How to tell an arsenal from a collection (assuming they are mutually exclusive, not the soundest of assumptions):
1. How many guns do you own? (If you know the answer, it is not a collection)
2. So go to your safe and count them. (No safe? It is not a collection)
3. Go to the gun section of your home library and count the number of gun books. No library in your house? You NEED a few liberal friends! No gun book section? No gun books? A few books, but you can count them on one hand (and they are all about reloading)? It is not a collection.
4. If the ratio of guns to books is better than 4:1 then you are on your way to having a collection. If you own more gun books than guns, your liberal friends are under an obligation to not only approve of your hobby, but go shooting with you. They really want to anyway, but how could they hold their heads up with their other friends unless they can say, "Well, he is a collector, you should see his library, some of the specimens we shot were over a hundred years old." Your conservative friends without books are knuckle dragging Neanderthals (offer them a bath, take them shooting, and try to educate them).
5. Failing the above, if you actually look for and buy gun books (extra points for looking for specific gun books) then you are at least making an effort toward having a collection.
But more to the point, the distinction between a collection and an arsenal depends not so much on the count of the cache of weaponry, but in how that assemblage is perceived, not just by the owner, but more particularly by the rest of the world. A true collector must cultivate an attitude that lets the great unwashed know, however subtly and condescendingly, that they are in the presence of a connoisseur. To plagiarize shamelessly from a Penultimate collector who, on another board, shared some insight on the distinction between the gun nut and the collector:
I … would in general agree that it is a cultivated aroma, a dash of pretense, a certain savoir faire, that ultimately comes to distinguish the collector from a mere gun nut. But defining that certain je ne sais quoi that characterizes a collector takes a lot of words and still will be a mere cartoon that pales in comparison to the real thing.
If the goal is distinction, I suggest that reliance upon negative inference is both simpler and more sure. Just as ordering red wine with Dover sole, wearing a regimental tie with Harris tweed, or white sox with other than tennis attire (or putting catsup on anything) are sure signs of ill breeding, I believe that my "more than one truck gun" hypotheses is reliable proof that one is not a collector.
Since the only practical goal of a collector seems to be to become recognized as a collector by other collectors, I remind you that most people have long memories resistant to new impressions. In keeping with the old adage "It is better to remain silent and thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt," to me this means that the aspiring collector should first and foremost avoid the kind of social gaffe that causes him to be labeled as an uncultured gun nut amongst the collector crowd. As to the wisdom of joining this cadre, I can only point to Groucho Marx: "I would not want to be a member of any club that would have me."
Gun nuts have arsenals; collectors have specimens.
And a final word: Once you have a collection, the rest of the world truly is unwashed. While another collector can fully appreciate a collection, you need to have a few simple arms that will impress the masses. A post 1950s S&W revolver collection has merit, but most people will see it as only a stash of handguns. If you are into modern guns, get a few examples of the historical precursors of your collection. Nothing humbles them quite like a few real antiques (pre-1899 and recognized as such by US law); even better if the ammunition is no longer made, and you keep the gun as an "example of its type". And best if you manufacture that ammunition and can let them shoot something that they will likely never lay their hands on again.
BothellBob