The Serious Gun Owner

Status
Not open for further replies.
Frankly, the biggest problem we face is the attitudes we see of each different "group" seeing another "group" as owning for the wrong reasons.

Many years ago I belonged to a club that supported many different shooting disciplines. I came to the following conclusions:

Benchrest shooters hate high power shooters.

High power shooters hate IPSC shooters.

IPSC shooters hate shotgunners.

Shotgunners hate everyone.
 
I have a hard time taking people who own solely for sporting purposes seriously....

Yet somehow they manage to go on with life.

I'm thinking you take yourself a little too seriously.

To me, guns are more than just a hobby. Or a sporting implement. I don't IPSC, I don't hunt, and I have shot at targets, but I'm not a Palma shooter, or a Biathlon competitor. I mainly shoot either at a range, or in the outdoors at imporvised targets. That isn't a "sport" like deer hunting, or high-power rifle is a sport
.

I find it difficult take seriously those who don't follow a rigorous training schedule. <end sarcasm>
 
Basically, I worry about this. Sports are hobbies. If my hobby concerning guns is plinking, how seriously will you fight for my right to plink with a 9mm pistol? Or an AR-15?

To me, guns are more than just a hobby. Or a sporting implement. I don't IPSC, I don't hunt, and I have shot at targets, but I'm not a Palma shooter, or a Biathlon competitor. I mainly shoot either at a range, or in the outdoors at imporvised targets. That isn't a "sport" like deer hunting, or high-power rifle is a sport.

So basically, there seems to be no shooting dicipline at all that you have taken the time to work toward being proficient at, but you are somehow "more serious" than those who have? I know quite a few pistol shooters who would beg to differ. Above-average competitors are WAY more dedicated to doing what they do than your average-bear gun owner or fudd. Believe me.

The only gun owners whose motives I will question are those who own guns for no other purpose than to plaster them all over facebook to promote some sort of misguided tough-guy image. Unfortunately, I know a couple. Even then, I'm inclined to try to steer them toward a somewhat more diciplined mindset when I can, rather than alienate them.
 
The attitude that bothers me (and perhaps is what the OP was getting at) is the; "Since I don't need it or want it, it's not worth my time to fight for it" or "as long as they don't come after my ***whatever***" kind of attitude. I've seen this type of attitude when it comes to the AWB from several comments on THR. We each can't just be concerned about our particular niche, but we must be involved (or serious) about gun ownership as a whole. Not sure if that's what he meant, but that's my feelings, so that's how I read it.
 
That sort of attitude seems to be a lot more prevalent in the fudd crowd than the competitive one, in my opinion.

I would say a majority of competitive shooting is done with guns that are the usual ban targets: "high cap" autopistols and AR15's.
 
I have a hard time taking people who own solely for sporting purposes seriously
I have a hard time taking people who bounce around the word "serious" seriously. I actually avoid such folk. Especially if their view of shooting sports appears to be limited solely to the sport of defense training.
After 45 years of firearms ownership, hunting, plinking, target shooting, and yes carrying for defense....I'm still not serious in the eyes of the "SERIOUS". :rolleyes:
 
People in general shouldn't be taken seriously. I only take seriously the people who earn it.

The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms is something that should be taken seriously.

"The People" will invariably include some folks with whom you might not want to spend the afternoon. They too have rights whether or not you approve of their seriousness or lack thereof.

I encourage you to broaden your horizons and warmly greet everyone you see at the range. And while doing so, try to listen more than you talk. ( And I say this with the utmost respect towards you. ) You'll probably be amazed at some of the stories you'll hear.

I was next to a couple guys one day at the range with my son, and I noticed they were shooting an old Mauser. Turns out one of them was a German exchange student attending college here in the U.S. Not only was he enthralled with the privilege of just spending the afternoon shooting a variety of firearms, he was absolutely reverential in his handling and firing of the Mauser. I don't know what the laws are like in Germany, but this kid acted like a Catholic who'd been granted unfettered access to the Vatican archives. It appeared to be something he had only seen in pictures, or maybe a museum.

He certainly didn't appear very "serious" to me, but it was obvious that the experience was meaningful to him on number of levels. Not something that would have happened had his host deemed him "not serious" enough to warrant an afternoon at the range.

Lighten up and spread the good word of things that go bang to all who will listen. And to those who will listen, your attitude says volumes more than your words ever will.


As you were.........
 
This book got me to thinking. To me, the people in it who "resonated" the most to myself were the gun owners who owned because they felt it was an essential part of civil rights. (the Jewish man from Kentucky on page "Kevin" on 110 couldn't have put it better).
Sorry for the thread necromancy, but that's me, I'm Kevin from Kentucky, and that's my dog Buddy. :D
 
I shoot for sport. I enjoy it. I introduced my family to shooting and they enjoy it.

I used to hunt but the grocery store sells meat cheaper and treats my legs better.

I own guns for another reason and that reason is serious.
 
Thoughts?

I think you need to learn something about personal boundaries, both yours and others', that's what I think, as I write this hypocritically.:D

Seriously, I have some of my guns for sporting purposes only. I hunt and I enjoy clay shooting, pistol competition, etc., and non-military firearms are the best choices. I have a few for "civil rights" reasons, if you can call it that.

However... I have never met anyone who had "sporting" guns, who wouldn't use them to defend himself, his family, or his community, for that matter, should the situation arise. Not everyone who owns guns sits around and wanks to Red Dawn, though. They don't need to.
 
If you look on your gun collection in the same manner that someone who's into golf looks at their bag full of golf clubs, you're not a serious gun owner.

So viewing each firearm as a tool with a specific purpose, and collectively as a hell of a lot of fun on a sunday afternoon makes me "not serious"?? Whay do I have to have a "serious" reason to own a firearm? Why do I have to have a reason? When you send a joke via e-mail and utilize your first amendment right to free speech, are you no longer a "serious speaker"?

I can't take seriously people that take themselves so seriously.

Why do I have to be a crusader for guns in order to own one? I don't routinely particpate in pro 4th amendment rallies. Am I not worthy of protection from unreasonable search and seizure because of that? Then why the lithmus test for my firearm?
 
Last edited:
I take guns very seriously. It is gun owners as a group that I find it increasingly hard to avoid thinking of derisively. Every one of us knows better than every other one of us. G_d save me from my allies.
 
Ain't all of us like that.

Why do I have to be a crusader for guns in order to own one? I don't routinely particpate in pro 4th amendment rallies. Am I not worthy of protection from unreasonable search and seizure because of that? Then why the lithmus test for my firearm?

I don't know that everyone who owns guns expects you to be a crusader, but I do believe you need to shoulder the load with the rest of us.
 
I do believe you need to shoulder the load with the rest of us.

Why? Why can't I just enjoy shooting my guns at ________ targets, XXXX times per year? Can't I do that without participating in any political issue?

The idea that a person must meet a political lithmus test in order to be considered a "serious" gun owner is insulting and bigoted.
 
Last edited:
Well all is fine with gun ownership as long as we stand together. I do not hunt or have a hunting rifle but I have a lot of C&R rifles I shoot. I do not shoot matches for I have nothing to prove to anyone or myself:D:D I know how bad I shoot some times.

I have my "assault rifles" that I shoot and when I go to the range it is for fun and to relieve stress and it works great as a stress reliever.

Here is a little story for you how I met a Fudd: I was shooting with my friend one day at a private range for fun and I fired on 30 round mag pretty quickly from the side (you know like how pelosi say we mow people down with) just to see how hard it is to hit the target.:banghead::banghead: Maybe 8 in the black some outside and the rest:confused::confused:.

Well one of the people owning the range came close to running out there and said something to the line of: We were make to much noise and it better to fire one shot and hit the target then to shoot many and not hit were you aim.

I was kind of thinking that guy is an idiot but he must have been thinking the same about me. I am all for right to own guns, so don't go and act like you are better than me because it is a privilege to talk to me about what I am doing wrong because I do not hunt or target shoot.

Defend yourself with whatever you feel is the right tool I will use either a pistol or shotgun <<< note my choice.
If I have to hunt then I will use any other tool I have available ( ak, ar, hk91, k98k, mosin nagant) <<< also my choice.

We all come with our choices so don't talk bad about someone's choice because it does not conform with your believe and the will respect you for it.

Note this might be looked at as a rant.:D:D
 
A serious gun owner follows safety rules and supports the RKBA, beyond that they may own guns for multiple and various reasons.
 
Serious:
Without humor or expression of happiness; grave in manner or disposition; earnest; thoughtful; solemn; Important; weighty; not trifling; leaving no room for play; needing great attention; critical.

Gee, where do I sign up? Sounds like a great recruitment poster for ascetics or perhaps flagellants - can we get a logo with our horsehair underwear or do we wear the sackcloth and ashes only? I nominate Cotton Mather as our first interim president.

THERE WILL BE NO JOCULARITY!
225px-Cotton_Mather.jpg

Anecdotal, and on a personal level only, but several folks at my sporting clays club are NRA benefactor members while I've had several "serious" handgun range ninjas explain to me at length why they don't feel the need the contribute to any pro-gun organizations. Not being satisfied by their own lack of will, they will cheerfully go online to explain to others why they shouldn't contribute either.

Life is too short for you to spend it fretting about whether I'll be there when your EBR is under attack - do your part and quit worrying about trying to herd cats. Just make sure you're there when they start talking about "arsenal licenses".

It's probably just me but I have something of a negative view of "serious" in the context of firearms fora. A number of unpleasant images pop up, quite unbidden, when the word is mentioned:

I see posts from people loudly decrying being swept with a disassembled gun.

I read reports of folks emailing sympathetic radio hosts chastising them for being photographed with bad trigger discipline - thus convincing the individual we're a bunch of bedwetters.

We're so serious we'll actually go out of our way to post Youtube videos of people making gun owners look like lunatics thus scuttling any chance that the thing will just go away - this is no doubt a subset of the logic that compels people to post "troll!" in a thread thus propelling it to the top of the page.

We go out of our way to alienate writers that cast us in a favorable light because they weren't absolutist enough to suit us (Abigail Kohn - not that I expect anyone to remember). Excoriated on every forum she visited - I was sooo proud of our serious brethren. /sarcasm.

They scold our own membership when photos are taken of the muzzle end of a firearm.

I read pompous declarations stating that there is no such thing as an accidental discharge - only negligent. Repeatedly. Over and over again. Did I mention it's repetitious?

We engage in endless debate over magazines, clips, long Colts, MIM, EDM, Ford, Chevy and can cite minutiae. When we're being serious we have an uncanny ability to spot fly droppings in ground pepper. And care. We'll chase away newcomers that we desperately need if they use the wrong terminology.

We are uncritical when something serious comports well with our prejudices and will cheerfully post links to dead polls, breathless whining over HR45 and 14 year old Australian statistics offered up as "fresh last week". We are suckers for chain email.

...granted, most of low opinions I hold on "serious" are likely a personal problem.

Still, I believe it was Jeff Cooper that was growing weary of "The California Scowl" whereby someone would complete his string of fire then glare menacingly at the adjacent dividers before holstering his weapon. Presumably the "California Scowl" distinguishes serious practice from mere practice.

Lighten up.
;)
 
I have a hard time taking people who own solely for sporting purposes seriously.... and though I want as many people who legally can be armed to be armed as possible, I can't shake that feeling.

Thoughts?

Here's my thoughts...

A person who owns a gun *only* for some sporting purpose would be willing to give up that gun when the need for that purpose no longer exist. Example: I'm old and I don't hunt anymore, so I'll sell my guns. This person is less likely to recognize the reasons of others that don't pursue his sport.

A person who owns a gun because it is a right and for self preservation is not going to be willing to give it up until he stops breathing.
 
To me (and, sometimes is seems to be only me) a "serious" society would have no ninnyhammers in a twist over any collection of tools I own.

I own a collection of hammers, each with a specific general use; my skill sets with each vary, my "need" for them varying too over time and situation. Oddly, I find I cannot leave some of those hammers out in plain sight or non-secured.

My Klein electrical tools are similar as well.

I am a serious tool owner and user. Would that I could do that in peace and the company of persons of similar bent.

Until that happy day, I will persist in doing what I can to bring that day to us all, and to resist those whose bowels water at the mere sight of a 20oz framing hammer (heaven forfend they espy my Titanium TIBAR 12 http://www.stiletto.com/now-available.php)
 
A person who owns a gun *only* for some sporting purpose would be willing to give up that gun when the need for that purpose no longer exist. Example: I'm old and I don't hunt anymore, so I'll sell my guns. This person is less likely to recognize the reasons of others that don't pursue his sport.

A person who owns a gun because it is a right and for self preservation is not going to be willing to give it up until he stops breathing.

Without meaning to sound, argumentative... Why?

Why is owning something for recreation, and being willing to sell those items when the recreation ended automatically mean that person would be less willing to fight for others rights to use these items as they see fit?

To take this in another direction, lets discuss something besides guns. If this were Free Speech, would you berate the Science Fiction or Romance author for not using their ability with a pen to espouse the right they are excercising when they write their fiction?

Not everyone is a political commentator, and yet everyone use the right of Free Speech. From frivolous posts on an internet forum discussing the latest NFL draft picks to writing letters to their congresscritter.

Would you think lesser of those authors simply because they write for "fun". Isn't "pursuit of happiness" one of the fundamental three inalienable rights?

Why then would you think lesser of someone who was a sportsman hunter and is now too old to hunt, and decides to repurpose those weapons via cash into some other hobby he can pursue in his old age?
 
There are no "serious" gun owner sin my opinion. There are only gun owners. In these trying economic times, we need any support and hard earned dollars flowing into the industry.

I have no right to judge another man's values or political ideals based on his purchase and habits. I own several firearms and quite frankly it is no one's business but mine as to why. That's a two way street. Don't know why anyone else owns guns legally and I don't care.

This sounds like a division within the community we don't need. Quite frankly it sounds a little too "holier than thou" for me to partake in. I vote as I see fit and do whatever I can to support the 2a ideals. But I never want to be called a "serious" gun owner, since that infers I am more important than some other fellow firearm aficionado. With all these people wanting to take our rights away, why must we distance ourselves based on "serious" vs "whatever" or "glock" vs "1911." I feel a Rodney King quote coming on...:D

I mean seriously, it's annoying. I hate it when some guy at the range walks up and tells me that my Kimber jams alot even though it hasn't in 2000+ rounds. Or the guy with the race 1911 looks at me all snooty if I pull a Glock from my case. I mean dang, we're all shooters or gun owners. We just shoot at different stuff with different boom sticks. I mean seriously, gun hobbyists excluding gun hobbyists is akin to someone being left out of a gay pride parade for not being gay enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top