Autolycus
Member
Doggy Daddy: I have seen anti's ask for statistics to back that up. It is not the group but the individual. That is the most important thing to remember.
How gun people are different
- Thread starter Owen Sparks
- Start date
- Status
RangerHAAF
Member
You are right. The general population does not really care one way or the other about guns or our right to carry them. We do and we organize to vote for people who share our beliefs. The anti-gunners are fighting to take them away from us; this concept is just as important to them as keeping them is to us.
The one thing that can kill us and undermine our position is apathy on our part. Right now we gun owners are strong politically and respected but I remember the summer of 1994 and how we were dismissed as being irrelevent to the election in that year. I don't think they'll make that mistake again so soon but you never know when they'll try.
The one thing that can kill us and undermine our position is apathy on our part. Right now we gun owners are strong politically and respected but I remember the summer of 1994 and how we were dismissed as being irrelevent to the election in that year. I don't think they'll make that mistake again so soon but you never know when they'll try.
Welcome Owen. Looks like you touched a sensitive nerve here, and we are the better for it. Thanks for the post.
I happen to disagree with your general typing of both gun owners and non-gun owners. I, for one, do not fit your generalization. At the risk of some here never "speaking" to me again:
On the gun side:
BUT...the following things are also true about me:
So, I don't fit your generalization very well, but as you indicated, it's only a generalization. I welcome a diversity of gunowners. It's the only way we will ever protect our American right to keep and bear arms.
Sheesh...did I really post all this?
I happen to disagree with your general typing of both gun owners and non-gun owners. I, for one, do not fit your generalization. At the risk of some here never "speaking" to me again:
On the gun side:
- I own 11 handguns, 4 rifles, and 2 shotguns.
- I shoot at a range to develop my shooting skills.
- I carry.
- I do think about possible SHTF and TEOTW scenarios.
- I defend the 2nd amendment when I hear others criticize or attack my right to bear arms.
BUT...the following things are also true about me:
- I am left-leaning in my politics on many social issues.
- I care far more about people than things.
- I am a social studies teacher type (though I have been in a corporate IT company for years), more likely to associate with psychologists, social workers, booksellers (my wife), human resource folks, fine artists, and "moderates" of all caliber and breed.
- I do have conservative, gun-owning friends, but (and I hate to say this!), they tend to be more suspicious and uncomfortable with me because of my not sharing their total conservative agenda, than are my more moderate and liberal friends that hate guns and my adamant defense of the RKBA. Okay, jump me for this one guys and gals!
- I am a seafood/vegetarian type. Obviously, I don't hunt.
- I do watch the Discovery and History channels, but I also really like American Idol ( Paris Hilton?
So sad.)
So, I don't fit your generalization very well, but as you indicated, it's only a generalization. I welcome a diversity of gunowners. It's the only way we will ever protect our American right to keep and bear arms.
Sheesh...did I really post all this?
Joe Demko
Member
The OP forgot that gun owners also tend to be handsomer, sexier, and better dressed than non-gun owners.
WeThePeople
Member
I agree with your theory that most people just don't care. In fact, I think that it applies to almost every issue. You've always got a small batch of people making a bunch of noise (I call them 'screamers') about something that someone else is doing that rarely, if ever, causes any harm to anyone.
Then there are 300 million other people sitting at home watching the boob-tube minding their own business, wanting to be left alone, and not wanting to get involved. They really don't care one way or the other, just as long as no one tries to tell them what to do.
They just sit there until the screamers start screaming about something that they are doing whether it be guns, porn, abortion, religion, sexual preference, SUVs, whatever. Then, a small slice of that group is forced to be involved in the debate. Not because they harmed anyone at all, but because some screamer somewhere decided that they didn't like something.
Then there are 300 million other people sitting at home watching the boob-tube minding their own business, wanting to be left alone, and not wanting to get involved. They really don't care one way or the other, just as long as no one tries to tell them what to do.
They just sit there until the screamers start screaming about something that they are doing whether it be guns, porn, abortion, religion, sexual preference, SUVs, whatever. Then, a small slice of that group is forced to be involved in the debate. Not because they harmed anyone at all, but because some screamer somewhere decided that they didn't like something.
+1 Demko and Frandy
I know I'm "a little bit different" than other people, but that's most likely because I have a mechanical view of nature and care more about understanding the mechanisms at play than the actual occurences (in terms of psychology, sociology, and anthropology). In other words, each society and culture can be broken down into individual interactions which have their own sort of laws. The art of haggling, for example. Personally, I don't really care about sports; instead, I'd rather understand why individuals take pleasure from sports, understand it's rules (including the "unspoken" rules about acceptable conduct), observe the cultural significance of each sport, and the ever-changing interactions between players, teams, fans, news services, etc. I don't find myself emotionally involved in many areas of life, and I don't find it hard to grasp (and empathize with) multiple attitudes and perceptions about any given source of debate. Some people think that I'm cold/aloof, others that I'm noncommittal. I suppose that attempting to be objectively rational will give off that appearance, though it doesn't bother me.
I try not to talk too much, as I'd rather listen and make whatever words I say count. This may be the longest post you read from me. I lurk a lot of forums and post little; I've been a member at one particular forum for 4 years this August and I've not yet broken 150 posts.
I don't believe that I fit the gun-owner stereotype at all. I go to gun shows mostly for the anthropological benefits. I don't think I've ever bought more than $40 worth of ammo or gun parts at a show, though I meander through and talk to vendors for hours each time.
I'm slow to anger and slow to forget.
I know I'm "a little bit different" than other people, but that's most likely because I have a mechanical view of nature and care more about understanding the mechanisms at play than the actual occurences (in terms of psychology, sociology, and anthropology). In other words, each society and culture can be broken down into individual interactions which have their own sort of laws. The art of haggling, for example. Personally, I don't really care about sports; instead, I'd rather understand why individuals take pleasure from sports, understand it's rules (including the "unspoken" rules about acceptable conduct), observe the cultural significance of each sport, and the ever-changing interactions between players, teams, fans, news services, etc. I don't find myself emotionally involved in many areas of life, and I don't find it hard to grasp (and empathize with) multiple attitudes and perceptions about any given source of debate. Some people think that I'm cold/aloof, others that I'm noncommittal. I suppose that attempting to be objectively rational will give off that appearance, though it doesn't bother me.
I try not to talk too much, as I'd rather listen and make whatever words I say count. This may be the longest post you read from me. I lurk a lot of forums and post little; I've been a member at one particular forum for 4 years this August and I've not yet broken 150 posts.
I don't believe that I fit the gun-owner stereotype at all. I go to gun shows mostly for the anthropological benefits. I don't think I've ever bought more than $40 worth of ammo or gun parts at a show, though I meander through and talk to vendors for hours each time.
I'm slow to anger and slow to forget.
Some of the observations in the original post seemed to have a ring of truth to me.
Like any generalization, there are always going to be exceptions.
FWIW, I do agree with the point about celebrity worship. We have not had any broadcast or cable TV in our home for 3 years. You should give it a try: once you get the constant stream of commercialism and celebrity hype out of your system, you will start to feel like the vast majority of people you meet have been brainwashed.
Generally, I do find that people who hunt, people who own guns, people who have gardens, and people who ride horses tend to be more reality based than the general population. Before somebody chimes in to say they have a great aunt Alice who rides horses and is obsessed with American Idol, please note, I said GENERALLY. I recognize that THERE ARE ALWAYS EXCEPTIONS.
Like any generalization, there are always going to be exceptions.
FWIW, I do agree with the point about celebrity worship. We have not had any broadcast or cable TV in our home for 3 years. You should give it a try: once you get the constant stream of commercialism and celebrity hype out of your system, you will start to feel like the vast majority of people you meet have been brainwashed.
Generally, I do find that people who hunt, people who own guns, people who have gardens, and people who ride horses tend to be more reality based than the general population. Before somebody chimes in to say they have a great aunt Alice who rides horses and is obsessed with American Idol, please note, I said GENERALLY. I recognize that THERE ARE ALWAYS EXCEPTIONS.
turtlehitman
Member
I'm weird I admit it.
Mongo the Mutterer
Member
...We like things and concepts related to things. We tend to have jobs and hobbies that reflect this. Not necessarily...
We are more likely to be head of maintenance than head of human resources. Had to think a bit about this one... If those were the only two positions available, I'd take HR and delegate all the PC Crapola...
We are more likely to be engineers or work with computers than be councilors or social workers. Yep, but I really dislike most engineers...
We would be surgeons rather than pediatricians or psychiatrists, yup, not much on kids, and I have an urge to slap people with "problems" that we all have to cope with...(maybe cutting on them would work
mow grass rather than wait tables. Yup
When we do watch TV it is likely the History channel or Discovery channel. Okay....
We like to hunt, fish, ride motorcycles and participate rather than watch other people play sports.Not much on hunting, I live to fish, and love to participate...
When it comes to gun owners, I think we can all safely generalize that they:
1. Own guns.
2. Probably own bullets as well.
If they are CCW permitted we can probably safely assume that they:
Believe in the right to protect themselves and/or others with firearms.
But I thank you for thinking I am a better human being for owning guns.
1. Own guns.
2. Probably own bullets as well.
If they are CCW permitted we can probably safely assume that they:
Believe in the right to protect themselves and/or others with firearms.
But I thank you for thinking I am a better human being for owning guns.
Flyboy
Member
First, let me say that the Owen's description pretty much fits me to a "t."
That said, I'd like to turn his observation on its ear. I posit that he's confused correlation and causation, resulting in a hypothesis that's almost perfectly backwards.
Consider: gun owners are not more likely to be logical, creative, thoughtful, self-reliant, independent people; rather, what if I assert that the logical, independent person is more likely to be a gun owner?
I started pondering this theory when I noticed how many pilots we have on the board, and thought about it in light of a study I read that claimed some 90% of pilots are, to some degree or another, control freaks (personally, I doubt the study--I think it's nearer 98%). I really started thinking about it when I thought about how many pilots I know have concealed carry permits.
Gun ownership--and, particularly, carrying a gun--is perhaps the ultimate expression of self-determination and self-reliance. Gun owners have a device that has the potential to cause great damage, and yet wield it in a way that rarely causes injury or unintended consequences. Owen mentions surgeons--how different are a gun and a scalpel? Both are tools that, used carelessly, can cause tremendous damage, and yet, are typically used with skill to accomplish a desirable objective. For that matter, consider the logger's chainsaw: again, huge destructive potential, and yet, used with precision, bring down tree after tree without injury.
Gun owners are tool users, and masters of power. We wield our power just as a surgeon wields a scalpel: with deliberate intent, to achieve our desired aim precisely, without undue damage.
And yes, we enjoy our exercise of power. There's nothing shameful in that: it's the human condition. Think back on our history: conquering the sea, the air. We turned exceptionally powerful combustible fuels--bordering on explosives--into engines that let us traverse waterways, continents, the air, even space itself. Gun owners use combustibles and power recreationally, and our highest prize--the Nobel--is named after a man who harnessed the raw power of explosives for constructive ends.
So I again assert that gun owners aren't those people, but rather that those people are gun owners. We use guns as a tool, and we use them as recreation, but it all comes from our desire--nay, our inborn craving--to control ourselves, our environment, our destinies. Owning guns is just an expression of our close relationship with the desires and aspirations that have spurred on humanity since the dawn of time.
That said, I'd like to turn his observation on its ear. I posit that he's confused correlation and causation, resulting in a hypothesis that's almost perfectly backwards.
Consider: gun owners are not more likely to be logical, creative, thoughtful, self-reliant, independent people; rather, what if I assert that the logical, independent person is more likely to be a gun owner?
I started pondering this theory when I noticed how many pilots we have on the board, and thought about it in light of a study I read that claimed some 90% of pilots are, to some degree or another, control freaks (personally, I doubt the study--I think it's nearer 98%). I really started thinking about it when I thought about how many pilots I know have concealed carry permits.
Gun ownership--and, particularly, carrying a gun--is perhaps the ultimate expression of self-determination and self-reliance. Gun owners have a device that has the potential to cause great damage, and yet wield it in a way that rarely causes injury or unintended consequences. Owen mentions surgeons--how different are a gun and a scalpel? Both are tools that, used carelessly, can cause tremendous damage, and yet, are typically used with skill to accomplish a desirable objective. For that matter, consider the logger's chainsaw: again, huge destructive potential, and yet, used with precision, bring down tree after tree without injury.
Gun owners are tool users, and masters of power. We wield our power just as a surgeon wields a scalpel: with deliberate intent, to achieve our desired aim precisely, without undue damage.
And yes, we enjoy our exercise of power. There's nothing shameful in that: it's the human condition. Think back on our history: conquering the sea, the air. We turned exceptionally powerful combustible fuels--bordering on explosives--into engines that let us traverse waterways, continents, the air, even space itself. Gun owners use combustibles and power recreationally, and our highest prize--the Nobel--is named after a man who harnessed the raw power of explosives for constructive ends.
So I again assert that gun owners aren't those people, but rather that those people are gun owners. We use guns as a tool, and we use them as recreation, but it all comes from our desire--nay, our inborn craving--to control ourselves, our environment, our destinies. Owning guns is just an expression of our close relationship with the desires and aspirations that have spurred on humanity since the dawn of time.
pcosmar
member
That is interesting, Owen's description almost describes me, mostly.
But I have no guns.
But I have no guns.
pacodelahoya
Member
Not, me, I'm normal, everyone else is weird.
Joe Demko
Member
This thread needs a pivot man.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Deleted
Last edited:
SoCalShooter
Member
Really? I thought I was the only one.
Back on topic however, gun owners ARE everyday Americans what we have a problem with is the media and the damage they do to us everyday. We have to all take friends and family to the range and help them get interested. We are not different from them, we just own guns thats all.
Black Adder LXX
Member
I'm actually more of a people person. I love teaching new shooters, blah blah...
And the Dolphins are the best, they just hide it by losing a lot...
And the Dolphins are the best, they just hide it by losing a lot...
gyp_c2
Member
ha...
...you guyz are nutz...
I never listen to the voices coming from the safe...But if I did, it wouldn't bother me...bother me...bother me...
...you guyz are nutz...
I never listen to the voices coming from the safe...But if I did, it wouldn't bother me...bother me...bother me...
- Status
