More Seniors, Fearing Crime, Flock to Shooting Ranges

[Tirod]

It does bring to mind that the previous demographic groups AARP worked with are now a lot more challenging.

Guess what, the new seniors coming of age were raised with bias and what are they doing? IGNORING THEM. Many came from an era growing up where one in ten were prior service and had knowledge of firearms. They bring that attitude and knowledge base with them. It's the younger college trained and sheltered liberal arts grads who represent todays ratio of one in one hundred who "never got the memo." They just accept what their tenured superiors tell them is the truth.

Todays 'new seniors" aren't the same as twenty years ago and the point of the article is to raise an alarm they make different decisions and don't fall into line with the policy pronouncements of the anti gun groups and party. What do they expect? They said we shouldn't buy guns, and that changed, they said we shouldn't carry, and that changed, now that same generation is shooting a lot more recreationally, and academia and the party are further losing their grip.

Americans do what they darn well please. This generation coming to age is the one that made changes.

 

[longknife12]

I have shot all my life...well, from about 5-6 years old....have carried a hand gun at about 16. Veteran and hunt, shoot,reload. Former NRA instructor in rifle/pistol/shotgun...have had a Co CHP as long as they have been issued.
I don't do range time from fear, it has been a lifetime of doing it.....
at 73, I see no reason to change it! My kids have been brought up in a like manner!

 

[TTv2]

tirod

If today's new seniors are the same folk who gave us the 1994 AWB, then I wouldn't be singing the praises of these silver haired sheep just yet. they got old and discovered they can't swing a bat or dial 911 as fast as they could 20 years ago and are seeking out protection, not to exercise their rights as Americans.

I'm sure if these seniors were quizzed as to who has more right/reason to own a gun: 65+ or 21+ they're gonna say there's no reason a millennial needs a gun.

Id put money on that.

It makes sense why the old crowd is arming up, we just had a murder in my city. Victim was in her 80's and it happened in her home. There was no forced entry.

 

[Hikingman]

Hopefully, those seniors will not be afraid to ask for lots of help, and guidance with guns, and gun safety. I guess we could use a few more oldsters.

 

[Lonestar49]

I'm almost 69, have congestive heart failure and a pacemaker. Arthritis in nearly every joint and pretty bad lower back pain. I'm not looking for sympathy, just stating why I carry and go to the range regularly. If I'm out of the house you can bet I have a gun on me. I can't stand and duke it out with a 20 something thug or out run him. I do not intend on being in one of those news articles about a senior citizen beaten and robbed or killed and robbed if I can help it.

...

Sept. 15, 2015 - 4 months - 1yr to live but -

I'm nearly 68, was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer in my right lung and just had my 4th chemo treatment yesterday. My last CT scan showed the main mass has shrunk and my partial collapsed lung has opened up along with all 5 of my lymph nods that showed cancer are nearly resolute/clear of it. But like you, I can't out run nor duke it out with any scum anymore but I can make a stand..


Ls

 

[entropy]

I'm 52, asthmatic (can't run-Ironically thanks to the US Army) cervical fusion, bad knee, was in bad shape, finally decided to reverse that as much as possible. I now work out regularly, (gym across the street). I want to stave off declining health as much as possible. I've carried here in WI since it became legal. (Background: Been shooting since I was 5, gunsmith, Armorer.) As I said, can't out run 'em, don't have the stamina of a 20 year old anymore, so CCW is as Clint Smith says, "comforting."

I must be a senior; AARP keeps sending me sign-up literature. Not gonna happen.

 

[shootingthebreeze]

Elderly are more vulnerable, thus, with the Boomers increasing in the retired sector, increased protection is needed.
However, with concealed carries and armed in the home keep in mind several things: practice at the range a lot with the weapon(s) you carry and clean. Because we are getting older (myself included) eye exams and up to date corrective lenses a must. Recently, there was a British tourist knifed to death in San Francisco - the attack was recorded and it was lightning fast. A firearm will be of no use against a knife attacker if he closes the gap you won't be able to deploy and your reaction time will not meet your attacker's something to keep in mind. Unless you still are good at hand to hand defense, keep an alternate means of defense close at hand like a weighted club. Know anatomy and know where to hit for maximum pain and disability.
Of course situational awareness as taught in concealed carry classes. That will decrease the probability but not eliminate it. Change your patterns all the time and be unpredictable.
I'm 68 and in good health. I bicycle spring/summer/fall-I stay active. But there are many seniors as this thread states that are ill and it is important to adjust based on what one can do and not do.
I'm glad seniors are taking things i n their own hands.

 

[benEzra]

That statistic of one being more likely to be killed by their own weapon than to kill an intruder with it omits one important detail:

The number of attackers or intruders who are repelled or captured by the use of a defender's firearm, but not killed with it.

The liberals' collective minds apparently think a DGU incident is only successful if the person against whom it is used is killed. Strange for that mindset to have such a bloodthirsty attitude..

That's one of their major omissions when quoting that "fact". The other is that if they are citing Kellerman et al, then they are misquoting him, because AFAIK he never even tried to establish that the "gun owners" in his study were killed with their own gun, just that a gun owner was killed by an armed home invader. A situation in which a gun owner kept his gun(s) inaccessible and unusable and was murdered by an already-armed criminal would have been counted in the "gun owner shot with a gun in the home" category, if I remember correctly. I also believe Kellerman et al lumped criminals and lawful residents together for statistical purposes, and some formulations also lumped in suicides.

The National Crime Victimization Survey from some years ago found that *no* gun carriers who resisted a criminal while armed were shot with their own gun, and they were actually the cohort *least* likely to be injured or killed, as I recall. Not to say it doesn't happen (I'm sure one can find anecdotes), but it appears to be much less common than it is for law enforcement, probably because homeowners aren't required to grapple with and handcuff dangerous people.

 

[drec]

I'm 70 and fairly new to guns, or should I say newly back to guns, as I used to shoot when I was younger. To much stuff going on in the world to think that you don't need to be able to protect yourself. Even our local sheriff says you should be able to defend yourself.

When my wife and I decided to get a gun, she wanted to take some classes; which we did. Now we go to the range 3 or 4 times a month.

 

[mag1911]

A few months ago I helped a friend watch his tables for a few hours. I had to help out because his son and his wife were too busy doing call ins. I stayed mostly around the revolvers and assisted many "senior citizens" in selecting a weapon. My friend stuck mostly around the autos doing the same thing. He sold a TON of stuff to senior citizens that weekend.

 

[Deanimator]

That statistic of one being more likely to be killed by their own weapon than to kill an intruder with it omits one important detail:

The number of attackers or intruders who are repelled or captured by the use of a defender's firearm, but not killed with it.

The liberals' collective minds apparently think a DGU incident is only successful if the person against whom it is used is killed. Strange for that mindset to have such a bloodthirsty attitude..

It's a fundamentally dishonest "argument".

Have I ONLY defended myself with a firearm if I SHOOT somebody... TO DEATH?

If an assailant sees my gun and flees or surrenders, have I NOT defended myself?

If I shoot my assailant and incapacitate him such that he's no longer an immediate threat, have I NOT defended myself?

Notice they don't apply this standard to anything BESIDES firearms.

I always ask such imbeciles, "What about the martial arts? Have you not defended yourself unless you beat, kick or choke somebody TO DEATH?"

And what about chemical sprays? What do they recommend, sarin instead of pepper spray?

I LOVE to expose the anti-gun cult as liars, hypocrites and cowards.

 

[Deanimator]

I'm 70 and fairly new to guns, or should I say newly back to guns, as I used to shoot when I was younger. To much stuff going on in the world to think that you don't need to be able to protect yourself. Even our local sheriff says you should be able to defend yourself.

When my wife and I decided to get a gun, she wanted to take some classes; which we did. Now we go to the range 3 or 4 times a month.

According to the anti-gun cult's narrative, you're supposed to pretend the world is entirely different than observed reality tells you it is. Just pretend that there's no violent crime. Pretend that the police have a legal duty to protect you... or the sheer physical ability. And if you ARE preyed on by a violent criminal, you obviously had it coming. Just go away and die quietly so that cruel reality doesn't intrude upon their delusions.

 

[Tirod]

Just to put a lighter spin on it, the OP's title sounds as if seniors are hanging around ranges all day because it's safer there.

Haven't seen any setting up card tables playing bridge yet, but you never can tell.