When you go and buy a hammer, you're buying a tool, something

>>34752447
Well some guns are more reliable and better than others, it's not 100% looks like you say.

>>34752475
Function is part of it. I never said it was 100% subjective bullshit, but you can't deny that people make irrational purchasing decisions that have led to entire sub-industries within the gun biz. For example, 99% of hunters will NEVER need the increased range and power of a magnum rifle cartridge, yet 300 Win mag is on the shelves of every gun store in America. The AR is a decent rifle, but it's not different enough from other 223s to fully explain the zeal of AR consumers. The model 29 was never a really good handgun--it simply had too much recoil to be useful to anybody but a bear hunter--but they flew off the shelves after Dirty Harry came out. I'm as big a Clint fan as anybody, but movies are make-believe. They are abstractions.

>>34752530
You're right that they get hyped but that's how like everything is, everything, food, cars, tv, clothes, etc

It's all just popularity and wanting to be cool or non cool (contrarian)

>>34752583
More so with some things than other. It's most especially so with things which are social status symbols, such as cars and guns. The hammer I own tells you nothing about who I am. The gun I own does.

>>34752583
>It's all just popularity and wanting to be cool or non cool (contrarian)
In either case, it's social conformity. Even being contrarian is itself conformity, albeit with a smaller group, but conformity is conformity whether you conform to one person or to millions.

>>34752447
I guess. My only handgun so far(college poorfag) has been a boring standard Glock. Didn't really look at the image it would give me vs getting an H&K or something but I see your point. I just wanted a reliable, proven, cost reasonable handgun.

>>34752695
Glock is a company that also cultivates their image. Gaston was very shrewd to sell his gun to police, because he knew that police who carry Glocks provide his company with free advertising. The American public psychologically associates Glocks with police.

>>34752623
>"the hammer I own tells you nothing about me"

Wooden handled, lacquered/blued on non-striking faces means probably traditionalist.
Generic metal head, hollow tubular shaft, neoprene grip, chinese made= cheapass.
Stainless head, solid steel shaft, neoprene grip = tradesman/ serious about reliability.
Estwing or similar solid forged = heirloom grade tool to pass on future generations.

>"I just took freshman psych and think I know it all": The thread

>>34752447
>Implying people aren't brand loyal or buying an image with their hammers and other tools.

File: IMG_7055.jpg (35KB, 567x565px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 567x565px

>>34752447

>>34753898
chris?

>>34752530
Yeah, you did.

>When you buy a gun, on the other hand, you're buying something else, something much more abstract
>You're buying an image. People buy guns not for what those guns do, but for how they make them FEEL

>>34753451
It's a fucking hammer. Don't overthink it. All it has to do is strike nails. I'd just buy a simple hammer from Harbor Freight. I'd go with a wooden handle instead of plastic though, just because it's easier to cut corners on quality with plastic than with wood.
>>34753542
Actually, I never took freshman psych.
>>34754031
You know what I meant. Don't be pedantic.

>>34754095
It's just a fucking gun. Don't overthink it. All it has to do is shoot. I'd just buy a simple gun from a pawn shop. I'd go with a metal frame instead of a plastic one though, just because it's easier to cut corners on quality with plastic than metal.

File: power-tools2.jpg (159KB, 560x439px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 560x439px

>>34752447
>implying people aren't buying an image when they buy tools.

Yeah, maybe if you're a soccer mom who just has a made-in-china basic house tool kit under her sink, you're "just buying a tool". But people who actually use tools sperg out about brands and image almost more than gun fags do.

Of course, you millennials wouldn't know shit about tools.

>>34752447
>not buying a hammer based on ergonomics
>not paying a little extra for the one with a polished head and nicer handle
>not drooling over the titanium ones you want but can't justify the price
You fukken pleb

You're somewhat right. I think it's safe to say that no matter how many guns someone owns, only 3 or 4 of them are actually employed in defensive roles. Once you get your loadout of 3 or 4 defensive guns down to what you shoot the best, it's all about "fuck it....I want that. I want to look at it every day. I want to shoot it, I want to clean it and I want to show it off" I think this probably accounts for 90% of firearms purchases to be honest.

>>34754122
I agree. Gun designs should be fairly simple and utilitarian. Keep it simple, stupid, is a good design philosophy. That being said, it's worth paying a higher price if you can get tighter tolerances and better materials.

Also, plastic guns suck. They literally melt.

>>34754124
That's definitely true for power tools, not so much for something as simple as a chunk of metal on a stick.

>>34754124
I don't understand why people shop at harbor freight or similar stores for tools. They're cheap and break easy. If you buy a tool, you should only have to pay for it once. If it doesn't last your lifetime, and well into your childrens, you fucked up.

File: MTC-Ti-15-Titanium-Handle-Hammer-Straight.jpg (67KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1000x1000px

>>34754157
>That's definitely true for power tools, not so much for something as simple as a chunk of metal on a stick.
Dude, you would be AMAZED.

>>34754157
I agree. Tool designs should be fairly simple and utilitarian. Keep it simple, stupid, is a good design philosophy. That being said, it's worth paying a higher price if you can get tighter tolerances and better materials.

Also, plastic tools suck. They literally melt.

>>34754174
Not going to lie, I have some harbor freight in my garage. Nothing important, of course. But it's there... just waiting to fuck up when I need it most.

Yeah, total disposable tools. They have a few good things I guess, but not a lot.

>>34754207
I figure if I'm going to buy a tool, I might as well buy a quality one. Unlike OP, who apparently is totally down with wasting his money.

>>34754142
It's a fucking stick. How ergonomic does it have to be? Why the fuck would you polish something you're literally going to band against other pieces of metal and wood? Why do you need a titanium handle? What kind of unearthly nails are you driving that a wood handle wouldn't work?
>>34754174
I only buy basic tools there. I wouldn't buy an industrial precision lathe.
>>34754187
Look up opportunity cost. For the difference in price, I could buy a bottle of whiskey, and then I'd be so drunk I don't care about titanium handled hammers.
>>34754188
Yeah, I'd agree with that for the most part. I haven't had many plastic tools melt on me, though I have had plenty of plastic broomhandles break.
>>34754207
Cheap does not mean disposable. Spend money on things that require precision.
>>34754219
Price does not equal quality.

>>34754226
*bang against

>>34754095

Wrong. The quality you pay for is in plastic plus the vibration reduction when striking.

>>34754226
I don't believe you've ever handled a tool in your entire life.

>>34754239
>vibration reduction when striking
You fell for that one, eh?
>>34754243
Of course I have. Also, not an argument.

>>34754157

Tighter tolerances = reliability issues depending on where it is, there's a medium point that's ideal. Plastic won't melt unless you take a torch to it fag.

File: Y1EbFxg.gif (2MB, 360x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 360x360px

>>34754226
lol, he's in OVERDRIVE

>>34754266
I think he's trying to defend his dollar store hammer that will break halfway through driving a nail into drywall.

>>34754255
How many hi points and phoenix arms do you have, guy?

>>34754255
>of course I have
Timestamp your tool kit. I don't believe you.

>>34754256
>take a torch to it
What do you think gunpowder is? Guns get fucking hot when you shoot for extended sessions, and even high quality plastic guns have melted. I'm not just making this shit up.
>>34754266
You can't stop me.
>>34754288
Zero. Like I said, I spend money where it's needed. I own Swarovski scopes because good glass is expensive, but I'm not going to buy a $2000 rifle when an $800 one will do just as well.
>>34754304
I would, but I don't own a camera.

>>34752447
But you are comparing people who have guns as a hobby to people who use tools as just tools. When you look at someone who uses guns as just a tool for work (professional soldiers etc.) you get the same mentality as someone picking out a hammer. But if you've ever met anyone who's hobby was collecting and using classic tools you get a similar mentality to gun owners. I've met guys who will tell you for hours about how nice their vintage 67' gas powered circular saw is and how they just don't make them like the used to.

>>34754319
>no camera
Holy shit, what year is it?

>>34754333
A professional will have a stronger incentive to have better tools: fewer breakages means less down time, which means more productivity, which means more money.

You've got it exactly backwards.

>>34754319

The round count at which it would melt would cause any gun to fail in other places first not to mention a steel framed gun would be too hot to hold even with gloves if it were possible

>>34754226
>>34754255

Less vibration = more energy transferring. You can have a titanium hammer half the weight with equal performance.

Stop being poor and only accepting adequate if I only have to do a job once quality

I mean, if your'e going to do a troll thread that's themed "haha, you guys are spergs spending so much on your guns all you need is a rooty-tooty-point-and-shooty", you could do a little better than point at tools.

Tools are a bad example.

>>34754387
>only have to do the job once
Doing a job anything other than "right the first time" will lead to having to do it more than once. I wish the idiots in my generation would realize this.

>millenial reveal

>>34754369
Often the simplest tools are the most durable and reliable.
>>34754387
I've seen 1911s fire 1000 round torture tests without a problem. They get so hot the barrel changes color, but they still function. I've seen Glocks and even Sigs melt from that kind of abuse. They just don't handle that kind of heat.
>>34754387
>Stop being poor and only accepting adequate if I only have to do a job once quality
Tools should be made on a human scale. The degree of performance in them should be optimized, not maximized. Is my Winchester as accurate as a bullbarrel benchrest competition gun? Probably not, but the few millimeters of difference in accuracy are not noticeable to me. It still puts meat on the table.
>>34754436
I think he meant people who do jobs on a regular as opposed to infrequent basis.

>>34754436

So you don't work with tools on a daily basis? You sound like a guy I should totally take advice from on what to use for my job

>>34752447
People buy guns the same way they buy car, clothes, almost anything... where is the surprise/problem?

>>34754450

>optimized but not maximized
>buys an overweight PISTOL to shoot 1000 rounds straight

>>34754472
I do. Sounds like you don't, though. If you did work with hand tools every day, you'd appreciate the difference between a well made tool and a shitty bargain store tool.

>>34752447
Autism: The Post

Yes, people like weird and different stuff, get over it.

>>34754489
It distorts rational cost benefit analysis.
>>34754494
That is an extreme example, of course, but I'd still rather have a steel frame than a plastic one. Plastic frames have been known to bend slightly, which matters rather more in a gun than in a hammer handle, don't you think? I'm not saying plastic frames are unworkable, though.
>>34754494
>overweight
Is it difficult to carry and use? Does the weight cause a serious problem for the user?

>>34754523
>It distorts rational cost benefit analysis.
>Those poor fags, why they can't be perfect rational and superior custumers like me? Why they like something that I see as just an tool.

>>34754498

Re-read my post

>>34754523
>Is it difficult to carry and use
Yes, it is, you should learn a thing or two about guns before calling gun owner idiots.

>>34754542
No, it isn't. I've carried steel frame pistols before with no problem.
>before calling gun owner idiots.
I didn't say we were idiots. I said we were irrational.

>>34754553
Why are you so mad on people who aren't "rational"?

>>34754561
I'm not angry at them. I just think they're fooling themselves. Guns are great, but they don't make you something you're not.

>>34754541
What? About how you don't know that tools can have varying degrees of quality, and prices reflect this? Or the one where you don't know that cheap tools break easily and do less for you?

>>34754570
Guns are fun, it's fun to learn, repair and shot them, I don't see how using my own money in what I like is being a fool. Maybe I should ask you where I should spend my money in a rational way.

>>34754523

The bend is temporary and beneficial in the same way you want a bendy sword over a stiff sword. Strike a glock hard enough, magazine breaks but handle snaps back to shape. Strike a metal frame with the same force it gets permanently bent so you cant get the broken magazine out or it just cracks. The weight has significance over time if you carry it past just range time.

If you just like metal frames because they feel nice, handle recoil well, and are pleasing to the eye that's cool. I agree, they are. I just get off to reminding people nothing is absolutely better.

>>34754575

Anon.

>Stop being poor by only accepting adequate "if I only have to do a job once" grade quality

Did that help you?

>>34754578
I also enjoy tinkering with guns, so I can completely understand you there. Just realize that a lot of the mystique about certain guns is created by advertisers, media, history, etc.
>>34754595
>The weight has significance over time if you carry it past just range time.
I have carried a steel frame, full size handgun all over town. It's not a problem. Trust me.
>>34754595
>I just get off to reminding people nothing is absolutely better.
That depends on how you define better. If you can define something well enough, you can measure it objectively.
>>34754595
>are pleasing to the eye that's cool.
I agree that well finished steel is aesthetically pleasing, but even more important is that it is a pleasure to use. Use, not inspection, is the true test of a gun.

>>34752447
I attach monetary value to my guns so I can make them a tool for making profits off young kids that like the look of Glocks even though I'm selling them a Hi-Point.

>>34754625
You're going to use the tool again, dipshit.

>>34754659

Is English not your first language or are you troll? You're saying exactly what I'm saying.

>>34754628
>I have carried a steel frame, full size handgun all over town. It's not a problem. Trust me.
You had to run or march with it? Or carry it with a rifle and armor?

>>34754686
I'm talking about carrying as a civilian.

>>34752623
>More so with some things than other. It's most especially so with things which are social status symbols, such as cars and guns. The hammer I own tells you nothing about who I am. The gun I own does.
You've obviously never worked with tools a day in your life.

I can make a quick judgment on you based on you using a Harbor Freight or Snap-On hammer.

>>34754628
>Just realize that a lot of the mystique about certain guns is created by advertisers, media, history, etc.
No shit, you fucking retard. Just like everything else that's for sale.

Do you think this is some profound point?

>>34754095
>All it has to do is strike nails.
You know nothing of hammers, and your argument sucks.

https://me-mechanicalengineering.com/different-types-of-hammers/

>>34755181
Those are hammers for specialized, niche purposes. I meant a general purpose household hammer.

File: muledeer.jpg (7KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 275x183px

>>34752530
>For example, 99% of hunters will NEVER need the increased range and power of a magnum rifle cartridge, yet 300 Win mag is on the shelves of every gun store in America.

I'm going to make a guess that you live east of the Rockies, and hunt deer with a 30-30. Out here in the mountainous Northwest, we regularly and reliably put kill shots on mule deer and elk from 500 plus yards, sometimes closer to 1000. 300winmag is pretty standard out here, and I'd say that at least 75% of hunters here consider it their go to cartridge.

I can see where you're coming from though.

>>34752447
But guns are tools anon

File: fetch.gif (3MB, 426x426px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 426x426px

>>34755210
>Those are hammers for specialized, niche purposes.
Are there not firearms that fill specialized, niche purposes? Is there such a thing as a general purpose household rifle then? Sure, I could use your average claw hammer to do the job, but does that mean the job would be done as efficiently or effectively if I used the specialized tool? No, it does not. I could use my shotgun for deer season, but wouldn't my rifle be far more efficient to use? I could shoot ducks with the rifle, but wouldn't the shotgun be more applicable?

The argument as presented in the OP has one major hole in it. It assumes "people buy guns not for what those guns do, but how they make them feel." This implies that they ONLY buy guns based on feeling alone. Which is ridiculous to think about. By your logic, someone getting ready to go duck hunting will go to the gun counter and finger fuck a number of guns. The rifle on the rack "feels," which in this context could mean a wide variety of things by the way, much better to him then the shotguns do, so he picks the rifle. Yes, it works, but it is not optimal to use.

>>34754319

>plastic guns melt
>I'm not making this shit up

Then you wouldn't mind posting proof, would ya?

>>34755289
>regularly and reliably put kill shots on mule deer and elk from 500 plus yards
You are exaggerating.
>>34755289
>300winmag is pretty standard out here
270 works just as well for long range shots.
>>34755304
They should be.
>>34755307
>Are there not firearms that fill specialized, niche purposes?
Yes.
>>34755307
>Is there such a thing as a general purpose household rifle then?
Yes.
>>34755307
>Sure, I could use your average claw hammer to do the job, but does that mean the job would be done as efficiently or effectively if I used the specialized tool?
Depends on what the job is. For most jobs, yes. That is why it is called general purpose.
>>34755307
>This implies that they ONLY buy guns based on feeling alone
No, it doesn't.
>>34755307
>feels," which in this context could mean a wide variety of things by the way
It means how guns make people feel emotionally. Having a magnum cartridge makes a hunter feel like a great hunter. Having a fancy shotgun makes him feel luxuriant. Having an AR makes him feel like an "operator." Etc.
>>34756814
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU8-QHh2bR8

>>34758473
>Yes.
Ok, then will that rifle do when a more specialized task is needed to be done? Or will it fail at that task?

>Depends on what the job is. For most jobs, yes. That is why it is called general purpose.
But it doesn't do as good as a job for when the task requires a specialized tool? No, that is the point, "general purpose" is an entirely subjective term you are using as a blanket statement to cover your ass.

>No, it doesn't.
>feeling doesn't mean feeling
Ok, then you go on to say this.
>It means how guns make people feel emotionally.
Do you see how those two points clash and make no sense, or do I have to spell it out for you?

>Having a magnum cartridge makes a hunter feel like a great hunter.
Does it? Or does it show that that hunter often travels in bear country where less powerful cartridges may wind up with him getting killed?