Self-defense vs all other uses.

[Mosin77]

In my opinion there are a few ends of firearms ownership. Self defense (open or concealed), hunting for the pot, hunting for sport, varmint, pest, and predator control, and war/military use, and finally marksmanship, competition, and purely recreational shooting. Then there’s collecting, too, which kind of lays over the top of all of them.

In theory any gun can be used for any of these purposes with at least marginal efficacy, but in practice today there are many different sorts of guns highly adapted for one purpose or another. We’re far from the days of 1700 when one smoothbore flintlock long gun served pretty well for just about everything.

I think the phenomenon referred to in the original post, where everything seems first about self defense or fighting, is a result of our more urban lifestyle these days. Not only does this urbanization mean that urban gun owners feel slightly unsafe (or at least mindful that in the event of unrest they’re surrounded by many potential adversaries) but on a more mundane, day to day level, the reality is that a firearm is going to be seen first as a tool for self-defense or military use, and only distantly and theoretically for use with regard to animals, because the realities of farm life or hunting are so far away from the city. Few urbanites are laying awake at night dreaming about a bolt action .22mag that would be perfect for foxes at 120 yards. They probably got interested in guns after watching an actor in Die Hard or Mission Impossible, rather than because they loved watching their dad clean his deer rifle. Even competition is a use that tends to grow with familiarity or a more practical first use, so it’s a secondary consideration for the majority of buyers. They buy the Glock/AR first, and only after shooting it for a while and getting into the hobby do they start looking at the “impractical” range gun that’s actually more fun to shoot.

 

[WheelGunMan]

In my opinion there are a few ends of firearms ownership. Self defense (open or concealed), hunting for the pot, hunting for sport, varmint, pest, and predator control, and war/military use, and finally marksmanship, competition, and purely recreational shooting. Then there’s collecting, too, which kind of lays over the top of all of them.

Spot on! You nailed it!!

 

[jstert]

while i first shot a 22lr bolt action rifle as a 10yr old in a nra youth rifle club (and then centerfire rifles a few years later in the army) i first bought my own firearm 20 years after that, a taurus m85 38sp snubbie, for protection.

it was only after early retirement a dozen years ago from work in antigun locales that i could, and did, buy more, starting with a marlin 795 22lr semiauto rifle and a ruger single six 22wmr/lr single action revolver for pleasure, i.e. informal plinking. i shoot enough 22lr and watch my situation enough so that i could protect myself with rimfire firearms and/or single action revolvers, but i needn’t limit myself.

to me an important dimension of gun ownership is our 2a, preserving it and exercising it, so that it and our backbone don’t atrophy. i have seen enough of the world to know for sure that disarmed peoples are helpless, emasculated victims, slaves, serfs or subjects. with even a lowly, yet practiced and familiar, 22lr rifle i’m standing upright as a free citizen. and if one doesn’t think that 22lr can’t protect much, feel free to take a 7 round mag dump of cci minimags to the torso from a marlin or ruger or … to the chest at 15’…

 

[Varminterror]

Comparing two cartridges for hunting some particular critter and things often get boisterous but comparing two cartridges for CCW and things get down right rowdy.

Interpolation vs. extrapolation…

Forgive me for circling clear back to page one, but I have not seen any unpacking of this particular sentiment in the preceding pages, and believe there is some merit to doing so, as it pertains to the broader scope of this topic.

The reason here is pretty straight forward: when a “discussion” devolves to a “debate,” and further to an “argument,” the end state of the topic of Defensive or Offensive shooting is a very different environment from that of hunting or even other sport shooting. In a discussion of hunting, the argument devolves further into defensible evidence, whereas in the case of offensive/defensive shooting, the argument spirals into the abyss of nothingness. Millions on millions of people have hunted some game species, successfully or otherwise, and many millions of those folks have tens or even hundreds of game harvest experiences to their credit - so millions of people can speak both knowledgeably as well as experientially about hunting efficacy. Comparatively, the percentage of people which have offensively or defensively put bullets through other human beings is exceptionally low, near zero - so millions of people arguing about any of these topics will largely fall back to the same theoretical proxies and various experimental methods, arguing in the abyss of assumptions.

As a parallel, consider your typical whitetail deer hunting thread against the typical bear defense thread. In one case, the thread ends with a lot of folks posting their decades of experience with this cartridge or that, a bunch of trophy photos and taxidermy, while the other almost inevitably includes links to the same news stories about a Wildlife Officer which was mauled by a bear and used a 9mm to defend himself, or the “world record bear” taken with a 22. Millions of people have killed whitetails, so there is a wealth of experience as to what works and evidence to support that it does, whereas relatively very few people have ever killed a bear, especially defensively, and especially BIG bears, such one discussion is wholly supported by experiential evidence, and one is built wholly upon speculative assumptions.

Equally, consider how hog hunting threads used to proceed compared to how they are argued today. 20yrs ago, most folks had never heard of hog hunting, certainly never done it. So we had a bunch of folks which made their arguments based on magazine articles and “hogzilla” internet lore, suggesting big rounds like 45-70 or 30-06 were necessary for the task, because obviously no lesser cartridge can penetrate the thick and angled skull or the thick hide and gristly chest shield of a hog… so when I ever mentioned using 22-250 and 223rem to kill dozens and even hundreds of hogs in Texas for many years prior, I was labeled a liar. I was once told I needed to start taking a 375 H&H for hogs… to which I responded with a photo of myself with a Rem 700 in 22-250 with a pile of 20-30 hogs in the bed of a grain truck. But with the spread of hogs across the country, and the boom in popularity of hog hunting in the last 10-15yrs, those discussions have finally transitioned away from the speculative and into the experiential. We certainly still see the dreamers which “have always wanted to build a 458 Socom for hogs someday,” but by and large, those folks have now seen the real-world evidence of the depth and breath of cartridges which work for the task, and the exaggerated suppositions for effective cartridges has largely ceased.

But for defensive and offensive shooting, even the folks which have been tasked with offensive and defensive shooting as a profession typically have zero or near zero experience - and most of those which do unfortunately have the burden of experience, only have experienced the extreme limitations of ammunition restricted by treaties, without the luxury of applying more effective options. So there’s near-zero experiential basis for claims - and equally near-zero experiential basis for arguments against any claims. If someone says 45-70 is only good for deer at 75-100 yards, I can post up photos of deer taken with 45-70 at 250yrds. If someone says match bullets pencil through game without expanding, I can post up photos of deer hearts which were nearly cut in half by match bullets… but if someone says 22LR is good for CC, maybe they post some videos of gelatin tests, or IV8888 video shooting pine boards at 100+ yards, and I’d post up photos of 22LR slugs recovered from raccoons which mushroomed against the skull and did not penetrate, and then we’d argue to no productive end that the evidence brought by the other is not actually relevant for the extrapolated context of shooting humans in defensive situations…

And because there is near-zero experiential basis, we’re always able to expand the scope to effectively fighting imaginary dragons. Someone may offer relatively solid evidence for a claim - but then someone can simply move the goal post and negate the validity of the evidence. 9mm’s are proven manstoppers, but someone can reference the ineffectiveness of the 9mm against body armor, or can restate anecdotes of bad guys on PCP walking through a hail of bullets, or maybe someone can point to the successful history of the 38spcl in LE applications and the statistical support that MOST SD shootings involve zero to one shot fired, but then someone mentions the “increasingly common trend of gangs or teams or squads of murderous home invaders” to refute that a 5 shot snubby is a viable opportunity, and reloading revolvers is too slow… someone might suggest backup sights are an absolute necessity on a home defense AR, but nobody can point to even a single anecdote where a civilian had an optic fail in an SD scenario, wherein they failed because they didn’t have BUIS, or they were successful because they did… the context is imagined, so there’s no limit to where the goalpost can and does move.

Effectively, it is the internet, and the public recognizes it is safer to make potentially-erroneous and unsubstantiated suppositions in an argument when you know the other guy is also only armed with equally potentially-erroneous and unsubstantiated suppositions, and knowing the other guy cannot “clap back” with real evidence of firsthand experience.

So hunting threads will always end in the “well it obviously works” whereas defensive/offensive threads always end with “well I don’t have to believe anything works”. Interpolation of real world experience and prevalent evidence vs. extrapolation of boundless context in a theoretical space.

 

[mcb]

Well stated @Varminterror. It's not that the discussion of self defense is unimportant but that discussing hunting and competitive shooting is so much more enjoyable. And as you point out our ability to discuss hunting and competitive shooting from a position of experience is, for me, a larger part of why I find those discussion more interesting and more enjoyable. I find little joy in discussion self defense applications. I have certainly done it because of the importance and necessity but I find significant less pleasure from those discussion compare to hunting and competition. The "spirals into the abyss of nothingness" in those defensive oriented threads is almost inevitable and a very unsatisfying resolution. This is double so when the subject did not start with defense as the primary or only avenue of possible discussion.

 

[Varminterror]

Well stated @Varminterror. It's not that the discussion of self defense is unimportant but that discussing hunting and competitive shooting is so much more enjoyable. And as you point about our ability to discuss hunting and competitive shooting from a position of experience is, for me, a larger part of why I find those discussion more interesting and more enjoyable. I find little joy in discussion self defense applications. I have certainly done it because of the importance and necessity but I find significant less pleasure from those discussion compare to hunting and competition. The "spirals into the abyss of nothingness" in those defensive oriented threads is almost inevitable and a very unsatisfying resolution. This is double so when the subject did not start with defense as the primary or only avenue of possible discussion.

I did neglect in my post above, I fight those “what’s the point of shooting a small cartridge long range if it can’t kill anything that far?” or “what’s the point of a 20lb rifle? You couldn’t carry it into enemy territory…” type BS all of the time. Guys say the same thing about race pistols - big compensated 2011’s with big mag wells on bottom and big C-More’s on top are huge, and some Fudd somewhere will talk about how impractical they are at that size, or how infeasible a “fragile” sight like that would be in combat….

I’ve fired thousands upon thousands of rounds in my life, sometimes 20-30k per year, and have never had cause to shoot a person, either offensively or defensively… it certainly makes sense that not all of my firearms would be designed ideally for such intent… but I’m also willing to bet pretty heavily on my developed and practiced skills as capable of transferring to offensive/defensive tasks better than the average idiot which insists on tying every firearms thread to combat/defense, and hasn’t touched a firearm in 6 months or more…

 

[Russ57]

The .357 magnum has a well proven track record. Stands to reason anything more powerful will do. With modern ammo the 9 X 19 will work. I don't think anyone will argue about the .45 acp. That leaves the .380 as a commonly accepted minimum. I don't need any discussion on the above.

One question I wouldn't mind knowing more about is; what is the best choice for that "bedside" handgun? The .357 shot inside a dark room is going to leave you blind if a second shot is needed and might cause hearing loss. I'm not up to speed on today's silencers and/or flash suppressant powders. Short of going down that road, is a .45 acp or .38 special going to have me seeing well enough for a quick follow up shot and leave my hearing intact?

Clearly I lack practice shooting in my bedroom at night.

 

[Barbaroja]

Hahahaha great example of what the OP is talking about

am always amazed how often someone starts a thread about a firearm related subject/product and the first responses are that X would/wouldn't be good for CCW/home-defense/bugout etc.

 

[PzGren]

The military training in the use of firearms had a big impact on my shooting preferences but I love guns and enjoy shooting. Outside of the military, where I shot tens of thousands of rounds in slow fire, and more in full auto, I loved to improve my shooting skills and there was a time when I shot over 3,000 rounds each month and I did that for years. Basically, I learnt to shoot - I honed my skills. When I strayed from the basics, the results reminded me to go back to them.

Those folks that have guns for self defense will most likely not have the same familiarity with guns that I have and lack what carried me through the bad times with confidence. Confidence is a big parts of winning a fight and confuses the one who is standing against you.

 

[JR24]

I don’t compete and barely hunt anymore, so my shooting is either for SD or CCW training, or just for fun.

And these days the most fun for me is improving my CCW or SD skills so my shooting is fully CCW/SD centric.

Most of my hunting rifles and shotguns haven’t been to the range in years, same goes for most of my “range” pistols.

 

[shafter]

I'm mostly self defense oriented with two branches of interest for hunting firearms and ones that hold historical significance.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

Well, there are certainly good places to be and less than ideal ones. Look at migration across the Country and you can form a hypothesis about what areas are desirable to live in and what ones people most want to escape from.

I expect in most case crime statistics are towards the bottom of the list of reasons for moving. #1 is probably economics, maybe tied with family. Crime has never entered into any decision I've made on where to live, and I can only remember even checking first one time.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

If it were not for defensive applications, I wouldn't own any guns.

Hunting is fun, but I can buy meat at the store. I can shoot game with a camera, and still practice tracking and stalking activities in that way.

I understand that others don't see it like that. But without a practical purpose, I just don't see the point in firearms. Though I don't see the point in stamp collecting or competitive darts either.

Yeah, I absolutely understand that. Realistically though I think self defense is as much excuse as reason, a way we give ourselves permission to buy more toys. We often toss around phrases like "it's not the odds, it's the stakes" to justify our gun ownership but if I'm being honest, I could cover my bases with one sidearm for CCW (and maybe a 2nd identical one as a backup) and one home defense long arm (and again, perhaps a second in case the first was down for repairs). I suspect my gun collection is pretty meager compared to some of the more hardcore collectors here but it's probably several times larger than the average shooter.

If I didn't need guns for at least the potential of self defense I'm still probably have several. Ultimately shooting is a lot of fun! Taking open minded hoplophobes to the range has helped me change more minds than simply talking about the BoR and the Federalist papers. Maybe if it wasn't so much fun to shoot I'd have less guns, but at the end of the day just the joy I find in shooting is enough to justify having some firearms.

 

[WisBorn]

Changes over time.
I purchased my first handgun in 1986 while 21 (a few months before my 22 birthday).
A Taurus model 66 357mag with a 6" barrel. It was my do it all handgun. It was loaded at my bedside for home defense. The 357 was legal to use for deer hunting in Wisconsin. I enjoyed shooting it at the range. Having the ability to shoot 38 & 357 loads made it great to start with and enjoy.
In the late 90s a friend of mine from work was getting into big bore handguns and with doe only seasons in WI I started to shoot and hunt with revolvers. I started with a Super Redhawk in 44mag with a 9 1/2" barrel, a Contender 30-30, a 629 8 3/8 and a 657 7" 41mag (why did I sell that gun ????).
He had a 480 Ruger, 500 S&W, & 454 so I was able to shoot them also.
One thing that they all had in common was range time. I have always enjoyed going to the range. It doesn't matter if it's 22lr's, rifles for hunting big game, muzzleloaders, handguns, shooting clays, or patterning turkey loads.
I enjoy range time. Along the way I owned ammo eating AR & AK rifles sold them for something else. I also had a Savage model 12 in 300wsm man did it shoot!
I got into trying different rifles for deer hunting. Shotguns for turkey and upland. And revolvers. Everything was fun at the range.
Back to handguns. My big bore buddy was selling a Glock 22c for his brother and offered it to me. So this was my first defense semiautomatic. I tried to get that thing to shoot. Well my accuracy with it was terrible. I think I could throw it more accurately than shoot it. Tried new sights and every type of ammo I could find. Now remember I was shooting big bore heavy scoped revolvers. Smacking pop cans at 50 yards off hand.
The recoil impulse was different with the Glock and just didn't know if it was for me.
I sold it back to my buddy.
New phase...
I wanted to start shooting more and was ready to part with the big revolvers so I bought a XD 9 sub compact, a 1911 45acp, a Taurus 41 mag and others for what ever purpose I could dream up, but they all went to the range.
2011 Wisconsin has CWP licenses. Well our world is changing and I felt the need to carry. So I bought my first J frame a 642 and loved it gave it a family member. I tried several different handguns for concealed carry but really feel the best with a gun in my pocket.
I moved to Illinois in 2015 got my CCP
Moved to South Carolina in 2019 got my CWP. Back to Wisconsin 2022 got my CWP. I also have a Utah CWP.
My love of firearms and range time fits right in with CWP. Yes I have bought many handguns for carry both wilderness and city carry. I like shooting them as much as any other firearm I have owned.
My hunting is limited to mainly deer and turkey. Though I love viewing wildlife and visiting our parks and wilderness areas. CWP and concealed carry fits with my outdoor activities. I love to hike and everywhere I legally can I carry.
Being a gun nut that likes trying different types of guns fits wirh CCW.

By the way I have shot several different Glocks and want to give a Glock a second chance. Leaning towards a G20 for wilderness carry it should be fun on the RANGE also. Heck if I can't shoot it I can always throw it!!!

See you on the trails and at the range

 

[wayneinFL]

It's a shame the focus has kind of moved away from sport and hunting to defense. Defense is an ugly reason to own a gun, and there are so many fun things to do with firearms.

That said, this is how I got into firearms and shooting. I shot bb guns as a kid. I wanted a 22. First thing I was going to buy when I turned 18 was a 22 rifle.

By the time I was 18 I was married, and one of the things we hadn't thought to discuss was guns. Guns weren't allowed.

After 9/11, I was having a chat with some coworkers and they were talking about terrorists and guns and their concealed weapons permits. When I found out I was the only one working in these crappy neighborhoods unarmed and it was relatively easy to get a permit, I went to the gun show, and took the class. The one shot I fired at the gun show was the first time I fired a gun.

I got my permit, but didn't know anything about firearms. My first gun was a homemade Leinad derringer made from a kit- I welded the frame with batteries and 2/0 cable- it was functional, but I didnt have the nerve to fire it. I took a First Steps pistol course at a range close to work. Bought a Glock 30. Started shooting USPSA, because I still wasn't real comfortable with carrying a gun. Went hunting amd took my first hog with that Glock 30.

If it weren't for self defense and carry being a right, and being popular, I never would have picked up the hobby. Hunting and plinking wasn't important for me.

Being involved in the gun ownership, I had to educate myself- on firearms and the laws. I was never anti-gun, but I was the biggest Fudd you ever met. Guns were okay for hunting, but didn't see why anyone would want a handgun. Or assault weapon- I just thought that was a machine gun.

 

[Mark39]

So I guess my point is that often IMHO the self-defense aspects pollutes allot of threads that I would have been far more interested in as a hunting or competition or even collectors thread.

For me firearms are overwhelming about good times and good times are hunting, shooting, and competition with friends and family. The self-defense aspect falls into the same category as fire extinguishers. I research a good one, I learn to use it effectively, I keep it handy and well maintained. I don't really want to revisit that subject over and over.

Agree with you 100%. Talking about SD is pretty boring and gets into a rut. Not much to talk about there and it's been said a thousand times already. It's much more interesting to talk about collecting and recreational use.

 

[herrwalther]

I am not rich and I have a "collection" that likely wouldn't fill most other member's tiniest safe. I have just gotten to the point of getting "pretty" guns. I built a wall hanger muzzle loader that costs $1100 that will never see powder or a ball. And I ordered a very rare Henry that will only be shot a few times on nice days. The rest of my firearms are for self defense, home defense, or hunting in mind.

 

[mljdeckard]

My dad lived and died for deer hunting. Whenever I bought an old SKS or AR, his only question was; "Will that work for deer?" He didn't consider owning guns intended for fighting.

Pretty much all of the guns I own for purposes other than fighting, I inherited from him. But even that isn't very true. I own fighting guns he USED for hunting. (A 1917 Enfield, a M-1 carbine, etc.)

I think that people should own whatever gun they want for whatever (legal) reason they want to. But if you ever have to fight for your life, you will never say you spent too much focus, money, or energy towards learning to fight.