Creating new gun owners out of many anti-Gun folks?

[I6turbo]

the protection, the maintenance of law and order, that a lot of people thought they could count on from the police is becoming less and less reliable. And dramatically so in some areas

Is that last part really true though?

Surely you're not seriously suggesting that police protection isn't becoming less reliable in some areas. Have you seen the police standing by and watching burning and looting and mayhem? And the mass police retirements in some cities combined with an inability to attract new recruits, or lack of funding for the department?

Granted, in the huge majority of cases it's because a liberal mayor or other blue - - - - hole official has ordered the police to stand down. Or, the officers are exercising a little common sense and self preservation if they think they might be railroaded into jail themselves, or otherwise have their lives destroyed if they enforce the law. But the reason why citizens can't count on protection is irrelevant at the time it's happening to an individual, and more people are realizing now that self defense may at times come down to them actually defending themselves. There may not be anyone else there to to protect them.

 

[Howland937]

Most anti-gunners I have met are just brain washed by the left to the point they don’t want anything to do with guns. They don’t know enough about gun to tell the left they are lying.
I think my new neighbors are anti gun because every time I’m loading my huns on the truck for a trip to the range, they grab the kids & run inside. LOL

They don't run for their lives any other time?
I don't run from any of my neighbors, but I'll sure walk briskly in the opposite direction...and it hasn't got a thing to do with guns.

I do agree than the uninformed are nearly as bad as misinformed. Uninformed does insinuate the possibility of becoming informed. Misinformed generally means they already know all they think they need to.

 

[.308 Norma]

Uninformed does insinuate the possibility of becoming informed. Misinformed generally means they already know all they think they need to.

I'm pretty sure my dad would have told you I was "misinformed" about most things when I was 16.

 

[AK Hunter]

They don't run for their lives any other time?
I don't run from any of my neighbors, but I'll sure walk briskly in the opposite direction...and it hasn't got a thing to do with guns.

I do agree than the uninformed are nearly as bad as misinformed. Uninformed does insinuate the possibility of becoming informed. Misinformed generally means they already know all they think they need to.

I don't know any other reason they would have that reaction, but he's the type I don't want to get to know. He doesn't have a job & openly admits he smokes pot. Not a gun type & probably never will be.

 

[Basura Blanca]

Surely you're not seriously suggesting that police protection isn't becoming less reliable in some areas. Have you seen the police standing by and watching burning and looting and mayhem? And the mass police retirements in some cities combined with an inability to attract new recruits, or lack of funding for the department?

What I was asking is whether or not that's the impetus for people's turnabout on gun ownership. Most people are a little more grounded, imo. Anecdotes from a NY Post piece don't provide true objective data on that. As for looting and mayhem or crime in general, if we're to believe the media like the OP's article, it's out of control and people are running for their lives in places like BH. Reality says otherwise though. This is no different than the media's portrayal of the threat of "ghost guns", gun show "loopholes" or the "gun violence" epidemic in general.

 

[armydog]

If the point ever comes when either guns or nukes are actually used for these purposes, the results would be unthinkable. So this "prevention of tyranny" argument is theoretical only.

The Bundy Ranch Standoff was not theoretical. The BLM agents knew they bit off more than they could chew. They released the horses and slunk away in disagrace. Why? Because they were about to be killed by armed citizens defending the ranch.

And make no mistake, the government's worst nightmare is getting into another bloody battle with citizens defending their rights. That is what the higher ups fear more than anything....not BLM looters and rioters burning their cities to the ground.

 

[AlexanderA]

Let me throw out one more thought about how new gun owners might reconcile their gun ownership with their antigun views. It has to do with "slamming the door behind you." Most antigun proposals deal with acquisition (background checks, qualifications, etc.) rather than possession (assault weapon bans,etc.). Therefore, the thinking goes, once you have your gun, further restrictions won't affect you. (This is actually an incentive to get your gun now, before more restrictions are in place.)

And gun ownership can be considered a zero-sum game. If I have a gun, and you don't, I'm obviously in a stronger position than if both of us had guns. "It's good for me, but not for thee."

What I'm saying is that the premise of solidarity among all gun owners may be false. People may be acting primarily in their own self-interest, and not in the collective interest of gun ownership in general.

 

[GEM]

You know people have studied gun ownership. A general and modal view point is that:

1. Law abiding folks can own guns for self-defense, primarily. That is a general attitude.
2. They support laws and procedures to keep guns from the hands of criminals and those not mentally fit to have them.

Thus, gun ownership is supported but also supported are background checks (certainly NICS as is) and for private sales. Bans on the higher capacity weapons have some support depending on the moral panic of the moment.

If a law abiding citizen can buy a gun, even with a bit of paper work, that's ok. Is there a solid base for shall issue laws - yes. Constitutional carry - yes in parts of the country. No weapons type bans, yes - in general but pockets of outrage (depends on urban area). Does the general fear of a civilization fail and/or dictatorial government (pick your flavor of right wing or left wing) start to move more to gun owership - yes.

My view - welcome all law abiding citizens who purchase firearms, independent of other political views. I would welcome support in a similar manner for the First Amendment. For instance, book banners of the right (OMG, sex) or left (OMG, microaggressions) - are the enemy of democracy. Funny, though most folks are ok with banning their personal bad thing - the hell with liberty. Thus, the folks who complain that the new gun owners are not their view of political correctness have a limited view of liberty.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

I've been asked by a fellow who I worked with if I can help teach his girl friend to shoot. I've taught the NRA Pistol course as well as have been a concealed carry instructor in two states so I've some experience with this. I look upon it as an opportunity to pass along some knowledge and make a case for our "cause".
He's a college grad student and I assume she'll be a student as well as he told me she's Russian. It will be after the holidays and I hope to make it a positive and non-threatening experience for her. I'll post something about it after it happens.

 

[mope540]

I'm glad that formerly ignorant people now support the 2nd Amendment, and that they might finally understand that the anti-gun elitists in charge are NOT concerned for our safety.

side note...I love reminding people of the story of an anti-2nd extremist representative from NYC, Grace Meng, who was assaulted and robbed in D.C., another 'gun-free' zone. Sometimes i like those muggers...not sure why

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...0/rep-grace-meng-attacked-robbed-reports-say/

her anti-gun record
https://www.ontheissues.org/NY/Grace_Meng_Gun_Control.htm

 

[AlexanderA]

1. Law abiding folks can own guns for self-defense, primarily. That is a general attitude.
2. They support laws and procedures to keep guns from the hands of criminals and those not mentally fit to have them.

In the real world, these two goals are contradictory. If law-abiding people can freely own guns, eventually, by one means or another, some of those guns will fall into the hands of the criminals and the crazies. If you want to prevent criminals and crazies from getting guns, you have to severely restrict the access of the law-abiding.

But even in countries with draconian gun laws, criminals still get guns. Therefore, goal #2 is simply unattainable. We might as well tilt in favor of easy access.

Our basic problem is that public opinion doesn't square with realities.

 

[LOLBELL]

Gun ownership is not a "sport." And guns are not "tools." They are iconic, and for a lot of people, a gun -- or even just the ability to have a gun -- is central to their existence. This is something that the antigunners, isolated as they are in their enclaves, simply do not understand. What is happening is that more and more people are discovering the centrality of gun ownership. As things go from bad to worse in this country (the pandemic, the economy, etc.), having a gun is the last refuge of the quietly desperate.

I can agree gun ownership is not a sport. But a gun is definitely a tool.

1. Something regarded as necessary to the carrying out of one's occupation or profession.
2. Something used in the performance of an operation; an instrument.

The tool I use to dispatch chicken snakes in my hen house is a revolver. The tool I use to rid my pasture of coyotes is a bolt gun. The tools I use to protect my family and I are a variety of hand guns. Guns are tools used to do a specific job. Sometimes a tool is misused, just as a wrench being used as a hammer. If not a tool, what? JMHO and YMMV

 

[Will Munny]

My take is that the focus on the "Beverly Hills" gun owners is really off the mark. Most truly elite people still live in places without crime and have no fear of it. They are far more afraid of the rank and file of the country having firearms to use against them.

What IS however significant in my mind is the "upper middle" that previously was filled with many people that were either anti-firearm or perhaps neutral, but have now been exposed to enough crime to worry, and are not able to move into seven figure house neighborhoods to escape. This group is numerically far more significant than the top 1%, and they have the means to acquire firearms if they so choose.

However, this second group will likely only retain interest as long as a threat remains visible, but for now with crime on the rise and the fresh memory of un-quelled riots I would say they might stay in the camp. Converting these people is the real key. And for that I suspect a more favorable impression will be made by ambassadors who:

1. own firearms for defense rather than for sport
2. come from urban or suburban areas
3. are not presenting themselves as extreme enthusiasts with a small arsenal, but rather someone with a few firearms that shoots occasionally.

 

[AlexanderA]

Calling a gun a "tool" denigrates its importance. It's like calling one of your vital organs, such as your liver or kidney, a "tool." The whole reason we, as a society, are having this gun debate, is the centrality of guns to a lot of people. If they were merely "tools," they could be replaced, as the case may be, by other "tools." But they rise to the level of magical talismans. There's a lot of emotion attached to guns, something that's lacking when it comes to saws or wrenches. And nobody contends that there's a constitutional right to own saws or wrenches.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

With liberal DA's in liberal cities having crime erupt and reach out to even rich people's homes where one was recently murdered many people are arming themselves. Some people have never owned guns before and many might have even been anti-gun.


Could this be a positive that the situation is causing new gun owners from many people that used to be anti-gun?



https://nypost.com/2021/12/09/beverly-hills-residents-arming-themselves-after-murder-violence?utm_source=yahoo mail&utm_campaign=android_nyp

"...some people are taking safety into their own hands."

News flash here, peeps...you've ALMOST got it right.

Your safety was ALWAYS in your own hands, you were just told to believe it wasn't.

HOWEVER...always glad to see more people come to this realization.

Perhaps it'll open the door to more intelligent conversation on related topics.

 

[Zendude]

I don’t think the rise in gun ownership is going to affect the anti-scary looking rifle sentiment which is what is really what is on the front burner of the antis right now. My guess is that the first time gun owners are buying compact pistols, getting some basic instructions, and putting it in a drawer. I doubt it will change anyone’s mind about magazine capacity bans and scary rifle bans.
Maybe I’m just a pessimist, but I do hope I’m wrong.

 

[The Glockodile]

They’ll be celebrity priced, tactically over dressed, over coifed and cater to the rich and famous. VIPs and movie folk will gush about how great they are and they’ll be demonstrating their abilities on the late night TV circuit.

That's what we do over our tatted goateed baldies with the tactical grimaces on YouTube

 

[The Glockodile]

Calling a gun a "tool" denigrates its importance. It's like calling one of your vital organs, such as your liver or kidney, a "tool." The whole reason we, as a society, are having this gun debate, is the centrality of guns to a lot of people. If they were merely "tools," they could be replaced, as the case may be, by other "tools." But they rise to the level of magical talismans. There's a lot of emotion attached to guns, something that's lacking when it comes to saws or wrenches. And nobody contends that there's a constitutional right to own saws or wrenches.

 

[Kleanbore]

Calling a gun a "tool" denigrates its importance.

How so?

 

[Howland937]

Calling a gun a "tool" denigrates its importance. It's like calling one of your vital organs, such as your liver or kidney, a "tool." The whole reason we, as a society, are having this gun debate, is the centrality of guns to a lot of people. If they were merely "tools," they could be replaced, as the case may be, by other "tools." But they rise to the level of magical talismans. There's a lot of emotion attached to guns, something that's lacking when it comes to saws or wrenches. And nobody contends that there's a constitutional right to own saws or wrenches.

Our individual relationship with guns can be as simple or as complex as we wish. They're most certainly tools in some regards the same way a vehicle is merely transportation. If that vehicle is only used to commute to and from work, it's only the means to that end. If a gun is only needed for defense or to harvest game, then it's boiled down to it's most basic purpose.

Guns, like vehicles, can represent much more than the very basics. The existence and content of THR is a good indicator of the multiple layers of gun ownership and use. While I don't doubt the importance of an 18mm ratcheting wrench(been waiting 2 months for Snap-On to fix one), I can't imagine that forum having as many members.

 

[armydog]

My take is that the focus on the "Beverly Hills" gun owners is really off the mark. Most truly elite people still live in places without crime and have no fear of it. They are far more afraid of the rank and file of the country having firearms to use against them.

What IS however significant in my mind is the "upper middle" that previously was filled with many people that were either anti-firearm or perhaps neutral, but have now been exposed to enough crime to worry, and are not able to move into seven figure house neighborhoods to escape. This group is numerically far more significant than the top 1%, and they have the means to acquire firearms if they so choose.

However, this second group will likely only retain interest as long as a threat remains visible, but for now with crime on the rise and the fresh memory of un-quelled riots I would say they might stay in the camp. Converting these people is the real key. And for that I suspect a more favorable impression will be made by ambassadors who:

1. own firearms for defense rather than for sport
2. come from urban or suburban areas
3. are not presenting themselves as extreme enthusiasts with a small arsenal, but rather someone with a few firearms that shoots occasionally.

Its funny how you left off Combat Veterans and current or former LE.

Maybe you could've thought out that narrow list a little better and maybe include those of us who have used them a time or two.

Some of us no matter how many guns we have are still just regular people.

 

[rust collector]

The best part about new gun owners is the realization that the gun doesn't prompt them to commit mayhem, shoot up schools or rob filling stations. It does provide a chance to emerge unscathed which likely did not exist previously. It provides a measured response to a threat that has become more real now that media brings it into our living rooms every night.

I do believe guns are tools. Tools are made to be used. Proficiency comes only from regular use. Some will realize this and some will not.

 

[AlexanderA]

How so?

If guns were merely tools, we wouldn't be having this debate over the meaning of the 2nd Amendment (and, indeed, we probably wouldn't have a 2nd Amendment in the first place). We're discussing guns, and their place in society, precisely because they transcend the concept of "tool." They're instrumentalities of survival, freedom, etc, in the way that no ordinary tools are. Nobody has an emotional reaction to mere "tools" the way they do to guns.

 

[AlexanderA]

I don’t think the rise in gun ownership is going to affect the anti-scary looking rifle sentiment which is what is really what is on the front burner of the antis right now. My guess is that the first time gun owners are buying compact pistols, getting some basic instructions, and putting it in a drawer. I doubt it will change anyone’s mind about magazine capacity bans and scary rifle bans.
Maybe I’m just a pessimist, but I do hope I’m wrong.

The new owners, I think, fall into two categories: (1) those that are scared of crime, and (2) those that are scared of a right-wing coup. You are correct as regards the first category -- they are buying handguns, or maybe shotguns. But the second group is buying military-looking rifles, to put themselves on a par with what they believe the right wing to have. Not that they believe a civil war is right around the corner, but they are doing this out of an abundance of caution. That's a rational response to what they see every night on CNN, MSNBC, etc. I've never been more worried about what I see happening in this country.

 

[BrazilianSnowMan]

Last week I took a childhood friend to the range.
I taught him and his wife to shoot, first with a 22 bolt with optic 4×32, then 38, .40 and 12 pump.
They loved so much this sport that they asked me to take them to the gun store and they paid one 12 ga identical to mine, even before they start the procedures to get the documents.