I had some very nice experiences as a child with a pellet gun my father bought me. I later had a lot of fun experiences with him at a shooting range with real guns. I don't think I got much more from the shooting range than from my pellet gun.
What's the motive of gun ownership, besides concealed carry and hunting?
History has a couple too many lessons of governments removing the citizens firearms with the result being an increase in violent crime and theft. Many of those cases turn into other civil rights being lost. Also, if you study history of the US, a certain hate group in the southern USA was all for taking guns away from minorities so they could terrorize them.
Also, why add laws to something that is working as violent crimes continues to drop (check the CDC stats)? Why alter something that works?
For specifics home protection is the biggie. Protection against wild and feral animals in rural areas[1]. Sport is a minor part of it.
But, none of those really matter.
1) I really, really hate people who release their no-longer-puppy in rural area and hope it gets picked up by someone kind. They turn feral quickly and kill livestock and horses, and attack children. I have a cousin who is only alive because he had a rifle with him when a pack of 6 attacked him. Animal shelters people.
Hunting is also a good reason. The US is big enough that a Federal ban doesn't make sense. While it might be reasonable to ban handguns (for example) in San Francisco, it doesn't make sense to ban them in Alaska or Montana where someone might want to carry a 44 magnum while hiking for protection against bears (ignoring the bear spray/firearms debate - and the fact that a shotgun is probably a better idea).
Personal protection is also a good reason, I think, especially if someone lives in a remote area.
Essentially, the US is a big place, and what's appropriate in Silicon Valley won't work in Alaska.
Actually, a starter pistol might be just as good. Unless you've done something to actively piss off the bear, like getting in between a mother and her cubs, the noise of the gunshot is generally enough to stop the bear from charging you. Your goal as a hiker shouldn't be to kill the bear, because that's hard and will probably require a rifle or shotgun slug, but to just scare it off.
And I don't think there's that much of a bear spray/gun debate, because it's probably better to have both. At least, that's what I've been told by a friend that goes every year to Yellowstone to fly fish.
Wouldn't attempting to kill the bear generally make a noise to scare off the bear too? I could perhaps see a starter pistol being as good as a regular gun for protection against bears, but better?
Also (in my extremely limited experience) starter pistols are not particularly loud compared to regular guns anyway, which makes sense since who wants to wear ear protection at a sporting event?
I'll answer your question anyway. Besides concealed carry and hunting; the freedom for civilians to own guns is necessary for the security of a free state. Protection from tyranny and oppression.
There are 1.5million active duty military personnel. 80 million civilian gun owners. That is a non-trivial difference in numbers. I doubt a boomer captain would follow an order to nuke Seattle. Regardless of the situation.
Nukes and tanks are useless in a guerrilla war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Riots_an...