Why not "pass it on" now? What do you think?

[Big_John1961]

If statistics say the average gun owner is 55 and older, then the sport is not growing, it's declining.

Not if a lot of 50 year old-plus folks are getting into shooting sports, which wouldn't surprise me a bit. I seriously doubt the sport is dying. All indications are that just the opposite is happening.

 

[Ed Ames]

Not if a lot of 50 year old-plus folks are getting into shooting sports, which wouldn't surprise me a bit. I seriously doubt the sport is dying. All indications are that just the opposite is happening.

That's something a lot of people miss.

I know a guy, 51 years old, talking about buying his first gun. He is, because his wife is. Last I heard they signed up for a gun class of some sort the wife found on Groupon that allowed them to fire a few rounds through a variety of pistols, and were considering getting CHLs, but they hadn't actually bought their first gun yet. 50+ years old and poised to "join the ranks".

 

[Big_John1961]

Fair enough. It does seem a lot of people here do get it, and others will agree. Really, for people with a safe full of firearms, it's just old iron collecting dust and has no real impact on sustaining the civil liberties for the next generation just sitting there. That's my point.

You seem to know an awful lot about people you've never met. You don't know that people are just letting their "extra guns" collect dust. You've no idea.

Your idea that giving away firearms as a way to "preserve" 2nd Amendment rights may have merit on some level, but you have no empirical data to back it up. That, however, has not stopped you from passing your opinion off as fact and throwing in a few disparaging remarks while you're at it.

 

[Big_John1961]

I really don't see how just handing a gun, ammo and even the skills down to the next generation is going to preserve anything other than the entitlement mentality, of which we already have too much. Teach them history, take them shooting, teach them skills. If it's your own kids, maybe even a gift of a gun on their 18th/21st birthday or Christmas. Maybe pay for a CPL class or certified training course.

But a gift of shooting iron is irrelevant and does nothing to preserve the 2A if the gift ends with the gun.
Gun ownership in itself does not preserve the right to gun ownership. This seems like an attitude of "I did my part" without actually doing much of anything.

Now that makes sense.

 

[Big_John1961]

You need more than one data point to show a trend. Also, the average says nothing about distribution among those of different ages.

Otherwise, I like your point!

Welcome to THR!

 

[Ironicaintit]

Fair enough. It does seem a lot of people here do get it, and others will agree. Really, for people with a safe full of firearms, it's just old iron collecting dust and has no real impact on sustaining the civil liberties for the next generation just sitting there. That's my point.

Precious metals and the means of delivery!
All that stuff is part of a well planned investment portfolio.
I have to think of my familys well being down the road, too.

Values and skills can be shared without philanthropizing all your stuff away.
And that is how you figure out who is deserving of your stuff!

 

[FireInCairo]

Pass it on!

 

[FireInCairo]

Precious metals and the means of delivery!
All that stuff is part of a well planned investment portfolio.
I have to think of my familys well being down the road, too.

Values and skills can be shared without philanthropizing all your stuff away.
And that is how you figure out who is deserving of your stuff!

No one said to give all your stuff away. There are plenty of people with more guns than they need or could ever use. Those people are in a position to pass a decent firearm along to someone else who can't afford one.

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

Those people are in a position to pass a decent firearm along to someone else who can't afford one.

If they can't afford a gun, then they probably also can't afford to shoot it.

 

[BSA1]

Touche'!

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I hate to be a naysayer but I don't think giving guns to people who may not have enough interest in the sport to buy their own gun will really do anything to help protect or inform people of the 2nd Amendment. This is just my opinion and no one is obliged to agree.

As folks have pointed out, many of the younger generation, for what ever reason, choose to spend their money on things other than guns and ammo. That doesn't mean they wouldn't appreciate the gift, but if they didn't values firearms ownership enough to find a way to buy their own, then it's not like giving them a free gun is suddenly going to generate a NRA life member. It will more likely be that an unused gun in your safe will become an unused gun in their sock drawer. It certainly may inspire some though.

Personally, I work hard for my money and use it on things I want and need. I guess I don't see why other people my age (34) or of any age should be handed something I worked for because they can't or won't do the same. I've always valued things I've had to work for a lot more than things that were handed to me.

If it's a young relative and you want to give them a gift you know they will appreciate, then have at it. If I have any kids my guns will go to them. If not, my friends and remaining family will get them when I die, or if no one has any interest, they will be sold. I'm sure not going to give them away now though.

I think if you want to get someone into the sport, and make them aware of the 2A, then you are better off taking them shooting and showing them what a valuable skill it is. Provide some ammo and fun, and they may just decide they care. Offer to help them choose a gun if they express an interest in buying their own.

I think the notion is nice, but I just don't think it would really accomplish the intent. I have seen a sense of entitlement in folks younger and older than I on many occasions. The complaining that people have student loans is absurd to me. It's a loan...... you know what you signed up for. So choose a practical major, and get a job when you're done. Then you can buy your own guns and ammo, or a boat, or whatever. I'm not saying all young people, just some I've encountered which seem relatively representative of a larger group.

I have no kids, and am not particularly social, so my opinion is admittedly skewed, but I think you are better off passing on solicited knowledge and solicited skills rather than physical objects or assets.

JMO

 

[buck460XVR]

If they can't afford a gun, then they probably also can't afford to shoot it.

I hate to be a naysayer but I don't think giving guns to people who may not have enough interest in the sport to buy their own gun will really do anything to help protect or inform people of the 2nd Amendment.

I tend to agree with both of the above statements and feel the idea of just giving someone a gun to shoot is similar to this....

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

I go to Estate auctions all the time. I see what folks without a real desire or love of guns do with firearms that have been "passed on". I also know of folks that have firearms but don't have the desire to spend the monies to feed them. Giving someone a gun is no guarantee they are going to get into the sport. Give that same person the opportunity to shoot and expose them to positive and enjoyable experiences with firearms and they may just continue, even if they have to buy their own gun. I have turned many folks on to the shooting sports over the years, and most are still shooting. I have yet to give any of my guns away.

 

[Ironicaintit]

No one said to give all your stuff away. There are plenty of people with more guns than they need or could ever use. Those people are in a position to pass a decent firearm along to someone else who can't afford one.

I fully agree with your premise.

But the donation of a firearm will not automatically inspire the person you choose.
First, you have to see the persons interest. Then as you share the knowledge and philosophies of responsible firearm ownership and all it entails; one can then choose if the person is in fact, worthy to own one of the dust collecting baubles we have idling in our safe.

Its a wonderful idea! But putting the cart before the horse is usually a bad idea.

 

[USAF_Vet]

No one said to give all your stuff away. There are plenty of people with more guns than they need or could ever use. Those people are in a position to pass a decent firearm along to someone else who can't afford one.

Sounds scary close to redistribution of wealth. Sorry, can't get on board with this.

 

[Jonzer77]

If statistics say the average gun owner is 55 and older, then the sport is not growing, it's declining.

Where did you get these stats from? I find it hard to believe that the average owner is 55.

 

[chicharrones]

Sounds scary close to redistribution of wealth. Sorry, can't get on board with this.

How is the willing donation of something the same thing as government mandated redistribution of wealth?

 

[USAF_Vet]

Never said mandated. But the same words have been used to advance the redistribution concept. "More than one person can ever use or need" is not an argument I can or will support. If the individual believes they have more than they need, or can use, and chooses to, then fine. But that should be their decision, not influenced by some outside source as such a great idea to preserve and advance our rights for the future generation.

 

[USAF_Vet]

The average gun owner is above 50.

State your source, please. Preferably, state multiple sources that support this statistic.

In other words, gun ownership is shrinking, not growing!

Life expectancy is increasing. If anything, that would mean gun ownership is closer to being static.

Moreover, the average gun owner owns more guns than he can use at once. Would it be so bad if you gave away that extra rifle, pistol, or shotgun you have collecting dust in the safe?

Technically, three handguns or two long guns would be more than anyone can use at once.

But who cares? How is that a metric to set any sort of standard? Who are you to say who many is too many, or that they sit unused in a safe collecting dust? Some wild assumptions.

Maybe your kids already own guns. Good, find someone who doesn't, but is interested and of legal age and status and "pass it on!"

Pass on the skills, sure. Pass on the desire, absolutely. But sorry, I don't have anything 'extra' as each gun has a specific role and purpose.

Got a nice young couple next door? How about your kid's friends you met at the 4th of July cookout yesterday? What about your daughter's friend who lives alone?

What about them? Can they not purchase their own guns? If they had the desire, but not the means, maybe. If they had the need, but not the means, absolutely. But just because? Nope.

Take them to the range, tell them you've got a gift for them, and... pass it on!

I'll take them to the range any day of the week. I'll let them shoot my guns, even. But I don't gift guns to anyone, other than maybe family heirlooms that I know aren't going anywhere.

No sense in taking them to the grave where uncaring heirs sell them off, or, God forbid, give them to the gun buyback program.

If I thought this was an issue, and I'm hopefully very far from the grave, I'd bequeath them to someone in a will. Estate planning is not difficult while you're still alive, and if you care about your stuff, you'll plan for it.

 

[FireInCairo]

Look, this is a grassroots movement. If you aren't on board, fine. Suit yourself. If others wish to "Pass it on!" more power to them.

It doesn't take a statistician to recognize the most gun-friendly culture is the baby-boomer generation. They grew up children of veterans, and they had the opportunity to grow up with a lot of financial benefits that others have not had the last 20 years.

It would do this country well for them to take a firearm and "pass it on."

John F. Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

There's no doubt this would strengthen the 2nd Amendment support in our nation.

PASS IT ON!

 

[45_auto]

There's no doubt this would strengthen the 2nd Amendment support in our nation.

I've seen plenty of doubt expressed in the 93 posts above yours, and I fully agree with them.

You could do more to help your cause among gun owners if you had some actual references instead of just your opinions and feel-good statements with no basis in reality.

 

[Baron_Null]

Complaining about the younger generation seems a bit off topic, but as long as we're here, I might as well address the issue of student loans.

I've seen a lot of people in this thread suggest it is solely the poor decision making abilities of young people to choose a career path that lands them in a large amount of debt without a means to pay said debt, and while I agree that in the end it is the decision of the individual, there also doesn't seem to be an understanding of the lack of education regarding, ironically enough, education.

Having been out of the secondary educational system for only a few years now, I can say that it's not made clear to students the options they have, at least in my area. From elementary school students are groomed in preparation for college, not for life in the professional world. From a very young age it is pounded into the minds of young people that the only two options that exist are to go to college or to essentially squalor in poverty with the only option for work being low-level service industry jobs. Nothing is ever mentioned of the trades, and the mere implication that you're not going to college earns you dirty looks and lectures about your future. Very little is explained about the intricacies of the job market, and market over saturation of fields is never brought up as even a consideration, let alone a critical factor in your potential for future success. What I'm trying to say here is that many young people aren't being taught to think of college as a means to an end in terms of a professional goal, but rather are (as much as I loath to use the term) indoctrinated to believe that college is -the- goal.

Some people (like myself) are lucky enough to escape the "system" and find other avenues for education and employment. Others, however, never think to ask if college is the right choice for them, and instead end up in debt for a useless degree simply because they were never informed that there are other options.

Touching on one of the previous points I made, over saturation of employment fields is a subject that is rarely brought up, rather graphs are regularly shown essentially saying "look how much more you could make with THIS degree!" while simultaneously ignoring the difficulty in entering said field due to the critical overabundance of applicants and interns.

I'm not saying all of this intending to make you weep for those who are in debt due to education, but rather in hopes that it can be made clear that it's not just poor decision making or laziness that causes people to be unable to be successful. While I'm all for individual responsibility for one's decision, ignoring the background to the problems inherent in the educational system while plugging my ears and yelling about how it's their fault they're in debt does nothing to help the problem.

To touch on entitlement, I would say it's hardly a problem that just exists with the younger generation. In my personal experience, entitlement is a mindset that transcends the boundaries of age. Perhaps it's just the people I've met, or perhaps it's bias on those whose social circle is made up of people who have similar political views, but it doesn't seem to me that the issues with entitlement aren't something that is solely isolated to a certain group.

On the subject of the generational gap and spending money being spent on different interests, I would hazzard a (unsubstantiated, admittedly) guess and say it's due to far-reaching sociological factors, especially concerning the amount of time the average young person spend in the public eye via social media. I won't go too much more into that in order to avoid going too far off topic (and also to avoid putting too much baseless speculation out there.) Of course, nobody is going to spend their money on a hobby they've never had exposure to. Which bring me to my next point...

I believe that introducing people to shooting is a great idea. Besides helping to destroy the negative connotations surrounding being a firearms enthusiast by showing people how much fun guns are, it can introduce other potential hobbiests who can glean an appreciation of the RKBA through the shooting sports.

While I don't believe much will be accomplished by giving away guns willy-nilly, as the OP's suggestion would imply, I would wholeheartedly support the gifting (or selling at prices lower than market value) of firearms to people who are interested enough to want to purchase their own. As much as you can say "well they should do what I did and buy it themselves," it's an ascinine assumption that everyone is in the same place as you were x amount of years ago (not to mention quite possibly in a completely different part of the country.) Is someone deserving of the gift of a firearm? Only you're able to make that decision.

I think the critical factor in whether the gifting of a firearm will be appreciated is the decision of the receiving party to purchase their own. If it's not wanted, it won't make hat much of a difference, IMO. But if it's something that the individual is planning on making a purchase of, or would if they had the resources to do so, I would imagine that it would be a valued object, whether sold or given.

 

[old lady new shooter]

the math

The arguments about the average age of gun owners look to me like it's first necessary to define how that is being calculated.

Suppose the distribution looks like this (which is completely made up and almost certainly does not reflect the real relationships):

age # of gun owners # of guns
under 21 10 10
21-30 15 15
31-40 20 25
41-50 20 30
over 50 25 50

then 38% of guns are owned by people over 50,
but people over 50 only represent 28% of gun owners.

So which version is the basis for calculating the "average age of gun owners"? It has to be the version that counts owners, because that's the question we're asking, we're not asking which age group owns the most guns. And that is going to result in a lower "average age", because the over-50's are the ones most likely to have the more sizable collections. Using the above numbers and assuming age 18 for the under-21's and 25, 35, 45 and 55 for the next four groups respectively, the average age calculated by the number of owners is about 39 but the average age calculated by the number of guns is about 43.

Hope that helps.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Look, this is a grassroots movement. If you aren't on board, fine. Suit yourself. If others wish to "Pass it on!" more power to them.

It doesn't take a statistician to recognize the most gun-friendly culture is the baby-boomer generation. They grew up children of veterans, and they had the opportunity to grow up with a lot of financial benefits that others have not had the last 20 years.

In your OP you asked what do people think. If you didn't want opinions contrary to your own, you shouldn't have asked the question. If you want to start a grass roots movement, that's fine, but don't expect everyone to agree with you. It's also possible that using THR as a promotional tool for your social media campaign wasn't a great idea.

Next, baby boomers and the children of vets...... I don't really understand your point. There has been the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and all the middle eastern campaigns since WWII, and probably a number of other smaller conflicts I am neglecting to mention. Don't you think being the child of a vet from those conflicts will have a similar effect? If not, please explain your reasoning.

No it doesn't take a statistician to acknowledge that a particular generation bought more guns than another, but it does take some solid evidence, which unless I missed it, you have not provided. I've seen no citations or references. If I missed it, please correct me. From what I can see you have simply stated your opinion as fact, and then repeated "PASS IT ON!" over and over. Stating something with conviction doesn't make something true.

It would do this country well for them to take a firearm and "pass it on."

I think this will move unused guns from one place to another. I do not believe it will create activism, involvement, or awareness.

John F. Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

Yes he did say that. I don't see how it has anything to do with your premise. Volunteer at a homeless shelter, join the military, pay your taxes, obey the law, work hard, help feed a destitute family, teach kids valuable skills....... In my mind, these are the types of things that benefit our country, not giving guns to people. I do however acknowledge that opinions will vary. If you think it will help, then go for it.

There's no doubt this would strengthen the 2nd Amendment support in our nation.

Clearly there is doubt.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I've seen plenty of doubt expressed in the 93 posts above yours, and I fully agree with them.

You could do more to help your cause among gun owners if you had some actual references instead of just your opinions and feel-good statements with no basis in reality.

Exactly

 

[BSA1]

If 20% of the population is buying 70% of the guns (this is just as an example to prove a point), and that 20% are older and a part of a dying culture, it's clear what will happen when those people pass away.

Statements like this without any data to support them undermines any credibility for your argument.

It doesn't take a statistician to recognize the most gun-friendly culture is the baby-boomer generation. They grew up children of veterans, and they had the opportunity to grow up with a lot of financial benefits that others have not had the last 20 years.

This is a broad brush statement that rings more of self-pity than a factual basis. My children have it much easier than my wife and I did at their age.

John F. Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

Your misuse of the JFK's statement shows you do not know history and the context of what he meant. JFK was promoting public service in the country and the world. For example The Peace Corps was created during his administration.

It would do this country well for them to take a firearm and "pass it on."

There's no doubt this would strengthen the 2nd Amendment support in our nation.

Mere ownership of a gun does not mean the owner does not support strict gun control laws.

You don't understand what most people under 40 are actually dealing with. A poster above touched on it some, which is part of a larger scheme to control people through debt. I've got an advanced degree, and the debt that comes with one, too.

This is a very revealing statement about the O.P. Since he claims to know what people under 40 are dealing with and people 50 and older don’t then this puts the O.P. in the age group that he wants to be given free guns.