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.