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

[Ed Ames]

I think Ed should go to an IDPA or USPSA event and see what people think...

Been there, talked to them, and the experience was in no way shattering to my views. I've been considering taking up one of those sports so I've been chatting up those who are into them.

This would include any person the ed ames insolently refers to as "self defense cowards."

I'm a "the" now? Awesome.

A fraction that hardly seems worth considering, yet one that some people gleefully paint as representative of the whole.

In theory land we can disregard small fractions. In the real world, all politics is built on the isolated incident, the rare deviation. The why (or an attempt at the why) of that can be found in sociology, if you are interested, but the short summary is that humans react strongly and negatively to deviant behavior. That deviance can be wearing the wrong type of shoes, preferring the wrong type of sexual partner, or any number of other things.

The difference between deviance and eccentricity, when it comes down to it, is apparent overall health, which means ability to thrive. A person who drives a beat up car, can barely afford to maintain themselves, lives in a 1400sq foot house, and has 100 cats with them, will have a swarm of LEO's and media on them as soon as the cats are discovered. A person who pulls in $350,000/yr as a consultant, drives a BMW, owns an airplane and a yacht, lives in a 4000sq foot house in an upscale neighborhood, and has 100 cats in an air conditioned 1400 sq. foot outbuilding, is just eccentric and they could have a TV crew come around to showcase the cats without ever triggering the sort of official attention. Same number of cats, same size dwelling for the cats, but the person who is doing well is viewed as eccentric while the person who is broke is crazy.

Replace cats with guns and the same holds true.

When people spot deviant behavior it triggers a very strong reaction which can include passing totally absurd laws with vastly damaging consequences. Example #1: People using open homosexuality as an excuse for lynching. Example #2: People using stories of cowards with guns who in a panic shoot family members, or trick-or-treaters, or the neighbor's dog, to argue against gun ownership.

The people I mentioned are an active harm to our RKBA. A harm that must be accepted (a right is a right) but not one that should be considered good.

 

[David E]

I'm a "the" now? Awesome.

Interesting he focuses on the typo and not the statement....

 

[kimberdad]

Old Boy Scout Motto, Be Prepared!!! My motto, hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst.

 

[Ed Ames]

Interesting he focuses on the typo...

The only thing you added this time around was more attacks ("insolently"). If you don't see the harm of one group, and I don't see the harm of another, and I can't overcome whatever barriers you have to seeing my point of view, then there really isn't much point in me addressing you point by point.

 

[DammitBoy]

There's a point to this thread?

 

[David E]

There's a point to this thread?

Not anymore....

 

[Carl N. Brown]

My sister chased off a home invader and detained his accomplice at gun point for arrest. My wife had a strange acting guy walk into her business. She kept her handgun handy because he was behaving furtively. He left, they called the police. A guy matching that description was arrested later for armed robbery of another business.

I could recite more anecdotes, but the argument that defense gun owners are irrational cowards is bull manure. Not being afraid of a real danger is scarcely rational, and being afraid of a real danger is not cowardice but prudence.

I would hope that people with guns for defense would take up target shooting just to be competent in safe, accurate use of guns, even after the reason for their getting a gun (like response to a specific credible death threat) has passed. (Some people do get a permit to carry and buy their first gun in response to a credible threat of death). That happens a lot in Northern Ireland, believe it or not.

Lastly, disarming criminals does not remove the usefulness of a gun for self defense. In most self defense, one is not armed against gunmen: one is armed against non-gun weapons, superior numbers or superior strength. I would like to say that most self defense I know of is against unarmed thugs with superior numbers (one woman versus four men, one woman versus two men). Other self defense situations have included defense with a gun against attacker or intruders armed with knives, clubs or superior strength. One man locally challenged a burglar leaving a neighbor's home and shot the burglar who assaulted him with a car. Guns are a defensive advantage to the eldery, weak or female versus younger, stronger or male attackers. Even if guns disappeared from criminal-only hands, it would not negate the self-defense value of guns against criminals attacking with knives, clubs, brute force or numbers. It would not negate the sport or collector value of guns either.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The people who are afraid, who truly only own guns for "Self Defense", would LOVE to get rid of guns...all guns...they only own guns because they are afraid of other people with guns and if all guns were gone that fear goes too.

First person I knew who got a THCP (Tennessee Handgun Carry Permit) was a doctor who often had to work late, and walk through a deserted parking garage to get to her car. Her fear was not a criminal with a gun: it was being raped and strangled by a brute thug armed with nothing more than bare hands and muscle. It was not irrational cowardice--it was fear of things that do happen. If all guns were gone--especially hers--the fear would still be there or even worse.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Could we get back to Anyone shoot purely for recreation, with no thought of self defense use? without all the judgementalism?

I own a Kalashnikov (Yugo M70AB2) that I shoot in vintage military matches which I do not think of as a weapon, but as a historic military collectible. I do have a .38 revolver that is my designated home protection weapon which I have carried for protection out in the boonies. So it is not beyond conceiving that (a) some people shoot purely for recreation even with so-called weapons of war, (b) some people shoot purely for self defense, (c) some people both.

 

[Suwannee Tim]

Maybe 98% of my shooting is exercising skills that are very unlikely to be needed for self defense.

 

[Tacbandit]

Pak29
I think it's great that you feel safe in your little corner of the world. And, I think it's great that you enjoy recreational shooting. It's fun, and it also will lend itself(somewhat) to some familiarization to firearms in the event that you MIGHT have to use one for SD, which I pray will never happen...I have lived in such places...of peace and tranquility, and low crime rates such as what you know...but they changed. Presently, I live in the Deep South...Not rural, but very "suburbish"...I have several reasons for wanting to carry a firearm for self-defense, of which I won't go into...However, my present little corner of the world, and the people that inhabit it, aren't as cordial as where you are.
Knowing this, I choose to give myself "options", with the hope that I'll never have to exercise them....While my area has been rated as one of the better places to live in the US...STUFF HAPPENS