collection ballooned in the next few years, and none of them were "tools."

 

[LaneP]

Guns are tools, and back then then was a more of a utilitarian mindset. Speaking in terms of your "average" middle class American here, there are exceptions to the rule, of course on both ends.

1- Deer rifle
1- .22
1- Shotgun
1- Automobile for the whole family.

There was nothing wrong with this, but it represents the vast majority of boomer era people that I know.
Having a big gun collection is something that many boomers have built up through the decades toward the later half of the century, many of the collections beginning with WW2 surplus, you all know what I mean.....
But go back to the 40s, 50s and early 60s and you didn't find many Average guys like most of us here with collections like we have now. 30, 40, 50 guns being a modest collection for an Amateur. 100+ gun collection is common among middle class gun enthusiasts today.
This is just a thought and I may be jumping to a hasty generalization here.

Pretty much my experience with family and friends growing up in the 60's and 70' in rural western N.C. Shotguns were by far the most prevalent due to dove and quail season. Just about everyone had a .22 rifle, including my aunt. It was her only gun and she kept one box of .22 Long ammunition for it. I can't remember the model but it was a single shot, bolt actuated with a cocking knob, and she kept a pair of pliers handy to cock it with, as in her old age she didn't have the hand strength to do it.

I had an uncle that was raised with the belief you did not have to clean smokeless powder guns, and he never cleaned his. He had a Winchester M70 in .30-06 he used for deer hunting and I was looking at it one day and the bore at the muzzle was completely caked with years of oxidized copper fouling. He also kept an old Colt DA chambered in .38 S&W in a sock under his bed.

They viewed guns no differently than a hammer in a tool box.

 

[Palladan44]

Pretty much my experience with family and friends growing up in the 60's and 70' in rural western N.C.

You know who else was from western N.C. in the 1970s? Barney Fife. He had only one gun, and one bullet.

 

[Seedy Character]

Granddad had a
1. surplus .303
2. Rem M-11 16 Ga
3. Win M-61 .22LR

Dad had a
1. Rem 870 16 ga (1961)
2. surplus Springfield 1917 .30-06 (1967)
3. Colt ACE .22LR 1911 (1985)
4. Rem Speedmaster .22LR (1991)

Tools to feed the family

 

[illinoisburt]

When I was getting into shooting in the 80s, I heard plenty of stories of how good it was in the war surplus years of the 50s followed with how 64 and 68 pretty much ruined everything. What I always found odd was how much people told me things were either overpriced or obviously junk if affordable (including surplus). Handguns were certainly popular enough with lots of banter in the pawn & gun shop in the back of our local barber shop. It struck me as mostly fluff since only police could legally carry. I would rank today's post 9/11, no fed AWB, legal carry in most states, and most importantly online information and sales (especially ammo/optics/accessories) as the real good old days less the current ammo squeeze.

 

[Archie]

I feel fortunate as a 'boomer' (arrived early in 1950) to live during the time of firearms being normal and acceptable. Currently, I do feel fortunate to have been able to get in on some of the good buys. However, I was alive when President Kennedy was assassinated and the "Gun Control Act of 1968" became law when I was eighteen years of age. Following that time, I did not feel so fortunate as public opinion was manipulated to demonize firearms (except for those controlled by some level of government) and those citizens who owned firearms.

And I have often regretted not living in the time when I would be old enough to purchase one of the zillions of 'obsolete' Mauser, Mannlicher and Enfield rifles at (what seems now) bargain prices. No doubt the future will see similar cycles.

And even though it seems odd, I feel fortunate to be able to purchase a decent self defense handgun for less than a month's pay.

 

[Tallinar]

Millennial here, born '86.

The way I figure it, our grandfathers' generation lived through the Depression, and fought WWII. Whatever fruit they may have reaped for their children (boomer generation) seems due to them, from some point of view.

Theirs was also a generation where -- generally speaking -- guns were still a fairly common part of culture. By the accounts I've heard, it wasn't terribly uncommon for teenagers to bring their shotguns to school so they could hunt afterward. Mix this in with a flood of postwar milsurps, and beautiful development in the postwar world of revolvers, and it makes sense to me that the previous generation had what might seem to us millennials as a sort of "golden age" of guns. The milsurp market is a little drier now than it was a few decades ago. The days of beautiful wooden stocks as a common feature are dwindling. Guns have become "better" in a number of ways, but also less interesting in many others.

But man, how can I complain? Our generation stands as the beneficiaries of a whole lot of suffering in the 20th century that most of us really know very little about. Makes me very thankful to God when I think about it all.

 

[wiscoaster]

...But man, how can I complain? Our generation stands as the beneficiaries of a whole lot of suffering in the 20th century that most of us really know very little about. Makes me very thankful to God when I think about it all.

Each generation faces its own set of challenges. How they handle those challenges defines their generation. I think the millennials are already into their first challenge, and the outcome of how that defines them is yet to be known.

 

[Palladan44]

Each generation faces its own set of challenges. How they handle those challenges defines their generation. I think the millennials are already into their first challenge, and the outcome of how that defines them is yet to be known.

Bad times make strong men....
......Strong men make good times.
Good times make weak men.....
.....weak men make bad times.

 

[AlexanderA]

......the time of firearms being normal and acceptable......

Maybe they were, but maybe they should not have been. A casual attitude about guns is precisely what led to the abuses, and then in turn those led to the polarized, restrictive situation in which we find ourselves today. The course of events could have been predicted with mathematical precision.

I'm speaking not only about a lack of safety consciousness, but also about a lack of consciousness regarding who should have guns and who shouldn't. Guns need to be treated as both precious and dangerous. Not as mere "tools." It follows, then, that there should be a high bar to ownership. (Of course, it's too late to do anything about that. The horse is already out of the barn.)

Growing up, I remember some of my cohorts doing truly dangerous things with guns. Thank goodness there were no tragedies (in my narrow personal circle). I never treated my guns casually.

 

[Old Dog]

The days of beautiful wooden stocks as a common feature are dwindling. Guns have become "better" in a number of ways, but also less interesting in many others.

Nicely said.

A casual attitude about guns is precisely what led to the abuses, and then in turn those led to the polarized, restrictive situation in which we find ourselves today.

Gonna have to disagree here. The first portion of your sentence is a gross oversimplification, and the second, simply untrue. Anyway, what specific abuses are you speaking about? There were many racist and classist origins of gun control legislation and media response to situations involving firearms. Going back to the prohibition days, gangsters with Thompsons and BARs, through the '60s, assassins allegedly ordering rifles through the mail, the hoopla over "Saturday night specials," Black Panthers openly carrying arms, etc.

It follows, then, that there should be a high bar to ownership.

All righty then. No "right to bear arms," the citizen must prove him/herself worthy of owning arms.

The history of civilization is replete with examples of stupid people (assuredly back to the Stone Age) doing stupid things with things that could be used as weapons.

 

[Archie]

A casual attitude about guns is precisely what led to the abuses, and then in turn those led to the polarized, restrictive situation in which we find ourselves today.

Not quite correct. The abuses of civil rights was caused by the outright lie on the part of one sector of politics that 'gun control' would stop crime. That was true for the National Firearms act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and a plethora of local laws such as the Sullivan act and any number of mandatory delays prior to possessing a firearm.

I regret living in a time when liberty is ended by political ambition and that some folks swallow the pertinent brainwashing without question.

 

[theotherwaldo]

As a Boomer (born the day that Ike was re-elected), I gloried in being able to use the firearms that were used by my forefathers.
I regret the ending of non-full-auto military long arms.
There are no more legitimate milsurps.
M1As, AR-15s, WASRs and the like just don't cut it.

 

[Palladan44]

***This contains Lore from childhood, take it for what it is. Some of what I recall from long long ago****
My father and his 4 to 5 buddies each had ONE deer rifle. They each had one or 2 shotguns and one or 2
.22 Caliber rifles. The .30-30 Winchester "PEA SHOOTERS" were good for deer hunting at close range and no more, but the .30-06 was a beast, and able to snipe deer from A MILE away and drop them dead in their tracks. I was literally afraid to shoot an "ott-six" until I was 13 or 14 due to the hype and mythology.

One had a "Saturday Night Special" .25 that "couldn't hit a potatoe chip box" from 10 feet. (remember when potatoe chips came in a box, 2 bags to a box?) Possibly the gun's fault, but most likely was simply lack of experience by the users. I remember the same 50 round box of UMC ammo for the gun lasted possibly a decade or more.

One had a .38 Special revolver, and it's been so long I couldn't tell you what the make/model it was. All I recall is the "hair trigger" in single action went off on my father prematurely due to poor trigger control. It was the first time, and I believe the last time that my father ever fired a hand-gun, I kid you not. (The phrase "trigger control" didn't really exist yet, lets just leave it at that.)
One had an "M1911" from WW2. It's possible it was a parts gun and not all original, however the earlier you go back in time, the less likely that is to be.
At the time, the M1911 was the most advanced (besides the HI Power) most cool handgun you could own. The .45 ACP round back then had a different status than it has today. As kids we were pretty positive that the .45 ACP was more powerful than a .30-30 Winchester Rifle, and only GIs and G-Men were allowed to use them. We were pretty sure that Old Tony swiped the M1911 from the Govt and he wasn't allowed to have it.

Uncle Don could hit a nickel with his bolt action .22 at 100 yards, standing without a rest, with open sights. I now know that the bark splatter or just the whizz of the bullet was enough to knock the nickel over and he usually never did actually hit it. (He'd hit it 10 times in a row)

 

[CoalTrain49]

1964 ish my dad who was a WW2 combat vet had one rifle and one shotgun. I had 2 rifles and my brother and I shared a shotgun. My brother also had 2 rifles. We hunted a lot. I'm not sure how many firearms I own today but it's more than most.

I was born in 49 and I'm burning social security like a Saturn V rocket. Just thought I would throw that in there.

 

[Poper]

a lack of consciousness regarding who should have guns and who shouldn't.

And who makes that determination?
Sorry, but I will ask the constitution for that. In other words, it is everyone's right to own and use a firearm. Freedom is not certified safe. With that freedom comes the possibility of misuse and abuse.
If I have to choose between more freedom + risk and less freedom + guaranteed safety, I will opt for the "more freedom" choice every time. I do not want government telling me what is "good" and/or "safe" for me.

 

[CapnMac]

As a Boomer, do I feel lucky regarding firearms?
Well, yes, generally. But not for the year of my birth. We live in a wondrous age with a huge selection of firearms, to fit almost every need and niche.
We have so many choices, now, that we can debate them on al manner of merits.

 

[Will Munny]

And who makes that determination?
Sorry, but I will ask the constitution for that. In other words, it is everyone's right to own and use a firearm. Freedom is not certified safe. With that freedom comes the possibility of misuse and abuse.
If I have to choose between more freedom + risk and less freedom + guaranteed safety, I will opt for the "more freedom" choice every time. I do not want government telling me what is "good" and/or "safe" for me.

While the constitution itself does not contain any such limitation, its hardly a recently established precedent that there are limits even on constitutional rights. At the very least, there should be an alignment that makes sense. The 2nd Amendment rights should be aligned with the franchise, etc.

 

[Jack Ryan]

People, YOU make YOUR OWN LUCK. State by getting a job and paying your own debts. Save your money, is THAT LUCK when you have money to buy something because you SAVED IT? Lucky my hiney.

 

[Seedy Character]

And who makes that determination?
Sorry, but I will ask the constitution for that. In other words, it is everyone's right to own and use a firearm. Freedom is not certified safe. With that freedom comes the possibility of misuse and abuse.
If I have to choose between more freedom + risk and less freedom + guaranteed safety, I will opt for the "more freedom" choice every time. I do not want government telling me what is "good" and/or "safe" for me.

Goobermint cannot "guarantee" safety. They cannot stop spam calls.

 

[Seedy Character]

While the constitution itself does not contain any such limitation, its hardly a recently established precedent that there are limits even on constitutional rights. At the very least, there should be an alignment that makes sense. The 2nd Amendment rights should be aligned with the franchise, etc.

Libturds argue that they Constitution is green and malleable.

The writers said no such thing.

It is NOT for interpretation. It was written direct and straight forward.

What part of "shall not infringe" is unclear?

 

[Will Munny]

Libturds argue that they Constitution is green and malleable.

The writers said no such thing.

It is NOT for interpretation. It was written direct and straight forward.

What part of "shall not infringe" is unclear?

The writers are not here and have been dead for centuries. If you don't want to interpret the constitution at all, then it also does not apply to the states, so every state can do a total ban on firearms with zero federal question.
The point is that there was some uncertainty about how to interpret the 2nd Amendment, which exists even to this day. You can be very pro 2A and not want to see every last man in the country have access to firearms.