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

[Ed Ames]

David E... I read 'em, I understand 'em, I just don't AGREE with them. And if I don't agree, I'm not going to say I do. If they are minor (or repetitious) I'll ignore them, otherwise I'm going to say why I think they are wrong.

We've been over this. You keep repeating errors. DamnitBoy made a couple of multi-paragraph posts that boil down to, "Maybe if you use shorter sentences....", and maybe he's right, but I don't think that's the problem. So I'll just smile to myself.

I had to think about the Apologist charge. Not your imagined conversation...I make no bones about what guns are designed to do and I have a personal hang-up about having all of my weapons work, and work well. But who knows...

To assess your claims I did a quick search back through my posts here on THR and I happened to find this, from 2007:

Here's a thought for you.... The 2A says "Well regulated militia" and everyone today thinks that means that the people can have arms for militia use. Think of it another way... a way that is far more in keeping with the rest of the constitution: How do you regulate (control) a body of armed men under government orders? Think in terms of checks and balances. What is the balance to armed men? How would Jefferson approach the problem? Maybe the answer was, "balance armed soldiers with an armed populous who can kill them if they step out of line." That's how I read the 2A... the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms was not to be infringed because an armed PEOPLE are the counterbalance to the state militias."


The 2a suddenly becomes "because the state armed forces need to be CONTROLLED for the security of a FREE state the right of the PEOPLE not in the armed forces to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

No "guns are for self defense" from me back then either.

But yeah, I see where you are coming from. I'm clearly the sort of person who claims that guns aren't really dangerous because guns are only for fun.

 

[EHL]

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'm sure the founding fathers would agree. Clearly, punching holes through paper is more important than defending one's family from criminals and tyranny.

Sorry, not buying it Ed. I doubt very many "recreational only" or "Fuds" would sacrifice their lives for their hobby. On the other hand, there's plenty of people who would do so willingly, should you threaten their means to defend themselves and loved ones though. I can't think of anything that is more die hard than putting your life at stake for RKBA. "From my cold dead hands" isn't just a catch phrase for some of us, believe it or not.:banghead:

 

[Ed Ames]

That's a good observation, EHL.

Here's the flip side I see....

You say people would sacrifice their lives willingly to defend their means of defense, however, I don't think you mean that they will hold mass suicide protests. When you sacrifice something you give it up right then and there and that's the end of it. Far closer to the truth is that those people are willing to jeopardize their lives. To place themselves at risk of death or other substantial harm. They aren't going to shoot themselves in protest but they'll risk being shot in the pro-freedom fight. When you used the word "stake" (a gambling term for what is on the line in a bet) you implied that, but whether you intended it or not I think it's a safe statement.

Anyone who engages in activities which can result in death or serious harm, whether motorcycling, mountain climbing, flying ultralight aircraft, or anything else you can name...is putting their life in jeopardy. That's true whether they are fighting a war for freedom or trying to pogo stick a tight wire across Niagara Falls during a drunk. If they are doing so for recreation... then, in fact, they are putting their life at stake to exercise their desire (right?) for recreation.

It's not uncommon.

 

[huntsman]

I'm sure the founding fathers would agree. Clearly, punching holes through paper is more important than defending one's family from criminals and tyranny

With their hunting guns, you see back in the day one gun did it all for the early Americans.

Military guns were pretty much one dimensional firearms just like now.

 

[DammitBoy]

You are just playing word games and semantics Ed, nothing more.

This thread is a masturbatory journal for you. To no good end.

 

[KINGMAX]

I shoot alot & collect Milsurp

For the most part I used to shoot about twice a month. I did range work using various pistols types and calibers. I would switch rifles around also. I did shotgun work w/ a skeet machine at the river. I shot because I like to shoot, I really did not consider it as trying to stay sharp for self-defense. I use to carry a pistiol all the time, now I seldom do unless I am on a road trip. Your best defense is in using the tool that God gave you located between your ears. Good situational awareness will keep you out of trouble for the most part. If it is a bad neighborhood, stay away. Keep your doors locked and windows rolled up when you are out & about town by yourself. Be alert & use good common sense.

 

[David E]

ed ames wrote:

I read 'em, I understand 'em...

MAYBE you read them, but your subesquent posts don't bear that out.

MAYBE you understand them, but you fail to address key issues and instead focus on less relavant things.

I just don't AGREE with them.......otherwise I'm going to say why I think they are wrong.

Really? I noticed you avoided responding to this:

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?

So, DO you teach them the importance of the RKBA? yes or no?

You failed to address this one, as well:

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?

If you agree, please say so.

If you disagree, then please state why.

 

[Ed Ames]

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?

Yes to the first. As Katrina demonstrated, even the biggest chest thumpers behave differently when a few National Guard M16s are pointed at them, so I doubt the second. Oh, and I don't especially emphasize the fun angle. I let people bring their own baggage. I'll tell them what my interest is, give my testimonial, but if they want to use the skills for another (lawful) purpose it's no skin off my nose.

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?

No.

People (gun owners or not) who honestly "don't care one bit" (your words) about the RKBA create neither problem nor solution. They are opportunity. The fact that they don't care means they are a blank slate, a group we can sway, and the question is simply, "how?" And, often just as important, "How do I avoid pushing them to the other side?"

I thought both answers were self evident.

 

[David E]

And, often just as important, "How do I avoid pushing them to the other side?"

Yet you specifically avoided for the second time in a row answering the question: So, DO you teach them the importance of the RKBA? yes or no?

Since you consistently refuse to answer a simple question, I must conclude that, "no," you do not teach them about the importance of the RKBA.

One of many problems about your last answer is that often, you don't get to find out if a gunowner cares enough about the RKBA to fight for it before the gun ban(s) get enacted.

And it does create a problem for the rest of us. I'm somewhat bemused, but not surprised, that you clearly don't understand that.

 

[Ed Ames]

Yet you specifically avoided for the second time in a row answering the question: So, DO you teach them the importance of the RKBA? yes or no?

You you really aren't reading my posts. LOL

From my previous post (exactly one post above yours):

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?

Yes to the first. As Katrina demonstrated, even the biggest chest thumpers behave differently when a few National Guard M16s are pointed at them, so I doubt the second. Oh, and I don't especially emphasize the fun angle. I let people bring their own baggage. I'll tell them what my interest is, give my testimonial, but if they want to use the skills for another (lawful) purpose it's no skin off my nose.

It's a little hard to take you seriously when you do that.

I'll be generous and edit this in.

You asked two questions in that paragraph. I answered two questions. I even specified which answer went with which question. I'm trying to think of some honest way you could spin that to "Since you consistently refuse to answer a simple question, I must conclude that, "no," you do not teach them about the importance of the RKBA." but I can think of no charitable explanation.

I don't know why I bother, but... regarding your "critique" of my second answer... you said in your question that the gunowner didn't care. So you know they don't care. The "problem" you see is your own fuzzy thinking about the issue. You can't pose a question premised on them not caring, and then say an answer is wrong because you don't know whether they care or not. Even then, the problem you imagine is incorrect. It's not that you don't get to find out. You can find out very easily...talk to them. The problem is that you aren't interested in talking to them...you want them to already agree with you. Sorry, that ain't going to happen. You don't get agreement without some work.

If you aren't going out and making contact with people (gun owners and non-gun owners alike), and trying to present your information and ideas to them, you have no grounds to complain about how they act and you certainly can't blame them or say that THEY are creating a problem. They were there, no problem, and you failed to take action. The fault is yours for not going out and talking to them.

 

[David E]

Quote:
(1) If you emphasize the "fun" angle to turn more folks into gunowners, that's great. But (2) are you also teaching them the importance of the RKBA? (3) Would they fight for it?

Yes to the first. (really to the second) As Katrina demonstrated, even the biggest chest thumpers behave differently when a few National Guard M16s are pointed at them, so I doubt the second. (really the third) Oh, and I don't especially emphasize the fun angle. (first)

If you read my paragraph closely, you'd see that it have not two, but THREE elements to it, two of which were questions. For your reading enjoyment, I highlighted these elements in order. You addressed them in a confusing sequence of 2, 3, then 1. I guess I should've anticipated that.....

But enough of semantics, parsing, etc. If you do teach them a bit about the importance of RKBA, that's great. If you get them to be aware of it, then care about it, maybe they'll fight for it enough to matter.

I do discuss guns and shooting as it comes up with various people. And, more times than I'd like to admit, some gunowners, usually the "recreational ones," tell me they'd turn their guns in without hesitation if a law were passed.

As I originally stated, that creates a problem for the rest of us.

 

[ccsniper]

no, every gun I have has a defensive purpose. I have no need for tools that just make me happy. Just like I have no need for vehicles that I do not drive but once a year to a mudding event. I am a simple guy, I like to keep my stuff simple.

 

[Ed Ames]

If you read my paragraph closely, you'd see that it have not two, but THREE elements to it

Now you are just being silly. There were two questions. I gave two answers. You don't give answers to "elements". I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

It's human nature to accuse others of what you do yourself. You know it, you would do it, so you see it. The people most afraid of backstabbing are the backstabbers. The people most likely to play semantic games are the ones who play them. You are demonstrating that very clearly. You have constantly accused me of playing word games while you tried to substitute recreational and casual, while you tried to conflate all gun buyers who cite self defense with people who irrationally buy guns they cannot afford out of fear, and while you tried to cover your own failure to read simple English by switching "questions" to "elements".

Sadly, that doesn't speak well for how you will respond to an actual gun ban attempt.

 

[benEzra]

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.

If that is really the position you are arguing against (that guns have absolutely no value whatsoever beyond defensive employment, and that target shooting/defensive training cannot ever be enjoyed on its own merits), then I'm not sure who you are disagreeing with, because I have never encountered a self-defense advocate would hold that position.

A majority of gun owners, though, do hold to the position that guns' defensive utility is the most important application, and it seems to me that this is the position you are really arguing against.

For me, I would say that the guns my wife and I own are *primarily* useful for defensive purposes, and secondarily for recreational purposes. We also own a couple of antiques out of historical interest, but the guns we shoot recreationally (and have a lot of fun with) are the same guns we'd use for defensive purposes. I could probably get higher scores in USPSA matches if I shot a racegun out of a space holster instead of my CCW and ordinary carry gear, but it would be simultaneously less fun and less relevant to defensive use.

With their hunting guns, you see back in the day one gun did it all for the early Americans.

Military guns were pretty much one dimensional firearms just like now.

Most hunting guns are former military guns or sporterized derivatives, whether you're talking about lever-action Winchesters, Winchester Model 70's, Remington 700's, and whatnot. If you want to go back to flintlock muzzleloaders, those were military-style guns, too, in their day.

IIRC, one of the most common big-game hunting cartridges in North America is still the .30-06 Springfield, a military round, and a whole lot of other sporting rounds were developed from that military cartridge.

 

[huntsman]

Most hunting guns are former military guns or sporterized derivatives, whether you're talking about lever-action Winchesters, Winchester Model 70's, Remington 700's, and whatnot. If you want to go back to flintlock muzzleloaders, those were military-style guns, too, in their day.

IIRC, one of the most common big-game hunting cartridges in North America is still the .30-06 Springfield, a military round, and a whole lot of other sporting rounds were developed from that military cartridge.

No I not talking derived from but comparing the American invention of the Pennsylvania/Kentucky style rifle to the smooth bore English musket. And the modern Assault Rifle (I really dislike that term) to the current accepted (by state law) sporting rifles.

Can the modern AR and variants be used for hunting? Yes but it may not be the best tool for that job and may be illegal is some states because of caliber size.

Did the musket kill its share of game in the new world? Yes but again it may not be the best tool for the job.

My point was back when the Revolution was fought feeding oneself was at least as important as SD and the guns reflected that purpose.

 

[DammitBoy]

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 when they would be much better off with decent tires on a car they actually own, a bit of reserve money in the bank, less debt, some money for that smoking cessation program, or even just a decent set of clothes to wear to their next job interview. That is irrational and self-harming behavior caused by an inability to prioritize the risks those people actually face every day.

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. If they could simply erase the existence of guns from the world they would do so in an eyeblink.

Who are these people? I've never met anybody who fits either of those descriptions.

It's human nature to accuse others of what you do yourself.

Ok, it's starting to make sense now...

 

[David E]

You don't give answers to "elements".

Yet, you did ! But you addressed them out of sequence. This was initially confusing, but I should've caught on to your style by now.

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.

Please cite some stats to back up this claim.

No, (I didn't call) 53 million (gunowners "self defense cowards.) Not all people who buy a gun for defense, only those who use an irrational justification (who buy a gun for defense) that doesn't withstand scrutiny.

You're the only one that brings "irrationality" into the mix. You constantly accuse folks of buying a gun for defense out of "irrational fear."

While those folks do exist, how many of the 53.6 million gunowners who say they have a gun for defense bought it out of "irrational fear?" Please cite your sources.

 

[David E]

The people who are afraid, who truly only own guns for "Self Defense", would LOVE to get rid of guns...all guns... If they could simply erase the existence of guns from the world they would do so in an eyeblink.

I agree, this is pure bunk. That some dumb-clucks might feel this way hardly defines the majority.

 

[Ed Ames]

Yet, you did ! But you addressed them out of sequence. This was initially confusing, but I should've caught on to your style by now.

Sigh... no, I answered your questions, then gave an incidental remark. That's the common meaning of "Oh, " in this sort of context.

Sue says, "That Asian place on 3rd street you love so much has been allowed to re-open. Do you want to have lunch there? "

Mark replies, "Yeah, I'm starving. Oh, and I don't particularly love it but it's cheap."

Sue, if she understands English, takes that to mean, "Yes I will eat there, but because I'm starving, not because I love the place."

I didn't realize it would be a challenge for you.

Please cite some stats to back up this claim.

0.042802 per 1000 and 0.167 per 1000.

Let's talk it through.

Joe is driving down the street today. What are the odds, at that moment, that he will be murdered if he lives in the USA? Well, the murder rate is 0.042802 per 1000. Joe knows that number. He doesn't like it, but he accepts it as a part of his reality. It's an acceptable risk to him. Deep down inside he realizes that it's probably a bit higher for him because he lives in a city, but lower than for other people because he's not a drug dealer, and either way that's acceptable because city life is where it's at.

Joe crashes his car. The first thing he does, before the tow truck has even dragged the twisted wreckage away, is rent a replacement car so he can get to work.

The next day (probably because of the rental car sticker on his made-for-midgets "economy" sedan) Joe gets mugged. Rough week, but don't worry, he's OK. All they got was his wallet and his sense of control.

What are the chances, as he drives to work tomorrow, that Joe will be murdered? Well, the murder rate is still 0.042802 per 1000. Joe's chances are not one jot higher or lower than they were the day before. Not for being murdered.

So, in an effort to regain his sense of self control, he now has his Nabokovian "black stone of seven deaths", but does he want to? Is he driven by a desire for gun ownership, or fear of victimization? Is he really "pro gun" or just "pro not being the only one without a gun"?

Incidentally, the rate of traffic accident deaths is 0.167 per 1000. Higher than of him being murdered...yet he'll get back in his car and keep driving just as soon as he can. The accident won't cause him to start taking the bus or even to buy a safer car. He accepts a high risk, and buys a gun because he fears the low risk. Not 100% rational.

Now take Sally. She was on the high school shooting team as a kid. One of her biggest thrills is busting clays or shooting a perfect match. What does she think about guns? She really LIKES them, not because she's afraid, not because she has negative experiences with them, but because she has so many positive experiences. When the UK banned guns, people like her LEFT. They went to France, or the US, or other places. Seriously, they did. They went to a different country because they had such positive associations with guns. We have people here on THR who won't even move to a different apartment for their RKBA...yet they want to concealed carry.

You're the only one that brings "irrationality" into the mix. You constantly accuse folks of buying a gun for defense out of "irrational fear."

You are sadly correct. I am the only one who has discussed the issue of irrationality in a serious way in this thread. I don't accuse, I observe. You even admit I'm right in the very next paragraph:

While those folks do exist, how many of the 53.6 million gunowners who say they have a gun for defense bought it out of "irrational fear?"

Some is enough. Those are the people that make Halloween dangerous (remember the Japanese exchange student shot by a coward who thought he was being robbed?) and in the process endanger ALL of our rights, far more than recreational shooters.

That some dumb-clucks might feel this way hardly defines the majority.

Did I ever say that the majority of gun owners are that way? No. I explicitly stated, several times, that it does not reflect the all of that 53 million you keep referencing. YOU made that false assertion because you couldn't argue against my position in a rational way so you tried to misconstrue my position.

That said, there are definitely people who think that way. Self Defense cowards. And they are a problem for the rest of us.


If you've never met one of those people, good. I have. I've read news articles about them too, usually after they have killed someone and brought bad PR on us all.

 

[David E]

You sure talk a lot, but you don't say very much.

To repeat, I asked you specifically how many of the 53.6 Million people that have a gun for defense got it due to "irrational fear?" Surely, since they bother you so much that you call them "self defense cowards" you'd have that answer.......... Instead of answering the question (again) you spin a bloviating yarn about murder rates and traffic fatality rates.

I didn't realize it would be a challenge for you.

 

[Cosmoline]

It's all part of the same thing. Shooting and owning firearms is about history, physics, biology, patience, technology, having fun, martial artistry, defending yourself, defending your family, defending your country, defending your home, and just putting holes in paper.

Military guns were pretty much one dimensional firearms just like now.

One dimensional--HA! There's nothing my Mosin can't do. Up to and including opening a can of beans. I can FISH WITH THIS RIFLE! Put the bayonet on, wait for Mr. Pike or Mr. Chum and with enough speed he's mine. Not always legal but good to know in a pinch. I can hunt bear. I can and have shot squirrel and ptarmigan with it, with less meat loss than you might expect. And it kicks a' as a self defense weapon, obviously. Need to bash open a door in a fire? Mosin buttstrike will do it. I've cut down trees with it. Put holes in burn barrels with it. I'd marry it if it t'were legal.

My point was back when the Revolution was fought feeding oneself was at least as important as SD and the guns reflected that purpose.

Not too many folk were rich enough to afford a long rifle back then. The bulk of the colonials had scatterguns, buck and ball guns and muskets--NOT the legendary small caliber rifles. And a scattergun or trade gun, esp. used in tandem with dogs, would bring you meat with a lot less cash outlay and custom gunsmithing than a rifle. Surplus military arms have been extremely popular as workaday firearms for a very long time. Certainly after the Civil War there were millions in circulation used by folks who needed to gather game as a matter of life or death. Just as subsistence hunters up here now use "military style" weapons to gather their harvest.

 

[David E]

ed ames said:

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. If they could simply erase the existence of guns from the world they would do so in an eyeblink.

David E said:

That some dumb-clucks might feel this way hardly defines the majority.

ed ames said:

Did I ever say that the majority of gun owners are that way? No. I explicitly stated, several times, that it does not reflect the all of that 53 million you keep referencing.

Then how many is it? You clearly think it's a fairly high percentage, since you cite and defend it so often. Or are you knowingly citing a rare exception to make your "point?"

YOU made that false assertion because you couldn't argue against my position in a rational way so you tried to misconstrue my position.

Not at all. Unless you think asking for real data to back up your claim is 'misconstruing' your position.

 

[David E]

Military guns were pretty much one dimensional firearms just like now.

I, too, thought this was an odd post. I shot two deer with my M1A and shot a 3-gun match last week with my M1A Scout. My daughter used a Mini-14 to bag a running wild hog (great shot, btw!) My BIL and Nephew both got wild hogs with their AR-15's.

 

[Ed Ames]

Hah. The problem is, proof by statistics is not apropriate.

What is 2+2? Where are your stats?

 

[hogshead]

4 at least in NC