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

[Ed Ames]

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

That says more about your bias than what I wrote. I ask that you go back and read my posts, especially post #65 in this thead.

To expand on what I said: The "guns are for self defense" crowd (which, in the USA alone, numbers in the tens of millions. The 53 million being cited is a subset - only those who both believe "guns are for self defense" AND own a gun - but serves as scale) has done immense harm to the RKBA issue. They went along with a number of very anti-RKBA actions. They did so because the logical continuation of the first rule of a gunfight (have a gun) is "try to make sure your opponent doesn't".

On top of that, anti-gun groups have always baited the self defense cowards. Why do you think everyone cringes at the idea of a reality show set in a gun store?

The only way you can make an issue of those statements is by claiming that everyone who buys a gun for self defense is a self defense coward. I don't think you can do that. I certainly didn't do it. I gave a clear definition of what I meant by self defense coward and I seriously doubt it covers more than a fractional percentage of those who buy a gun.

The point, which I thought I had made but perhaps not well, is that a bad justification is worse than no justification. Unfortunately, you have decided to misrepresent and selectively pick and choose my words. However, my words are there for anyone to read.

 

[jfh]

Ed, you keep slippin' and slidin' in this debate--

and I think you need to re-examine your posts on this topic carefully.

I've taken the time to re-read your posts twice now, and to re-read your responses to the substantive critques of your position. I've drawn the conclusion that you are, in fact, rationalizing an attitude with a rigorous logical structure--e.g., there is 'something stuck in your craw' about people who do not approach their gun ownership with as much rational thought as you do.

I think you need to look closely at that issue.

At the same time, I am drawn to some of the utilitarian arguments you use to advance these hypotheses: As an example, consider your comments the one that gun owner are a minority and that internal bickering that divides the gun-owners is damaging.

And, while I agree that court decisions are made based on the legal construction of the cases, by the time they reach the SC level, they are also accepted for final disposition based on the predilections of that court and particularly based on the 'imprint' of the Chief Justice.

Mind you, I am not asking for a post / response to these comments--personally, I suspect that you be forced to resort to more patching (a la a point-by-point response) to these, or David E., / JN01's points. So, weigh these comments privately, and respond how you wish.


as for pak29: As you can see, there can be intelligent, carefully-reasoned (and sometimes, carefully-crafted) debate about the finer points of pro-gun attitudes at THR. It's also worthwhile to note that some of us have been around the pro / anti-gun discussions for some time. Personally, I got back into these political issues some twenty years ago, and became energized about it the day after the Luby's cafeteria massacre. That's nominally twenty years ago, if you include the time since Josh Sugarman first coined the phrase 'assault weapon' and pontificated on using it disparagingly.

The point is, you have taken a particular attitude of yours, described it fairly well, and now laid it out here for people to comment on. Some of us who comment on it tend to see the issues / problems in that statement in a far-bigger / longer perspective than you may have.

Hopefully, these larger / longer perspectives will provide feedback for you to consider modifying your position.

Jim H.

 

[Ed Ames]

There is 'something stuck in my craw' about people who do not approach their gun ownership with as much rational thought as I do ... so they should instead do what they want without any rationalizing and try to have fun with some nice recreational shooting???

I would say that...but I don't know you well enough to know if you share my weird sense of humor. Are you joking? An emoticon would've helped here.

As for "slipping" ... for me, the only reason for arguing is to change. If my positions actually change that's a sign of a good conversation. That said, don't take it wrong when I say that, as far as I can tell, my statements from early in the thread seem to align well with my current views and later posts. It wouldn't be bad if there was more change - change is always good - but people are seeing more than I do. I have been restating some themes, trying to find better words, but the basic premise seems constant.

 

[warnerwh]

Being in my fifties I'm one of the people who loves to shoot but is not worried about SD. I do keep a .357 loaded in the house just in case. It would be stupid to assume nothing will ever happen and my wife and daughter are too important to over look any possibility. Discussion on self defense bores me. All of my shooting has been for fun for at least tens of thousands of rounds of ammo over the last 40 years.

A non shooter, my brother, bought a gun earlier this year. Why? The Second Amendment reason. I even tried to get him to get interested in shooting offering all the free reloaded ammo he wants to no avail. It was really a shock for him to call me for advice on what to buy as he's never had any interest in shooting even when we were kids.

My main point however is that nobody has used the Second Amendment as one of the reasons to own firearms. To me and apparently my brother it is one of the reasons.

Off topic but my brother hasn't fired his new Ruger GP100 fifty times. He did however meet someone into black powder, bought a black powder revovler himself and shoots regularly now

 

[chriske]

Dear Ed Ames,

From one recreational shooter to another :

How you can keep your cool against some of the so-called arguments I'v been reading is beyond me.

Admiration & respect !

 

[benEzra]

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.

If you make it solely about recreation, though, then it plays out the same way "guns as recreation only" did in the UK, Australia, and Canada.

You really need both. And again, in this country, most gun owners own guns for both reasons, but consider self-defense the more important of the two. That's not to say that owning guns for recreation isn't perfectly fine, but it does suggest that trying to play down the self-defense aspect is unnecessary and counterproductive, creating artificial divisions where they do not exist.

As I have mentioned before, I *am* one of your "guns for self-defense" crowd. I am also a recreational shooter. They are not mutually exclusive.

 

[HarleyFixer]

Nope

 

[jfh]

We all have them: opinions and orifices, as it were--

I think benEzra has perfectly summed up the inherent problems in defining shooting enthusiasts / gunnies by their particular interests / areas of obsession. His two main points bear repeating:

"...If you make it solely about recreation, though, then it plays out the same way "guns as recreation only" did in the UK, Australia, and Canada.

and,

"You really need both (the recreational interest and the SD interest)...trying to play down the self-defense aspect is unnecessary and counterproductive, creating artificial divisions where they do not exist."​

The fact that "antigun" forces continuously try to limit our firearms eligibility, usage, and ownership, in the presense of a constitutionally-protected right, does suggest that 'we had better all hang together, or we shall surely hang separately.'

Jim H.

 

[Ed Ames]

BenEzra... I think you are reading too much into my "And it isn't about self or home defense either...not one word about self defense in the 2nd.... and the 1st Amendment isn't about pornography...not one word about pornography in the 1st... But if it doesn't cover EVERYTHING it ain't working." screed.

I'm certainly not advocating any sort of monomaniacal "everything must be X and only X"... in point of fact I was countering David E's assertion that "Anything which doesn't include Y is wrong."

As for what you are... do you really believe that the statement, "guns" (unqualified) are for self defense (single purpose), is correct? I doubt it. I bet you really think that guns have numerous uses including, in some circumstances, self defense. It is tempting to simplify positions for the sake of argument, but oversimplification can obscure truth.

I think sometimes we get drawn into arguing against another poster, without necessarily determining first what their position is, simply because others are arguing against them too.

 

[DammitBoy]

Ed, you keep complaining that people are misunderstanding your posts and what you really mean to say.

Perhaps the communication breakdown is with you? Instead of a multiple paragraph post about who doesn't understand what you mean, why don't you do a simple point by point synopsis of your position?

If you can't simplify and distill your talking points down to a short sentence or two, then I submit we know where the problem lies.

I've read all your posts and those of the persons arguing with your statements, and I have to say you are not presenting yourself in a clear and concise manner. You seem to be arguing against your own points on several occasions in this thread.

 

[rogertc1]

I mostly collect and shoot some of the new guns I get. I have zero concerns about self defence. My small town is safe.

 

[JN01]

Ed Ames said:

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.

Wasn't advocating quitting. I'm just saying that it will take many small steps to attempt to regain what was lost over a long period of time (and there may be set backs at times). It needs to be fought on many fronts, and using a variety of arguments, working within what has become a very flawed system.

Much of the frustration regarding legislation comes from the fact that often compromises (ugh!) must be offered in order to move forward or at least blunt the effects of a horrible bill.

On the litigation front, Alan Gura seems to have the right idea, eat the elephant one bite at a time.

As far as public education, different strokes for different folks. Even on this thread, some are astounded by your masterpiece of logic, others aren't sure what the hell you're talking about. I guess no one can accuse you of not being passionate about it though.

 

[Ed Ames]

Heller was a good action. I'll point out that it was not an NRA action, but you know that.

As for people not knowing what in the hell I'm talking about (and this addresses all of DamnitBoy's post as well), I comfort myself with this: The only way everyone can possibly know exactly what I am talking about after just a few words on a subject, without any back-and-forth to clarify, is if my words are either worthlessly banal (you know what I'm saying because you already know the idea), or worthlessly trivial (you know what I'm saying because what I'm saying is minor to the point of irrelevance). Expressing new or different perspectives is difficult at the best of times, and, unfortunately, online forums tend towards contentious exchange because a fair number of people take substantive disagreements as personal attacks. Given a fat advance and 300 pages I could convince many in this thread that my ideas are, if not final, at least worthy of incorporation into their respective 2A/RKBA philosophies... but all of my posts in this thread combined probably amount to 3 or 4 pages, and half the people who appear to agree with me in this thread (including you, so far as I can tell) think they are arguing against me. I don't mean that to co-opt your positions, by the way, but when people cite facts that support my assertions, but cite them with a "so there" flourish, as though of course I wasn't considering those facts and now that I know as much as they do I'll change my position, I have a dilemma on my hands. Same facts, but apparently different conclusions. I can't dispute the facts without arguing against my own statements. I can't agree with the conclusions because they are wrong (my opinion). So I move forward... and in the process confuse people who think that agreeing with the facts presented by someone who disagrees with me is twisting or changing positions. That may not be 100% fair, but it isn't 100% wrong either.

Start with this: "People who don't consider X to be important are basically anti-Y, and will be the first to turn their Ys in."

You are arguing against my reply to that construct. Does that mean you agree with the assertion?

 

[kwelz]

Ed I think it is time to buy a saddle. You have made your point abundantly clear just like Zumbo made his point perfectly clear.

 

[Ed Ames]

LOL... considering I have a C&R and a pretty decent collection of military weapons both old and new, I think you've pretty seriously missed your mark there. Nice try though.

 

[Epicurean]

This is my first post and I hope I don't regret picking a somewhat contentious thread. I basically agree with the varying positions in this thread but I don't find any of them sufficiently compelling.

I tend to view 2A/RKBA (as well as all rights) as a philosophical issue. To me the point is not SD vs. recreational vs. hunting; it is about inherent freedom. The question then arises: a freedom to do what, or a freedom from what? To me the answer is we have a right to live free from tyranny and possess the freedom to be trusted as long as we act responsibly. To me that is the argument for society's RKBA; not SD or any other argument.

Much like Macgille said:

There is only one purpose for a gun. They project power

But not just the power to kill; they also project political power as later asserted by iScream:

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

Nuff said!

 

[DammitBoy]

As for people not knowing what in the hell I'm talking about (and this addresses all of DamnitBoy's post as well), I comfort myself with this: The only way everyone can possibly know exactly what I am talking about after just a few words on a subject, without any back-and-forth to clarify, is if my words are either worthlessly banal (you know what I'm saying because you already know the idea), or worthlessly trivial (you know what I'm saying because what I'm saying is minor to the point of irrelevance). Expressing new or different perspectives is difficult at the best of times, and, unfortunately, online forums tend towards contentious exchange because a fair number of people take substantive disagreements as personal attacks. Given a fat advance and 300 pages I could convince many in this thread that my ideas are, if not final, at least worthy of incorporation into their respective 2A/RKBA philosophies... but all of my posts in this thread combined probably amount to 3 or 4 pages, and half the people who appear to agree with me in this thread (including you, so far as I can tell) think they are arguing against me. I don't mean that to co-opt your positions, by the way, but when people cite facts that support my assertions, but cite them with a "so there" flourish, as though of course I wasn't considering those facts and now that I know as much as they do I'll change my position, I have a dilemma on my hands. Same facts, but apparently different conclusions. I can't dispute the facts without arguing against my own statements. I can't agree with the conclusions because they are wrong (my opinion). So I move forward... and in the process confuse people who think that agreeing with the facts presented by someone who disagrees with me is twisting or changing positions. That may not be 100% fair, but it isn't 100% wrong either.

Communication failure

 

[Ed Ames]

Communication failure

Meh. Happy?

 

[Extremely Pro Gun]

If you dont think about self defense when you are shooting why dont you just go bowling? WTH?

 

[Ed Ames]

Because you don't enjoy bowling?

 

[David E]

Ed Ames wrote: as though I wasn't considering those facts and now that I know as much as they do I'll change my position.

Well, hells bells, why didn't you tell us you already knew everything! Woulda saved a boatload of time and bandwidth !

 

[Erik M]

I fit into this category until I started collecting handguns and attained my CDWL. Before that I carried either a large pocketknife that was legal by KY state law or a decent sized container of pepper spray.

 

[Ed Ames]

How would it have saved bandwidth? Our disagreement is over conclusions, over principles, not facts. We could both know everything ... or next to nothing ... and the difference would be just as stark.

The facts you introduced, even had they been unknown to me, did not contradict or invalidate my conclusion for me. Clearly you don't think they invalidate your conclusion. See the issue?

I know, I know... you were trying to mock... I have a nasty habit of addressing substance instead of responding to emotion. Sorry.

 

[David E]

No, the nasty habit you have is not fully reading and/or understanding any post that disagrees with yours.

You think that having a C&R license and "quite a few" rifles means you're above reproach and not in the Zumbo camp. (who, for all you know, has an FFL and owns more guns than you can shake a stick at.) Zumbo made a bad ASSumption and paid for it. Turns out HE didn't know or understand as much as he thought he did about guns and shooters, either. (gee, that sounds real familiar....)

Instead of extolling the "solely recreational shooters" as pure and nice and everything good, he extolled hunters. At least, HE was willing to learn the error of his ways.

As the cited poll shows, 67% of the folks, or 53.6 Million, own guns for defense. You call them "self defense cowards." What happened to your not wanting to turn away any segment of gunowners away from the cause? Or are the 53.6 million "self defense cowards," as you call them, expendable? If not, where's your apology?

The more I read of your posts, the more a pattern of "apologist" filters thru..... it's subtle, but it's there. A conversation with someone on the gun-fence going kind of like this: "well, yeah, guns can kill, but they're also fun! I mean, you can measure your skill by how small your group is on a far target! It's fun! Buy one and you'll see how fun a gun is! Just forget all about that 'deadly' part about 'em."

If you emphasize the "fun" angle to turn more folks into gunowners, that's great. But are you also teaching them the importance of the RKBA? Would they fight for it?

Would you agree that gunowners that don't care one bit about the RKBA and would turn them in the first day create a worse problem for the rest of us?

 

[RoostRider]

I used to only shoot for fun... never even had a thought about self defense... if anything, I thought about taking game... then I grew up (don't take that the wrong way, I am NOT calling the OP childish)...

My attitude about firearms did not mature (meaning come to a result that I think I will stick with for the rest of my life) until I ended up actually needing a gun for SD... that was a really rude day for me... a lot changed that day about how I view life, and my 'this happens to other people' mindset changed overnight...

With that I have to say, my gun collection has expanded tremendously from that day... not because I thought I needed them for protection, but because it rekindled those memories and the fun it was hunting, shooting stuff and just testing my skills... so, most of my guns are for nothing but fun/utility...only two serve the purpose of "better to have one and not need it, than to need it and not have it"...

recreational shooters are the strongest supporters of the right to keep and bear arms. Not that SD and hunting gun owners are enemies of the RKBA, not exactly, but recreational shooters are clearly more pro than utility shooters.

I, for one, never took the RKBA seriously until I decided that firearms were necessary for self defense (I hunted and shot recreationally long before then).... I also know plenty of people who shoot recreationally that would and do take gun prohibitions in stride... "oh well, who needs more than 10 rounds at a time at the range anyways" is a relatively common ideology among many recreational gun owners I know (including many members of my family)....

Now, if you're talking about "blasters" (people who love guns intensely and love to shoot the heck out of things), well, I'm with you there... no one protects the RKBA like they do, but they are far from the most common type of recreational shooter..... (and I might be guilty of being one of those too... ?.... )... the most common recreational shooter I know of just shoots every once in a while (whenever it's convenient and presents itself), and doesn't put much thought at all into RKBA