Olympic shooting competition and societal questions

[hso]

The more WE support shooting sports for Olympic coverage the more people will see there are athletes winning medals for the US in the Olympics in these sports. The more people see this as normal the more we can shift the discussion from violence and conflict to sport and competition and winning.

Here's the schedule for Sunday of events http://www.nbcolympics.com/news/preview-day-2-shooting 10 meter air pistol and women's trap are today.



Here are some interesting articles on the issues Olympic shooting sport competitors deal with a swimmer doesn't have to.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/luke-decock/article94012972.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...rasher-laments-controversy-gun-laws/88333030/

 

[yokel]

In all the argy–bargy that has happened and will happen, the press and the general public seem all to willing to disregard the core purpose and principal intent of the Second Amendment.

The amendment is not about shooting sports. It is not about recreation. It is not about hunting. It is only tangentially about defending oneself from a street-level criminal.

The Second Amendment is in essence about the people protecting themselves from governmental tyranny and ensuring “the security of a free State.”

 

[danez71]

I believe that most people think of Olympians as exceptional people and that Olympic sports presents a legitimate need for a gun.


CA used this public perception to their advantage - They specifically exclude certain guns by name from their AW laws with justification that those guns 'serve significant public interest';;;; and of course, everyone knows that Olympians can be trusted.

 

[jamesjames]

Yes. the purpose of the Second Amendment is to have every able bodied citizen own a firearm and train with it enough to be "well regulated"-- that is, to be able to hit to point of aim and contribute some measure of combat effectiveness to a militia. Hunting, recreation, and shooting sports all flow from this right and this need for the people to be able to form militia in an emergency.

Yet here we are, 225 years later, having to help the urban population re-discover the meaning of the Second Amendment and appreciate that guns in the hands of responsible stake holders is a civic and social good.

 

[yokel]

Yes. the purpose of the Second Amendment is to have every able bodied citizen own a firearm and train with it enough to be "well regulated"-- that is, to be able to hit to point of aim and contribute some measure of combat effectiveness to a militia. Hunting, recreation, and shooting sports all flow from this right and this need for the people to be able to form militia in an emergency.

Yet here we are, 225 years later, having to help the urban population re-discover the meaning of the Second Amendment and appreciate that guns in the hands of responsible stake holders is a civic and social good.

Indeed, the right to keep and bear arms derives from our duty to retain the basic means necessary to defend our country, our liberty, and certain fundamental rights secured to us by the Constitution of the United States of America.

In our defense of Second Amendment rights, we must emphasize the fundamental purpose of the amendment. If we leave the impression that we think that the right to keep and bear arms concerns hunting and sports shooting, thwarting your general street-level criminal, and allowing Americans a fun, interesting, and educational hobby, then we will actually contribute to the false view that the Second Amendment is a historical curiosity!

 

[natman]

In all the argy–bargy that has happened and will happen, the press and the general public seem all to willing to disregard the core purpose and principal intent of the Second Amendment.

The amendment is not about shooting sports. It is not about recreation. It is not about hunting. It is only tangentially about defending oneself from a street-level criminal.

The Second Amendment is in essence about the people protecting themselves from governmental tyranny and ensuring “the security of a free State.”

You're right. The press and the general public don't have a clue about the core purpose of the Second Amendment. Which makes the public relations battle going on all the more important and anything that portrays shooting in a positive light is a good thing.

 

[627PCFan]

"and of course, everyone knows that Olympians can be trusted. "

Haha, unless your Oscar Pistorius with a 9mm

 

[yokel]

You're right. The press and the general public don't have a clue about the core purpose of the Second Amendment. Which makes the public relations battle going on all the more important and anything that portrays shooting in a positive light is a good thing.

The man in the street as well as the political class just can't face up to the fundamental purpose of the Second Amendment.

Why don't they want to know?

My hunch is that it is because the subject matter is too heavy and it's therefore necessary to pretend all ammunition and firearms are to be possessed solely for lawful sporting purposes either between marksmen in target shooting competition or between men and beasts in hunting.

 

[bannockburn]

jamesjames

Yes. the purpose of the Second Amendment is to have every able bodied citizen own a firearm and train with it enough to be "well regulated"-- that is, to be able to hit to point of aim and contribute some measure of combat effectiveness to a militia. Hunting, recreation, and shooting sports all flow from this right and this need for the people to be able to form militia in an emergency.

Very well stated!

 

[COMPNOR]

When I saw the air rifle and the trap, it got me thinking about not exactly 3-gun, but something a bit more "tactical" with shooting steel plates. Rifle (AR) or pistol. It'll never happen, but I think it would be cool.

 

[FL-NC]

My observations: 1. I bet no host country complains when their shooters bring them a medal that came from shooting 2. Some competitors have to leave the country that they represent in order to go somewhere that they can practice, in order to win a medal for their country to brag on 3. The olympics represents the shooting sports (and all other sports) in a positive light- skill, safety, and responsible handling by the athletes is exemplary. If people still want to bray and bawl, let them. They don't have to watch.

 

[JTHunter]

danez71 said:

I believe that most people think of Olympians as exceptional people and that Olympic sports presents a legitimate need for a gun.

As stated, the media doesn't WANT people to see any legitimacy in guns.
Don't you remember the news coverage a few years back when it came out that the British shooting team was forced to go to the mainland because they couldn't even practice in England?

Talk about hypocrisy!

 

[P5 Guy]

Didn't an Olympian pistol shooter have to leave California because the pistol had the magazine before the trigger instead of the grip frame?

 

[ATLDave]

While I reckon about everyone on THR agrees that self-defense and defense against tyranny are the reasons that the RKBA are constitutionally protected, those are not the predominant uses of firearms on a daily basis. For every round fired in America that is used to hurt someone, thousands of rounds are fired at paper, cardboard, steel, clay, and game animals.

This is an important data point, because so much of the opposition to the existence of guns flows from the perception that guns have the "purpose" of killing, or are "made to kill people." Well, if that's the case, then either all of my guns are defective or I'm shooting wrong. Because I've never shot anyone, and the overwhelming odds are that I never will, nor will I ever need to. Helping people who are not into guns understand that there are millions and millions of Americans having safe fun with guns helps diminish the sense that guns are inherently "evil," or exist primarily to enable "evil."

Moreover, some restrictions seem "modest" if one only considers the constitutional right to maintain some self-defense capacity. For instance, BGC's on all ammunition (or ammo component) purchases. If one only shoots 100 rounds per year to keep a basic level of proficiency sufficient to ward off a home invasion and maintains a stock of 50 rounds of SD ammo for that contingency, then undergoing a single BGC for an annual purchase doesn't sound that onerous to a non-gun person. Furthermore, to a non-gun person thinking only of SD uses of guns, there is no apparent "need" for bulk purchases of thousands of rounds (or rounds' worth of components) other than some ominous "arsenal" building exercise.

But top-tier competitive shooters have to shoot many, many thousands of rounds per year (per week in some disciplines). Being unable to order online would mean quickly exhausting the inventory of local brick and mortar merchants and/or being subject to ruinous levels of repeated BGC fees.

So I agree with the OP. While shooting sports may not be the reason for the 2nd amendment, they are nevertheless a very important use of guns. And they can illustrate to non-gun folks a benign/beneficial use of guns that also makes some seemingly-modest restrictions very onerous and unfair in practice.

 

[natman]

Didn't an Olympian pistol shooter have to leave California because the pistol had the magazine before the trigger instead of the grip frame?

Possibly, but probably not. The CA Department of Justice has a list of exempted target pistols.

http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/op.pdf

 

[jmorris]

The more WE support shooting sports for Olympic coverage the more people will see there are athletes winning medals for the US in the Olympics in these sports. The more people see this as normal the more we can shift the discussion from violence and conflict to sport and competition and winning.

Yeah but then they will point out they have removed centerfire events and the Pentathlon replaced firearms or even air rifles altogether with "laser" toys for the shooting part.

 

[rodregier]

Anything that helps normalize "possession of firearms by non-gov't agents" in the mind of the public is a good start. It's of course not the only message on the topic.

 

[John Joseph]

Sadly, the Olympic Rapid Fire Pistol target has gone from a simplistic silhouette to a bullseye because the powers that decide such things thought it more acceptable to the public, but I digress.
Anything which promotes shooting sports to the wider public can be seen as a good thing. International status only makes it better. What we need is more opportunity for youth to participate---build the bunker traps and turning targets and running game ranges, and they will come.

 

[yokel]

So I agree with the OP. While shooting sports may not be the reason for the 2nd amendment, they are nevertheless a very important use of guns. And they can illustrate to non-gun folks a benign/beneficial use of guns that also makes some seemingly-modest restrictions very onerous and unfair in practice.

Don't you realize that to de-emphasize the fundamental purpose of the Second Amendment is folly? How often do we hear unscrupulous anti-gun leftists blather about their strong commitment to the Second Amendment while simultaneously mentioning hunters and sportsman's rights? The reality of the matter is that we are in an ideological struggle with gun control proponents endeavoring to make the right lose all relevant meaning!

 

[ATLDave]

yokel, you're talking about the meaning of the second amendment. I'm talking about something different. There are many people who are uncomfortable with guns and aren't going to be swayed by the "sometimes some people need shooting" argument. Regardless of whether that's what the founding fathers meant. They don't care what the second amendment means, so arguing with them about what it means (or even proving to them what it means) doesn't help make them more gun-tolerant.

For these people, helping them understand that the ratio of fun-shooting to hurt-people-shooting is thousands and thousands to one can make them shift underlying attitudes. I've seen it happen.

Maybe this will help make it clear: The purpose of the second amendment is hardly the ONLY reason to have guns and to allow others to have them. Identifying ADDITIONAL reasons to let people have guns does not detract from the reasons that motivated the second amendment.

 

[yokel]

In the end, the future role of the Second Amendment in constitutional law will depend on whether the people recognize a high constitutional value in the preservation of an armed citizenry.

The right to keep and bear arms derives from our duty to retain the basic means necessary to defend our country, our liberty, and to resist tyranny, if necessary — something that is very difficult to do if the government has all the weapons.

This is not to say that the shooting sports or hunting weren't anticipated uses for arms, particularly on the frontier. But it must be emphasized repeatedly that these things are not the core purpose of the Amendment.

 

[old lady new shooter]

"and of course, everyone knows that Olympians can be trusted. "

Haha, unless your Oscar Pistorius with a 9mm

Or the two boxers currently sitting in jail for sexually assaulting the maids in their respective dormitories.

 

[ATLDave]

In the end, the future role of the Second Amendment in constitutional law will depend on whether the people recognize a high constitutional value in the preservation of an armed citizenry.

OK. So what? It's clear that the Courts are not going to strike down every - nor even most - restrictions on guns. So that leaves quite a bit up to the political process.

If your plan to win the POLITICAL battle over gun control begins and ends with tri-cornered hats and calls to water the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots, you're going to lose a lot.

 

[yokel]

OK. So what? It's clear that the Courts are not going to strike down every - nor even most - restrictions on guns. So that leaves quite a bit up to the political process.

If your plan to win the POLITICAL battle over gun control begins and ends with tri-cornered hats and calls to water the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots, you're going to lose a lot.

We've already lost it all if the plan is to deliberately distort the true historical record. The leftist historical negationism that you espouse is a form of historical revisionism that presents a re-interpretation of the moral meaning of the historical record. It amounts to a reversal of moral findings, in which the heroes, good guys, or positive forces that took part in winning American independence and creating the United States of America are depicted as villains, bad guys, or negative forces.

 

[Mike OTDP]

The key is to use the Olympic connection as an icebreaker. You can talk about 2A all you please, there are some people just not listening.

Not to mention the immediate applicability of the international shooting disciplines to oppose onorous laws. Particularly on amounts of ammunition, etc.