Anyone shoot purely for recreation, with no thought of self defense use?

[dkk73]

Do you think some of the need to assert the value of recreational shooting is a reaction to the continuous diatribes of the militant/absolutist RKBA view point?

E.g. asking someone what time it is and getting some kind of "pry my gun out of my cold dead hands" answer?
Another example would be Kenneth Royce's (Boston T. Party's) disdain for Glen Zediker in one of his books (I think it was his Gun Bible).

You have to admit there is a lot of "with us or against us" sentiment that, IMHO, does not help very much. And why are people so offended by a lack of complete lockstep political uniformity in the gun community? Where else does it exist except in Stalinist states?

The more the merrier. Also the sheer existence of recreational shooters helps legitimize gun ownership in the popular mind. My point here is strategic, not ideological.

benEzra:
I would disagree partly with your characterization of gun owners as such consistent individualists. There are a large fraction of them that I associate or have associated with that will cut an enormous amount of slack for 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment violations (at least) to people of the "right" party or who manage to wrap themselves in the right flag or cloak of authority. My observations. Worth 2cents after inflation.

 

[Ed Ames]

My arguments seem sound and haven't been countered in this thread.

Yes, they have, you just refuse to acknowledge it

They have not been countered with a rational counter argument.

 

[JN01]

People who take irrational actions (such as buying a gun for protection when there are other more significant risks in their lives which could be addressed with the money they spent on the guns) and cite fear as their motivation are harmful to the RKBA cause

.

You are ASSUMING they are not addressing other issues. Some do, some don't. How, specifically, does exercising a basic human right harm the RKBA cause?

To be clear (especially for benEzra), that is in no way a criticism of buying or owning guns for self defense. It is a criticism of irrationality. I think gun ownership (including for defense) is very rational.

You previously said people who buy guns for self defense are irrational cowards. Which is it?

If you have all of your major risks covered, are saving a reasonable % of your income, have food put by, and so on... or you face specific threats (are pretty & female, keep odd hours, etc.) guns purely for defense are very reasonable. However, for most people the risk of a gunless existence is lower than other risks the same people accept as a matter of course. You've got to figure out how to deal with that or people will dismiss your reasons as rationalizations.

I, like many others, use a cost/benefit analysis. If I carry a gun and are against all odds are forced to use it to defend my life, that would be a big plus. On the negative side, I have to carry the thing (doesn't have to be a big deal, I hardly notice I'm wearing it most of the time). There are expenses involved with obtaining a license to carry (Around $10 a year for me, again no big deal. In other jurisdictions, this may be a huge hassle and not worth the effort). I may go somewhere where firearms are prohibited and have to take it off and stow it. All in all, not a major undertaking.

In choosing not to carry a gun, the advantage is not having to deal with some minor inconveniences. The disadvantage is that if you are faced with a deadly threat, you are denied one potentially effective tool. Quote all the statistics you want, but if you are the one who draws the short straw, they won't mean squat to you.

It's not about fear, it's about taking reasonable precautions.

As far as my reasons being "dismissed as rationalizations", I don't really care what other people think. A lot of people think there is something wrong with anyone who owns guns for any reason. The hows and whys are a personal matter and no one elses business.

I made (and stand by) the assertion that a purely recreational shooter is more innately pro-gun than someone who feels compelled by fear to buy a gun for protection. My arguments seem sound and haven't been countered in this thread.

You haven't proven your argument. The reason someone has a gun or how he uses it doesn't necessarily have any bearing on whether they are "pro-gun". You have people that see a spike in crime, buy a pistol, stick it in a sock drawer, and never touch it or think about it again. You have people who buy a whole room full of range toys, but have no interest whatsoever in educating themselves on pending firearms legislation, never contact an elected representative, etc. People are individuals. Some gun owners advance the cause of the RKBA, some don't, irregardless of their motivation for getting a gun in the first place. Unless you poll every gun owner in America, there is no way you can know which "group" is more supportive. Hell, Alan Gura doesn't even own a gun and he seems to be doing a pretty good job.

Although you are trying to clean it up now, your previous posts show that you have something seriously stuck in your craw about "self-defense shooters". Your broad generalizations (calling them cowards, irrational, implying that none of them are in physical condition, smoke, etc) are frankly the sort of bigoted drivel one would expect from Sarah Brady and her ilk. Divisiveness will accomplish nothing.


__________________

 

[Macgille]

There is only one purpose for a gun. They project power. The bullet can do many things, but in the long run its only function is to destroy life. Thats what gunpowder was invented for and thats what the gun was invented for. You can have fun shooting targets, shooting small game, shooting big game; but the facts are that the gun is primarily used for destruction.

That destruction can have constructive ends, like killing dictators, or winning wars. But it is still destruction. Killing a bandit is allowed if you are in danger. But it is still killing.

I have several guns that were designed for war. I don't use them for war, I use them for sport. Its fun to shoot small targets at 450 yds. But every time I get one of them out I remember its purpose. With just a few pounds of pressure with one finger I could end a life. I am aware of the tremendous responsibility that comes with the ownership and use of a gun. I am also aware of the freedom our constitution gives me to defend myself and mine.

So to answer your question, No I don't shoot purely for recreation. I train myself to be able to shoot for defense.

 

[Ed Ames]

You previously said people who buy guns for self defense are irrationa cowards. Which is it?

No I didn't. Not even close. I said people who are irrational cowards tend to buy guns only for defense.

And I am making no assumptions.

 

[David E]

You called them "self-defense cowards" in post #65. You made no qualifications at all. Nope, you insulted over 54 MILLION gunowners.....with no apology.

Try to understand... the second amendment stands strongest when it is supported by everyone. By trying to cut away support... to dismiss 67% of the pro-RKBA population as "self defense cowards" simply because they disagree with your risk assessment, simply because they aren't as concerned about recreational shooting as you, is beyond foolish.*

















*this is ed ames paragraph, with three minor changes, from post #65....maybe it'll mean more if he reads his own words.....but I doubt it.

(Unlike Mr. Ames, I only "insulted" those that would not fight for the RKBA, which I clarified several times.)

 

[kwelz]

I never thought I would see the day when there were people on this board who would disparage others for seeing guns as a tool of self defense.

To me recreational shooting is training. All of my firearms are handguns or Military style rifles. You won't find a single "sporting" style firearm in the bunch. And I dare you to tell me to my face that I am not Pro RKBA.

 

[Ed Ames]

Did you actually read post #65? Go back and re-read it. Then look up the subjects I was talking about (project exile, fellons stripped of their RKBA, etc) and explain how those things - supported by many self-defense oriented gun owners along with anything else than increases percieved safety - are anything but anti-RKBA.

Seriously, read my post #65.

 

[Fetus]

I can't believe what i'm reading in this thread ... I feel like i'm on some brady campaign website .

My guns are for self defense and collecting . however I do frequently practice shooting but only with the guns I carry. not because I enjoy it but because I feel that If I am carrying a firearm i should know how to properly use it and stay proficient with them . the rest of the firearms that I collect are unfired and locked away .

the second amendment is not about " duck hunting " or " sporting " It's about all the reasons listed in this thread .

 

[DammitBoy]

This bears repeating.

This entire thread is damaging to the cohesion of the pro-RKBA community.

It's a bradycampaign.org wetdream come true.

Own guns for whatever reason you want and try not to disparage your fellow gun owning community - whether you agree with their reasoning or not.

It's not high road to call other gun owners cowards, nuts, crazies, or weirdos. It also harms the RKBA community and helps the anti-gun community.

 

[Ed Ames]

Just remember... when you rationalize your actions, that rationalization will be weighed and measured. If it cannot withstand reasonable analysis.... it will be judged.

If you think the RKBA cause is served by glossing over things, or that the bradys et al can't use irrational rationalizations against the RKBA without us pointing them out, you are optimistic.

That's why THR has and needs an anti-bloodlust posting policy... but we should do more than squelch those people...we should help them to help the RKBA effort. Sometimes that means not tolerating silliness from them.

 

[David E]

I read post #65. You blatantly insulted over 53 Million gunowners without apology....

Respond to this post, as I know you will, but I, for one, am done.

I respectfully request that this thread be locked down.

 

[Ed Ames]

No, not 53 million. Not all people who buy a gun for defense. Only those who use an irrational justification that doesn't withstand scrutiny.

Not sure why you conflate the two. Several people on this thread (including myself) have given examples of rational justifications for buying a self defense gun, yet you keep saying that all "53 million" defensive gun owners use irrational justifications...and you say I am insulting them????

 

[JN01]

Post 41:

There are a bunch of people who, for reasons that all boil down to cowardice...crippling irrational fear...go out and spend a bunch of money they can't afford on guns and shooting....That is irrational and self-harming behavior caused by an inability to prioritize the risks those people actually face every day.

Sounds like you're painting with a pretty broad brush there. Also your characterization of others opinions as "rationalizations" is your opinion.

Post 58:

Not that SD and hunting gun owners are enemies of the RKBA, not exactly, but recreational shooters are clearly more pro than utility shooters.

And yet:

Post 65:

Try to understand... the second amendment stands strongest when it is supported by everyone. By trying to cut away support... to dismiss an entire block of the pro-RKBA population as "not really pro-gun" simply because they disagree with your risk assessment, simply because they aren't as concerned about violent crime as you, is beyond foolish.

Perhaps you need to follow your own advise.

Oh, and if you don't think the Bradys (who, by the way, make up things to support their arguments all the time anyway) won't use support for restoring gun rights to gang bangers and rapists to attack all RKBA rights, you are delusional.

 

[Ed Ames]

No, it doesn't sound like a broad brush. A broad brush would be "pure recreational shooters will be the first to turn their guns in."

I used a very narrow brush. People who behave in a defined irrational way. David E tried to claim that all self defense gun buyers fit that category and you took his bait. The fact that you would accept his claim is...strange to me.

Frankly I don't think it much matters what the Bradys want to do. What matters is what we can do. If we can make our arguments and convince the population that guns are not the problem, that justice denied anywhere - including people who have served their time being denied their rights - diminishes justice everywhere, that tightening the screws just breaks the machine, we can cause bad laws to be amended (or repealed) and prevent worse laws from passing. That should be the goal.

Irrational and innumerate "justifications" for gun ownership don't help us to be strong, and if we aren't strong our real arguments won't be accepted.

 

[huntsman]

Anyone shoot purely for recreation, with no thought of self defense use?

Soo pak29 you get the answer your looking for? or are you sorry you asked

 

[buck460XVR]

Soo pak29 you get the answer your looking for? or are you sorry you asked

Don't know about the OP, but to me this has been an interesting read. Unfortunately it has gone the way of many of the threads here at THR, and turned into a "my way is the only way and everyone else is a dumbazz" thread.

Funny how many of those that preach RKBA like a fire and brimstone priest, are the ones that are the most active at trying to divide our ranks by the belittling and flaming of those fellow gun owners that have reasons and lifestyles different from their own. When things break down on the inside, it only makes it easier for others to break things down from the outside. This is not what we need as gun owners in today's society. We are a minority as gun owners in the U.S. and are so, only because the majority of those that do not own guns allows us to remain gun owners.....constitutional right or not. We need to unite as gun owners and support others that legally own guns for whatever reason. Otherwise the reasons we used to have to own guns will be moot in the future.

 

[iScream]

I didn't buy a single one of my guns with self defense in mind. I got into shotguns a few years ago with friends from work, then handguns in early 2008 mostly on my own. When I buy a new gun self defense isn't really even considered.

While I have thousands of rounds of ammo in the closet I don't bother to keep any of my guns loaded in the house.

Having said all that, I've been a member of the NRA and will probably renew the membership. I also consider RKBA stance when voting. I would bet that all the target shooting I do prepares me reasonably well for handling a gun should I ever need on for a self defense situation. I also know my wife can handle any of the handguns we have in the house.

As far as I know, the 2nd Ammendment was really intended to ensure we have the means to keep our government in check. Unfortunately, saying that out loud will get you labeled as a nut pretty fast these days, even by many (most?) of those folks with a single gun and box of ammo in the nightstand or closet, just in case. The fact that RKBA also ends up protecting our ability to own firearms for hunting, self defense and punching holes in paper is certainly nice though.

-Chris

 

[JN01]

Ed Ames said:

Frankly I don't think it much matters what the Bradys want to do. What matters is what we can do. If we can make our arguments and convince the population that guns are not the problem, that justice denied anywhere - including people who have served their time being denied their rights - diminishes justice everywhere, that tightening the screws just breaks the machine, we can cause bad laws to be amended (or repealed) and prevent worse laws from passing. That should be the goal.

It does matter what the Bradys do, they are the other side of the debate, they DO impact public opinion. The fact is, no matter how right you are (or think you are) they will do their best to twist it against you. For example:

A recreational shooter, on the other hand, actually enjoys shooting and owning firearms as a positive part of their life. They would want guns even if they were alone on a desert island 1000 miles from the nearest human, they would go shooting even if they had 1000 bodyguards, they actually like guns and see the risks associated (both from self-injury and from others using guns against them) as the acceptable cost of people having access to something they enjoy, kind of like a motorcyclist sees the risk of motorcycle accidents as an acceptable cost of motorcycles being legal.

I personally identify with that sentiment, but from the gun banners point of view, this might be considered obsessive and irrational behavior given that (in their minds) many deaths could be avoided by eliminating them.

If I understand you correctly, you are against using a particular reason for exercising the RKBA (specifically self-defense) as it then allows critics to dismiss it on utilitarian grounds. Perhaps that is what the Founders had in mind and ideally, how it should be. We don't live in Utopia, however. The courts have for a long time upheld not only "reasonable restrictions" but gross infringements upon our Constitutional rights. As a practical matter, we often DO have to justify why we should be allowed to exercise certain rights. Shouldn't be that way, but it is. Given political realities, if you can't use the fundamental, natural right to exist as one of the justifications for RKBA, then what chance does "because we want to" have?

The bulk of the population is perfectly comfortable with giving government more control (at the expense of liberties) in exchange for the promise of some perceived personal gain (safety, "free" health care, etc). To win people over, you need to show them the impact on a personal level- what's in it for them.

 

[akodo]

Greetings all. I have a .22 rifle and a new Buckmark pistol that I enjoy shooting tremendously. I have been toying with the idea of purchasing a larger handgun, but again, purely for recreational purposes. This has gotten me thinking a lot about gun ownership, especially those of you who decide to take your ownership to the level of carrying a weapon at all times.

I like shooting. I like guns. But I see no need for a defensive weapon.

I live in Burlington, Vermont, in a neighborhood where people know oneother's names and don't lock their doors. In my daily life, I experience virtually no fear of being a victim of crime of any sort. There was a highly-publicised abduction/murder of a college student a couple years ago, and a fair bit of street-drug use in parts of town, but the crime rate here is relatively low. I appreciate how rare it is to be able to carry without a permit or license, but can't envision myself ever doing so. If I lived in a major city, or area where violent crime was the norm, I imagine that might change, and I know that many of you live in areas quite unlike where I live.

Anyone else in a similar situation? Anyone decide to arm themselves anyway, purely out of a "better to have it and not need it..." or "I will because I can" or "I can, therefore I have an ethical duty to do so" mindset?

think of now many people who DID need guns up until that second thought they lived in safe neighborhoods

 

[BrianB]

"Would have, could have, should have" are sad words in a hospital or funeral home.

 

[jfh]

JNO1's Critique of Ed Ames' arguments is worth re-reading:

"If I understand you correctly, you are against using a particular reason for exercising the RKBA (specifically self-defense) as it then allows critics to dismiss it on utilitarian grounds. Perhaps that is what the Founders had in mind and ideally, how it should be. We don't live in Utopia, however. The courts have for a long time upheld not only "reasonable restrictions" but gross infringements upon our Constitutional rights. As a practical matter, we often DO have to justify why we should be allowed to exercise certain rights. Shouldn't be that way, but it is. Given political realities, if you can't use the fundamental, natural right to exist as one of the justifications for RKBA, then what chance does "because we want to" have?

"The bulk of the population is perfectly comfortable with giving government more control (at the expense of liberties) in exchange for the promise of some perceived personal gain (safety, "free" health care, etc). To win people over, you need to show them the impact on a personal level- what's in it for them."​

Jim H.

 

[Ed Ames]

The problem with JNO1's, "the courts have...", is that courts decide issues brought to them, as they are brought. In other words, well, imagine there is a law saying that everyone must wear red underwear, and someone is arrested for wearing green underwear... it is up to the lawyers, not the courts, to decide how that issue will be tried. The defense can fight it on the grounds that enforcing the law violates the privacy of the accused, on the grounds that it's a church/state separation issue because members of the Verdedrawers religion are required to wear green underwear, that the law isn't equally applied because men don't wear as much underwear as women, that it discriminates against the colorblind, that the arresting officer didn't have probable cause to conduct a search, or whatever else they want. The lawyers (and ultimately the defendants) set the terms. The courts then decide within that framework. When presented with "discrimination against the colorblind" they won't throw in "and red underwear is tacky." If there is a pattern in how the decisions are framed, it is because there is a pattern in how the issues are presented.

Courts have upheld reasonable restrictions and gross violations of the constitution in some areas... but at the same time they have created rights (e.g. the aforementioned right to privacy) out of whole cloth. What's the difference? Not the courts, not the judges. The arguments presented to them. A group of lawyers argued well.

That's what we need to be able to do... not throw our hands up and say, "Oh well, this isn't utopia, so we're gonna suffer a slow erosion of our rights. Get used to it." Argue our point. Argue it clearly, passionately, and without looking like innumerate fools.

People are willing to give up rights for safety when they don't connect with what they are giving up. There have been many good examples in the last 8 years and some people have even done studies... they poll random people about their positions on their rights (and their willingness to give up those rights), then they have those people listen to a debate on the merits (pro and con), and the consistent result was about a 20% shift from "I'm willing to give up those rights" to "I'm NOT willing." Most of that stemmed from the Patriot Act debates. Of course, the Patriot Act is still in place... but then there really aren't any major organizations pushing on that issue the way NRA et al are paid to push on the RKBA issue.

Recreation is the best way to connect people to the RKBA. The most effective way. It is a part of our outreach, a part of how we make guns and shooting seem normal and commonplace.

I'm not dismissing the value of JNO1's observations, I just draw a different conclusion from the facts he and I both see. From my perspective, you can lose your rights by being too quiet far easier than... any other way, really... but if you speak up loudly, as you should, it helps to make sense.

 

[David E]

ed ames predictably continues to post wrong information, etc, so I'll make one last attempt.

I used a very narrow brush.

Nice try. You said: The "guns for self-defense" crowd has done immense damage to the RKBA And this: The anti-gun crowd was able to bait the self-defense cowards .....

Sure looks like a 53.6 Million wide broad brush to me....

People who behave in a defined irrational way.

Only according to YOU...... And, really, who are YOU?

David E tried to claim that all self defense gun buyers fit that category...

I didn't make a 'claim,' I cited a survey and said so in post # 90: According to a 2005 Gallup Poll about gun ownership, 67% say they own them for "protection against crime." In curious contrast, I haven't seen any citations from YOU that backs up any of your outrageous claims and ASSumptions.

and you took his bait. The fact that you would accept his claim is...strange to me.

Unlike you, he either did his own research or already was aware of the survey or similar ones. Google is your friend.

There is over-lap in the "reasons for owning a gun." 66% say they have them for "target shooting." My suspicion here is that many people, reluctant to say they have a gun for defense, cite the more benign "target shooting" instead. It would be interesting to see the internals of that poll.

But, taken at face value, 67% of gunowners cite "defense" as their reason for owning a gun. There are 80 million gunowners in the USA. 67% of that is 53,600,000 people. And you insulted every one of them, calling them "self-defense cowards." You made no distinction or qualifications in your unfounded accusation.

Despite his eloquence,ed ames has lost all credibility. He's revealed a deep-seated resentment towards gunowners that keep a gun only for defense. I find that puzzling and disappointing.

In closing, any gunowner that enjoys the right to keep and shoot a gun, but will not fight one iota to keep that right makes it difficult for the rest of us.

I don't care if the gunowner keeps the gun only for defense, shoots it only recreationally, casually, or only for hunting, collecting, or only shoots clay birds, or only shoots muzzleloaders. If they won't fight to keep the RKBA, then they are not pro-gun in my book. So, there. I insulted a specific set of gunowners; the ones that don't, won't or refuse to support the RKBA, regardless of their firearm pursuits. I stand by that.

I hope that clears up any remaining confusion about my posts in this thread.

 

[pak29]

Soo pak29 you get the answer your looking for? or are you sorry you asked

Well, I sure didn't mean to start such a firestorm with my first thread. I thought there would be a multitude of perspectives, and there certainly was.

It never ceases to amaze me the depth and range of emotions raised by RKBA issues. There are many issues like the ones raised in this thread that I continue to consider. They are difficult, but for that reason, all the more engaging. Perhaps only abortion can incite such firmly-held beliefs. It makes these issues all the more interesting to think about and discuss.

I appreciate that everyone here seemed to maintain their focus on the argument with which they did not agree, rather than the value of the person making it. THR, in my opinion, is one of the very best moderated places on the internet in this regard.