Firearm Experience and Politics
 

I'm curious. How many members of TFP have fired a firearm? Of those who have and have not, what is the distribution of pro/anti gun status? I'm mostly interested in the hypothetically nonstereotypical combinations; people who are pro-gun but have not fired a gun, and people who have fired a gun but consider themselves anti-gun.

So have you ever fired a gun, and do you generally consider yourself pro or anti-gun?

I have fired guns before, and I consider myself pro-gun. I believe the US should be a "shall-issue" country for concealed carry permits, and that the only gun legislation truly required is the National Firearms Act of 1934.

I have used all sorts of weapons, and I see no reason that a responsible adult should not be allowed to own one and carry it under most circumstances.

I am neither anti-gun nor pro-gun. I am anti pro-gun.

Then please elaborate.

I have fired a gun, and I see no reason for a person to be restricted from owning and using a gun safely and legally.

I live in Wisconsin, in an area where guns are plentiful. Easily in half the houses. I know many people who have used guns. I do not know of a single person killed or even remotely seriously harmed by a gun.

I fired a gun, still I'm sort of anti-gun.
I see no reason for a private person to be armed to the teeth.

firearmed and pro-gun.

I've fired guns, but I don't own one or have any plans to get one. Nevertheless, I fully support the Constitutional right of individuals to bear arms.

I'm not black or white on this issue; I'm not American and I don't live under that thing called the Second Amendment.

Instead, I see a lot of shades of grey - arcane policy questions about the degree and method of regulation. Even when I was at school a few years back (in my country where guns are "banned") the rifle club guys could still carry weapons across the grounds from the vault to the range without the whole nation engaging in emotive cultural warfare.

Having said all that, I've fired a .22 living in a democracy and an M16 while on holidays in an authoritarian country. They were interesting tools to use but I didn't get all emotional. I'm just barely anti-gun. Hey, I'm a gun "agnostic".:)

I have not fired a gun. I'm not against firing them, I just haven't had the opportunity. I am aware that certain regulations need to be made in today's society to allow it, but when the explicit right TO own firearms is put in front of our faces, it seems kindof rediculous to simply cut it out. I mean, the 2nd amendment..what that tells me is it was pretty high on list of priorities, and if the writers/founders of the Constitution made it such a priority, it would seem blasphemous to cut it out.

I own several guns, have fired them and am Pro 2nd Amendment.

A gun is a tool. It is neutral, neither inherently good or bad. The use to which it is put is what imparts a moral distinction.

Shooting a pedophile caught raping a child = Good

Shooting a clerk at the Circle K while robbing the cash register = Bad

I don't think I quite fit any of those definitions. I carried a gun on the job for a while a number of years ago (armed security work). I think people should be able to have firearms, but I do agree with licensing and registration, background checks, trigger locks and limits on things like hollow points and fully automatic weapons.

i have been finding that the question of whether you grew up around guns/hunting/etc or not explains alot about the politics of gun control, and that this experience and its implications cuts across all other political lines....i did not grow up around guns and it to some extent explains my wariness of them in particular and in general. i also live in a city--and have for most of my life--and seeing folk packing in a city is not the same as it might be elsewhere

It's very telling when people with no experience of something are opposed to it.

i have some experience with guns, art--if you were referring to me---but i did not live in a rural area, and hunting (for example) was not a part of my childhood--except with a bow and arrow, which i would do.

on the other hand, art, you have to admit that if you live in a city the hunting option is kinda reduced and the gun looks quite different--if you are carrying a gun to hunt--that is to kill something---in a rural space, you could be hunting any number of things--carrying in a city means you are most likely hunting people, or worried about being hunted. not the same space, not the same meanings. situation rather than experience, in this case.

I've shot lots of firearms since I was a child, own several and feel comfortable using them. However, the thought of an armed society doesn't sit well with me. I never feel very safe while visiting the USA (justifiable or not, this is how I feel).
I'm glad carrying concealed weapons is not allowed in my country (it just isn’t needed around here, thankfully).

B'loney. I live in a city. I do not hunt people. The other gun owners of my acquaintance do not hunt people. The overwhelming majority of gun owners are careful and responsible.

I enjoy target shooting; it is fun.

edit.....

if you are carrying a gun TO HUNT--that is to kill something---in a rural space, you could be hunting any number of things--carrying in a city means you are most likely hunting people

wasnt talking about target shooting. geez.

When law-abiding people carry a gun in a city it is for self-protection.

Note: Unless I state otherwise, my comments are always directed toward general trends and opinions in threads and not directed toward specific posters. That's how I operate on forums.

i should add that i do not have a consistent position on gun control matters---i have come to understand that much of my position comes from my background and intuitions based on that, and i havent done the research to get beyond that....so iam agnostic on the matter.

besides, i thought this was the thrust of the thread--i was writing to confirm that so far as i can figure out, there is a direct correlation past experience/background--positions on/about guns.

so i wrote before from my unease about guns in a city.
i did not pretend to have a comprehensive mystical intuition about why everyone who carries one might carry one.
what i will say is that i would feel alot safer in the city where i live if i knew that there were few-to-no guns.

but then again, if i was neurotic about the matter of safety, i would not every day ride my bicycle in the city--given how i lead my life, i have a much better chance of getting hit by some fuckwit in a car than being hurt by a gun. as for drivers versus cyclists...totally off topic i know.....but dont get me started..........

One could say that "people only carry guns in cities to defend themselves from people in the city who also have guns." Well, you can just as easily get attacked/killed by a person with a knife/blunt weapon, or even their bare-hands.

I think your question is of questionable value. Things aren't really black and white, and I think you already know what point you're trying to make. If I were you, I'd just argue it.

That said:

I think you can put gun owners into three broad categories:

1. Recreational users, like hunters and target shooters

2. People who purchase guns for protection

3. Criminals who use guns for protection and intimidation (and for shooting people, though they're a minority; I assume most criminals prefer to get what they want without murdering people.)

I suspect that a sizeable majority supports gun ownership for the first category (or wouldn't take their guns away). I'd even guess that it's an 80-90% majority. I also suspect that nearly 100% of people would want the third group, criminals, to not have guns.

To me, the gray area is in the middle. People who just have guns laying around. People who don't really know how to use them. People who might not really need them. These are the people who have firearm accidents in their homes, who try to shoot criminals, but accidentally hit innocent bystanders or family members.

To me, gun ownership by these people ought to be discouraged. They have every right to own one, but they endanger themselves and others when they choose to buy one.

So that's me; keep guns away from criminals, let responsible people own them, promote education, and discourage people who don't really need guns from having them.

My feelings about guns are too complicated to represent with simple for or against thinking. I have fired many guns and I find it an enjoyable experience. I don't own guns, though, nor do I plan on purchasing one.

I agree that the 2nd amendment does guarantee our right to bear arms as a protection from a tyrannical government, so I can't support any kind of roundup of guns, but I also wouldn't shed a tear if 99% of all guns (and the human propensity for violence...it has to be a package deal) disappeared tomorrow.

Until Superman or Jesus comes down and takes away our passion for killing each other, call me conflicted.

Edit: Come to think of it, if we could stop killing each other, than why not have guns?

Ok, I've fired mutliple types of guns, from shotguns for skeet, to 9mm pistols and M-16A2's (both semi and fully auto), and I have to say that I'm more aolng the lines of pro-gun than anti. I'd love to see a world where guns in general aren't necessary, but I'm also enough of a realist to know that sometime a gun is the best, and somethimes only defense available.
My mother is a better shot than I am with a handgun (thanks to being left handed and right eye dominant), and I'm glad to know that she can have a handgun in her house, and that she knows how to use if , if necessary.

Personally, I see a simple easy to understnad technological answer to the problem: Wheel locks. See, in the local supermarkets, when you take the cart outside the local supermarket, they stop working, because a radio transmitter there "tells" the cart that it's gone beyond it's usefull range, and a wheel lock kicks in, stopping it from working. Now, why can't people who want handguns for protection for their homes have the same thing? Say, you buy a home, or condo, or apartment. You get a gun, and it comes with a locking mechanism that, if you take it outside your home area, disables the firing mechanism? Poeple who want the handgun for protection have it, but they can't take the gun outside to use on the neighbors, or whomever.
You could also extend the concept to recreational hunters and the like, setup areas where the gun works only if they're inside a zone where the gun receives a signal OK'ing it to work, or after it's passed through a "reader" of some sort that ok's it for use for a specific time frame, or in a specific region.

I could definitely see where something like this would be disapproved of, second amendment-wise, but it would maybe ease the idea of gun ownership being an inherently evil thing for some people, since the guns would be designated for uses they were intended for.

Sometimes I just love this guy. Well said.

so you think someone should have fired a gun to see the problems involved with gun-ownership?

do you also think that some need to try hard drugs to oppose drug use?

I didn't use the word "should" and I won't be responding to a position I did not take.

I said "It's very telling...."

I have owned and fired various guns. Myself and my children are active members of our local gun club, and shoot at the clubs range at least once a month. Between that information, and my signature, one can make an educated guess about my stand on the issue.

That's fair, although not always applicable. I've never raped or been raped, yet I am opposed to that. You may call that a strawman if you like.

Also, "anti-gun" is like saying "pro-abortion." I am not anti-gun. I am for gun control.

Gotta agree with Kadath here. There's no reason that one has to have fired a gun to be opposed to them. What extra information might one collect from firing a gun? Would that be guarateed to change one's mind? I don't think it tells us anything, in fact I think your own bias is showing Art.

I was raised around guns (loaded gun in every room when I was a kid) own several and shoot them. It's fun, but I can still see their detrimental effects on society. Am I anti-gun? No. I don't think anyone should be allowed to own a full automatic weapon, but that doesn't make me anti-gun. Neither am I pro-gun, unless by that you mean that I think people should be able to buy guns for target shooting and hunting and collecting.

Perhaps that makes me gun-neutral.

I have fired a gun, and am very pro gun.

I feel that it is almost your responsibility to own a gun in America. Not only to protect yourself, and your home, but to let the government know that the people are still armed, and won't be walked all over.

I've observed that there is a higher degree of credibility that is nearly universally granted by normative humans to those with experience in a subject. I'm sure you've noticed this in life.
There are many people against drugs, for example. But in general, a person who has battled addiction and comes back with a strong anti-drug message is typically granted more credibility.

Perhaps there's a notion that I'm implying one can't have an opinion at all without experience. Well, this forum, filled as it is with countless informed and uninformed opinions on many subjects, certainly makes it obvious to even me that anyone can have an opinion on anything.

My point has to do with the amount of credibility that humans generally ascribe to those with experience in a subject. This is a no-brainer, when you think of it.

guns don't kill people, people do
i am anti-killing people
therefore i am anti-people

I'd like to hear more from the "I have not fired a gun, and I consider myself anti-gun" sector. What factors led you there, short of the actual first hand evidence you lack?

I'm a gun owner and operator.

One of my favorite T-shirts:

What kind of evidence or experience do I need to be allowed to be anti gun?

do I need to have killed someone? so I can say "gee, I can really kill with this"

or do I need to have a fatal accident in my family?

or should I try to be around a gang shooting or a robbery?

Obviously, one doesn't need anything at all to be anti-gun.

How much credibility one's position is granted by others is the prerogative of the others' in question.

Opinions are free. Credibility is earned.

Conversely, if someone has used drugs and does not consider them to be a life-destroying scourge, then they have less credibility in many American's minds. It seems that it isn't just the experience that gives credibility but whether or not an expected conclusion about said experiences was reached.

I have never fired a gun designed to kill people/animals. I have used airguns, but that's it.

I have never seen a gun IRL, unless you coun't one in a holster on a police.

I'm anti-gun.

800 000 swedes have a license to own a gun. (2000) To get a firearms license you need to get a hunter's exam or be a cop.

cthulu23, absolutely.
What I'm saying is that each individual grants credibility to sources and opinions according to personal standards. There is some measurable commonality to how folks tend to do that sort of thing.

Here's an example that goes to the point of this.

One of the advocates of increased gun control legislation that I give a great deal of credibility to is former Assistant to the President and White House Press Secretary, James S. Brady. Why do I ascribe an extra dose of credibility to his position? Because he was a victim of gun violence. And he was motivated to study and research the issues in an especially personal way.

As to the largest reason for my continued opposition to additional gun control legislation - in my opinion, we have more than sufficient regulation and legislation already on the books. The need is not for more legislation. The need is for enforcement of existing laws and regulations.

As always in this forum and on this board, I am not debating anything. I'm simply stating my positions as regards topics under discussion.

I do note that many people are interested in debating things here.
I'm not one of them.

Pacifier, therein lies the problem with the poll. It only had room to ask if you had fired a gun, not if you had other experience with it. My cousin shot his wife to death in front of their children; that is part of the reason I arrived at my current stance. I suppose if I fired a gun I would know more about firing guns, but I doubt it would make me want to own one.

Specious comparison.

Owning a gun harms no other person. It is a personal act.

Raping involves direct harm to another.

One does not have to experience a transgression against another individual to realize that such an act is a violation of their individual rights.

Another specious comparison.

A gun is a tool that one can handle with safety and responsibility - which the vast majority of gun owners practise.

Drugs are ingested, altering the mind and body. There is plenty of empirical evidence of the delterious effects.

Owning a gun is not inherently dangerous - the danger lies in how one handles it.

Fair enough! I did admit you could call it a strawman if you liked. I shall throw one other example out; feel free to argue with it as well.
I don't have any tattoos, though my of my friends including my girlfriend do. I don't need one to know I don't want one. I have seen many people regret the permanent marks they have made on their bodies, and I don't pretend to think any of the things I hold important today will still matter to me in ten years, when I will likely have children and a mortgage.

I think that you make an important point here...."experience with guns" means more than just handling firearms. The experiences of a trauma surgeon or police officer with regards to weaponry will differ greatly from that of a sportsman but are equally valid.

A bit more apt comparison. A tattoo is a matter of personal taste, affecting the individual who will have it.

It is not to your taste - but I do not see you advocating for a ban on tattoos which prevent others from adorning their bodies.

cthulu23: Yes.
As point of fact I did support the Brady Bill. That's exactly where I draw the line. The sad fact is that it has not reduced the rates of violent crime or murder. However, I accept the provisions for a waiting period and other regulatory provisions that it and other gun laws sustain. One can not paint all gun advocates with a broad brush.

In the same way, the label of "anti-gun" is too broad....there is a world of difference between advocacy for tighter controls (waiting period, background check, etc), limiting certain weapon/ammo types and all-out abolition.

One tangential point: haven't the rates of cartain violent crimes been on the decline for the last decade? I'm not claiming that the Brady Bill is or isn't partially responsible for this decline, but it does tie into your statement about the continuance of violence post-Brady Bill.

Crime rates are affected more by the economy than then are by gun legislation, imo. There is quite a bit of evidence, however, that when conceal carry permits are easier to acquire, the murder rates falls - FL is a good case study.

Here's a link from Newsmax. I know it's not a universally quoted source. I'm open to hearing about the stats others may have access to. If it's doing some good - so much the better.

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/8/1/183258

I think the problem people are having here is that it is not a universally transferable idea, and some of you are trying to do just that.

Just because Art's saying that experience tends to give one a higher degree of credibility does NOT mean that you have no credibility if you have NOT had experience.

A prime example: People always bitch about how "people who don't have kids shouldn't tell people WITH kids how to raise them." Society places a higher level of credibility in the parenting opinions of an actual parent, but that does not mean that if you are not a parent, you can't have any credibility.

Credibility can be gained in many different ways, without ever having a kid or tending for one- but we, as a society, will still place the most credibility in those with whom direct experience lies.

So, if you have kids- answer me this, and you'll know what I mean. If you had to pick a babysitter when you went out, and only had two choices- one, a woman of 30 who has a child of her own who is older than yours, or two, a woman of 30 with no children but who has "read up a lot on it and formed their own opinions"....

Which would most people choose? I think you know what I mean now.

i am skeptical of arguments that run: if everyone is strapped, then the murder rate will go down---simply because:

i cannot see the value of the dodge city 1880 western film model for interaction betwen civilized beings.

second it assumes that, again like a western film, everyone who is strapped will have their six gun in a handy holster at thier side and be able to whip the thing out at the critical moment without fucking up.

third because i do not think it is necessarily a good idea for everyone to have a gun in a situation that generates some level of fear--it seems to be a handy way to bypass negociation and go straight to a situation where people are likely to end up dead....

fourth because i would not personally feel any safer if i had a gun on me--i would worry far too much that if i were to use it in a stupid situation, that through no fault of my own, quite apart from my intentions, some passer-by might end up dead or maimed because even if i were to take a sudden interest in weapons and go to a firing range and practice ad infinitum, it would seem to me that in moments of real stress, real fear, my control over the minutae of the physical mechanisms required to be in more-or-less total alignment so as to aim the thing properly could not be counted on, and again, someone passing by, or sitting in a nearby apartment watching tv or talking to a friend, maybe a kid, could end up dead or maimed because of a stray bullet...and because regardless of your experience with weapons like this, it cannot be deined that a gun is something of an abstract mechanism the projectiles from which rip through all bodies/materials without differentiation.

and it would seem that walking down the street and happening upon such a situation would not be comparable with being in a war scenario because in a war scenario, such situations are part of the expectations you bring into the game. surprise like what i talk about above seems to me totally different.

i do not know how i would handle the balance between my sense of personal space and its defense as over against mowing down some kid by mistake. i dont know if i could deal with it. but i **do** know that once the gun was out, i could not be certain of what was going to happen.

as for credibility, i would think that one should have it granted in this kind of scenario because it requires only that one have lived a certain period of time as a human being, be able to imagine scenarios, and know something about your own reactions.

"An armed society is a polite societ."

For another viewpoint, roachboy, I recommend the very excellent scifi novel "Voyage from Yesteryear" by James P. Hogan.

i think that quote is madness.
and it says nothing about the substance of the post.

but i will check out the scifi suggestion--thanks.

let's say everyone did have a gun, and a scenario unfolded like the one i outlined above, and your nervousness caused you to, say, mow down a kid--how would you deal with it? as "collateral damage"? and how would killing someone by mistake not be an infringement on the rights of another individual in a kinda radical way? wouldnt the possibility of errors, and the consequences of them, run straight against the fetishism of the isolated individual so important to a libertarian viewpoint?

You are making a mistaken assumption that I would be nervous.

Own guns, pro-gun.
Grew up in South Africa with everyone killing each other, so I feel unsafe without them around.

If you are nervous having a gun, then simply do not have one, or do not ever use it. If you make a mistake while using a gun- assuming that you HAD to use it to begin with- then you face the consequences of your actions, just like with anything else.

It is irresponsible gun ownership and use that causes many of the gun problems in this country. Every time some fuckhead leaves a loaded gun under his/her pillow for their kid to blow their head off with, we hear about how horrible guns are on the news for a month. Bullshit.

maybe so--but i did not know that training/practice/experience with a gun would eliminate chance.
particularly in really nervewracking situations.

maybe that is the secret of training with a gun--that you eliminate all contingency.

i mean, i have been playing piano for 35 years--i have a shitload of training--i play in situations i can control, but which remain nervewracking--i would wager that i have as high a level of control over that instrument, have put more time in with it, as anyone of my age has with a gun---and yet i find that arbitrary things still go wrong. that you cant eliminate chance.

but maybe you're right: maybe a gun is different from any other object, and the zone around it magically transforms people from agents capable of error into perfect beings who can talk with absolute assurance about all possible situations.

i didnt know that about guns.

i guess i missed out.

and not to worry--i would not carry a gun---i dont like them---but i still am agnostic on matters of legislation.

Your sarcasm aside, it is a simple fact that if having one makes you uncomfortable, or if you feel you cannot handle the responsibilities inherent to gun ownership, then you should not have one.

Some people cannot handle knives well, and repeatedly cut themselves if they ever try to chop anything (in food preparation)... and many of them simply do not use knives unless they must because they know their limitations.

There is no shame in knowing your limitations.

i just dont see how this particular line of argument gets any of us anywhere, really--the thread was about a correlation between attitudes toward guns and bakc ground--i think we are confirming the correlation over and over.

i wasnt being particularly sarcastic---i was rephrasing the argument---what i find is that it is sometimes difficult to maintain an agnostic position because the particular attitudes of individuals who are passionate about gun ownership sometimes leads tham to make arguments that make others think--geez--is this really how people think about guns?--and maybe even prompts anti gun ownership people to move further into their positions because they think the other side is simply nuts.

the flip is also true---the people who have gradually backed me away from supporting gun control were those who grew up with them and who did not fall into logic problems in trying to explain their positions. **they** got me to listen, and to re-evaluate things.

btw---not liking guns personally is not a limitation. it is a position that is as coherent as your is--for people other than you.

Pro-gun/anti-gun, such a black & white choice isn't it? What about those of us who end up somewhere in the middle, like me for instance. Growing up in a very rural region of the mid-west I grew up with guns in my house just like everyone else that I knew as a kid did. Reflecting back on my childhood, though, I’ve realized something. When you grow up with guns in the house, you learn how to treat them with a great deal of respect and learn the proper do’s and don’ts of gun ownership (like never point one at anything you don’t want to kill, whether it is loaded or not). Like most kids I knew, I took gun safety courses and training exercises from our local chapter of the NRA and became quit a good marksmen too.

But herein lies the problem, many gun owners have never taken a gun safety course or ever been properly trained in gun ownership. Now, I share the common sentiment that most pro-gun people have, that any responsible adult should have the right to own arms, per the 2nd amendment. The problem I have is with the word “responsible” because as it is there is no real way to gage just how responsible a person will be with their guns. This is why I am in favor of gun handling training in all of our public schools, if nothing more then to teach people what to do if they happen to find a weapon lying around, and some form of gun “drivers licence” that shows that a person has satisfactorily completed a gun ownership safety and usage course (preferably one that is well established like those offered by the NRA). If a person is unwilling to take such a course then I don’t think that they should be allowed to own a gun because they have not demonstrated that they are a responsible citizen (just like people who don’t bother to resister shouldn’t be allowed to vote come election day). Would this be an undo burden upon gun owners? I don’t believe so as most people would be able to pass the course easily, and some of them could probably use a refresher course in gun safety anyway (I have met more then a few actually who I have wanted to smack upside the head for mishandling their weapon). So what does this make me? Pro-gun or Anti-gun? How about pro-gun for those willing to demonstrate that they are responsible enough citizens to exercise their 2nd amendment right.

In CA, one is not able to purchase a gun without having first taken a gun safety and handling course.

And we all know what a peaceful place California can be :)

I agree with this.

I'm joining the discussion a bit late.

I've fired guns, I've been fired at. Once was trespassing on an old man's property, and him shooting his shotgun and telling my friends and I to leave (I was young, and he was probably shooting into the air, but it was enough to scare the crap out of me and get me off his property in no time flat). The other time was in middle school when a 15 year old who stole his father's gun and thought he was some sort of gangster with it decided he'd try and be tough, luckily he didn't know what he was doing, and had horrible aim.

Now, I know some of those people who experienced that middle school incident are completely anti-gun. My take on it... The kid wasn't a licensed gun owner, he stole his father's gun. I do feel that gun owners should be licensed, and new gun owners should be required to attend some sort of training on handling, firing, and respecting the weapon you will soon own, and I fully support background checks.

Now, taking away our right to have guns... Those who want to use them for the WRONG reasons will find a way to get access to one if they really want to.

I'm still on the fence about automatic weapons.

Fired guns....and sold guns (legally at retail).
If current laws were enforced adequately....I would have no problem with individual gun ownership. I do however....dislike Charleton Heston....lol

I will not own a gun....as I have kids.