Do we shoot ourselves in the feet?

L

Lavan

New member
Y'know, pro-gun PR really stinks if you look back on it from a completely detached viewpoint.

When I started shooting, my wannabes were Bill MacMillan, Gary Anderson, Gil Hebard, and Ed McGivern. They were all older but I wanted to be able to do what they could do.

Then we started quick draw and all the gen'l press saw was who shot themselves in the leg.

We had American Rifleman and Guns magazines. Guns used to do a collector article in each issue.

Then we got magazines like Pistolero that actually did a tongue in cheek article on shooting and eating looters.

Then each magazine tried to outdo each other with combat articles.

Then after years of thinking that 8 rounds was enough (Except for BHP) we all had to have hi caps.

AND.......there is nothing wrong with any of them, but it seems we just HAVE TO have firepower articles to read or the magazines go unsold.

I don't know whether it has gone too far. Firearms have simply become more efficient. And in most cases that is good.

But I often wonder if we would have all the anti gun flak if we were back in the old days of trying to hit dead center with a revolver or target auto.

I never felt undergunned with my P-38 until I saw a Beretta 92. I always felt VERY well armed with a 6" .357 revolver. And an M1 carbine seemed about as much as......I...needed for a light multi shot compact long gun.

Do you think we share any of the blame or is it just that society has become so damn irresponsible that no matter what we do, we are made to look bad?
 
Yep, I am with Lavan on this. Unfortunately, this will be my last post on TFL: this computer, with T1 line and ability to publish world-wide instantly, is just waaaaay too much. I would wait for the society at large to save me from myself but have to do what I can for now and voluntarily stop using this excessively capable technology.

Coming back to guns: firearms readily available to people did not become more powerful in the last seventy years or so. In 1930 one could buy a full-auto BAR or a Tommygun with no hassles or paperwork. These days just getting a single-shot .22 involves jumping through waaay too many hoops. My impression is that the technological advances have been more than countered by increasingly burdensome and, might I use the term as it fits, evil "legal" restraints. In essence, instead of granting persecuted minorities same rights as the rest, we are on the way to reducing the majority to the sad status of "wogs". Free men own gun, slaves do not. And that means *any* guns, not what massa graciously permits for hunting for victuals.

The only issue on which I have seen a serious improvement is the ability to publish dissenting opinions (vs. say 1940 or 1950). In that sense, we have a great tool for trying to re-gain the losses in other areas.

------------------
Oleg "cornered rat" Volk (JPFO,NRA)

http://dd-b.net/RKBA

[This message has been edited by Oleg Volk (edited March 01, 2000).]
 
Its all derived from the increasing "Gov't can fix all" mentality. In general, our society as a whole has abrogated personal responsibility.
Guns are the political hot button now, as were civil rights, women's rights, environmentalism, etc 20 yrs ago. The Left found a formula that works and concepts are able to fit right into it. It is extremely successful and the Left, by adopting various concepts, create crises that "Need to be fixed". We all hear about the fantastic economy, but only a few can contrast the real value of money with that of say 1950's or 60's money....back then lower middle to middle class could buy a house with about a year's salary...now cars cost that much. Both spouses must, or believe, they have to work....effectively creating latchkey kids with little or no supervision.

As for bigger/better in guns...same is true with golf clubs, tennis rackets, skis, fishing tackle and all other sports stuff; stereo and TVs.

It all goes back to what can be plausibly made a problem so politicos can exploit it

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
We used to live in Sonora , CA. A really nice place. The county reserved a real honest-to-goodness unsupervised shooting area about 5 miles out of town on Redhill Rd.

Took the family there to shoot one day and a car pulled up and the guy started shooting a full-auto HK .308

Okay.

But then, a guy on the far right side of the "range" opened up with a full auto Uzi.

This in an area regularly patrolled by the sheriff and CHP. We left.

But it was an example of shooters screwing up the works for the shooters.

Apropos of nothing perhaps but a bad scene.

Good satirical analogy Oleg, with the computer. Now we have V-Chips. Maybe we need a National Mommy to tell us what to do.
heh.
 
Lavan....you don't mean to suggest that Select Fire (fully auto)firearms are bad...and that their use at this range was...what? In bad taste? Was the range(shooting area)shut down because of this? Or were these shooters unsafe?
 
Gun magazines gave us most of our grief. The Rambo thing took off in the mid 1980's and you had cammie everything. Everyone tried to out Rambo everybody else. AT the Shot Show you even saw cammie wearing sales people and the Bubba crowd went nuts with it. Covers of every magazine was full of the latest "assault rifle" shootouts etc. Guns & Ammo had a big editorial on how there were no such things as "assault rifles" and on the cover had an ugly Uzi and the banner line was
"Assault Rifle Roundup."
Kids were wearing cammies and movies couldn't get enough of it. SWAT magazine ran covers of Stallone and Arnold. It was a mania that haunts us to this day. The Rambo knives that sold for $4.99 each are now broken and gone, but the bad image remains to haunt us. The industry not only shot itself in the foot, it took aim with that fiasco.
 
We still have "American Rifleman" and the guys I shoot with are still trying to hit dead center with a revolver or target auto.

I see evidence of a dumbing down of American culture at the range, but I see it almost everywhere else, too.
 
There is some truth to what you say, and it is a natural result of marketing efforts. Of course, the anti-self defense movement took advantage of the situation.

However, I don't agree that honest citizens continuing to rely on more 'primitive' firearms would have helped or would help at this point. Mores and societal values, bad public policy ('Drug War', welfare, etc.), less religious influence, extremely violent media, and an over-burdened and distorted 'justice' system have all contributed to the acceptance of more violence. Those conditions certainly encourage me and my family to possess and know how to use more capable firearms than a revolver. While it is still unlikely, any home invasion at my residence or other violent crime directed against me and my family is likely to be more violent than it would have been 20 years ago, IMHO.

Besides, there is no going back. And, the RKBA was always about citizens having capable firearms, comparable to those used by what their sons (and, now daughters) might have during service in the infantry.
 
Mr. X Yes, the shooters were unsafe. Drinking beer and hoorawing and hip spraying and tussling over the gun in one case. You see an Uzi sweep your car and wife and you leave. Buncha real idiots. The Uzi didn't come out until the HK started. Then, the Uzi guy (who had been shooting a 9mm pistol) said, "Oh? AwRIGHT!" an popped out the full auto.
The range (if it could be called that) is no more. It is now a ATV park.
 
In foreign lands American's are viewed as gun toting neanderthal morons. In fact in Europe the comics frequently use the Southern red neck as a typical American. We do indeed have a public relations problem. Our movies also feed this picture of us as a nation. Hollywood has done us no favors.
 
This discussion really distresses me. Here's why...

1. If we have the right to self-defense with a firearm, we have the right to self to self-defense with any firearm.

2. The changing of socity's views on gun owners is changed one person at a time. Take someone to the range. Show your mother in law your guns. Stress Safety at all times to put them at ease. At a recent family party I was showing "the guys" my new Beretta 92 pellet gun in the basement. "The girls thought we were crazy. After 30 minutes, all the girls had to try it. Now most of my family wants to go the range, and no amount of media slant can change their minds.

------------------
The Innocent shall not be disarmed for the sins of the guilty.
 
6forsure has it RIGHT. Even in the shooting community sprited debate is frowned upon and we are being brain washed into playing by the artsy farsty PC rules the other side goes by.
We don't want to offend or upset anyone. How many schools even have debate classes anymore?
It is interesting how the gun community has agreed to "compromise" ourselves into total gun control. We can't stand up and say NO.
In message boards such as AOl and others where the issue is dicussed, you get black listed the minute you slam/hammer an anti-gun or inaccurate statement. The pro-2nd ammendment crowd is falling into the logic of restricting the 1st ammendment and feeling that is acceptable. If you compromise enough you soon will have compromised so much nothing is left.
Today the debate on gun control issues is pure milk and honey. We need to learn from the minority community. Just put into print a stereotype comment and see what the reaction is. It isn't pretty.
Shooters also need to get off their wallets. I put out over $2000 last year for pro gun stuff. And YES I am bragging. I wish tens of thousands could brag like that as well. Only money will help solve this and INPUT from shooters. I wonder how many posters on TFL wrote a letter TODAY.
 
Sorry, boys, I could not DISagree more.

Here's MY personal opinion (not necessarily TFL's).

Our biggest problems are our childishness, ignorance, apathy, and stupidity.

1) We “debate” with this facade of intellectual superiority when our true
intent is to devalue the other person and his ideals, opinions, attitudes, and
expertise. We place meaningless perceptions of individual (public)
superiority over uniting behind the only concept which can preserve our
Right to Keep and Bear Arms - the Second Amendment.

- Gun Controllers are zealots. They are united and strong. We (gun
owners) are fragmented and weak. Shotgunners, Hunters, Long Range Rifle
Experts, Handgunners, etc. all too often are willing to sacrifice each other’s
interests rather than uniting behind the Second Amendment.

- Even among Handgunners, the fights between the 1911 crowd and the
Glocksters all too often escalates far beyond mere opinions or viewpoints.
We (gun owners) too often act like spoiled, idiotic children insulting each
other because of our differing opinions.

--- If a Lorcin is a piece of trash, but it’s all a gun owner can afford at the
moment, it does not make the gun owner a piece of trash!
--- If I have been to school “A”, learned something of value, and liked the
school, that does not make me stupid because YOU prefer school “B”!

- It is NOT a sign of weakness to admit that interests and preferences vary.
If I prefer one type of sport or a specific firearm, that should not mean you are mentally inadequate for having a different preference.

- We prove time after time we can not discuss without insults and
innuendo. Then we either run behind the First Amendment or complain
about “PC” when we are asked to remain civil.

2) Apathy. Too many gun owners feel, “So long as it is not ‘my’ ox being
gored, I don’t care.” If every gun owner voted for the Second Amendment,
gun owners would control the Presidency, the House, the Senate - ALL local,
state and federal government positions.

There’s more - a LOT more, but I’m too angry to put it in writing at the
moment.
-------

Let me prove my original comment.

We (gun owners) are childish because we consider ourselves, our
reputations and (largely imagined) macho reputations more important than
our Second Amendment Rights.

We are ignorant because we do not understand our lack of unified purpose
is what defeats us.

We are apathetic because, for all our loud-mouthed posturing, few of us do
anything of real value to support the Second Amendment. We’re too busy
beating our chests and berating our gun-owning comrades.

We are stupid.

- We are stupid because we refuse to extend to others a common, decent
level of courtesy, understanding, and freedom of choice - the same that
should be extended to us.

- We are stupid because we consider freedom of choice to be valid only if
the other guy chooses to masturbate our egos.

- We are stupid because we do NOT understand the difference between
First Amendment Rights and simple loud-mouth insults that do not educate,
clarify, or unite our Second Amendment efforts.

I *dare* anyone here to prove me wrong.

Until we cut each other some slack,
Until we unite as gun owners,
Until we defend ALL gun owners’ opinions, interests, and preferences,
Until we vote as a united front FOR our Second Amendment instead of
voting fearfully against imagined future threats,

I will consider *most* gun owners stupid, ignorant, childish, purposefully
insulting, and selfish beyond belief.

Now THERE, by God, is a First Amendment statement that is NOT “PC”!

Regretfully, I admit this opinion may insult some of you. If so, you know
why....

------

Let’s get off this stupid Merry-Go-Round of hacking each other to bits and
fight the very real threat which will be the downfall of us all.

Quit the devious word games. Abandon parochial views to firearms
knowledge and proficiency.

We eventually *will* unite! The only question is:

“Will we unite in victory or defeat?”

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
Then we either run behind the First Amendment or complain about “PC” when we are asked to remain civil.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Let me see. The left has a stangle hold on the media at every level. The anti gun types spit out false, inaccurate and bogus information with no challenge by the "civil" debaters of the pro-gun movement. You keep being civil. On your way out the door go buy a Glock G17 high capacity magazine and see how civil you want to be. Civil got us that price and availability. Want some more?
IF shooters weren't effective Rosie O would still be pitching K-Mart, and Citibank wouldn't open a checking account for a gun store. They caved in after those uncivil shooters made thier views known. Boys and girls, lets get more uncivil. It works!!!!
 
"Civil" is not synonymous with "weak"
"Nasty" is not synonymous with "strong".

We can disagree AND be more effective by being civil (as you were above,
+P) than by cursing, screaming, or insulting one another.

We have two areas of discussion:

1) With other gun owners. The snide innuendo and outright nastiness
among gun owners is counterproductive to our RKBA.

- People involved with the various shooting sports must learn to defend
each other or we ALL will lose our RKBA.

- If I don’t like brand “A” pistols, to scream they should be outlawed and
anyone who has one is a faggot (as was done here on TFL) is just flat
stupid.

2) Against gun controllers.

“If shooters weren't effective Rosie O would still be pitching K-Mart, and
Citibank wouldn't open a checking account for a gun store. They caved in
after those uncivil shooters made their views known. Boys and girls, lets get
more uncivil. It works!!!!”

100% wrong! Do not confuse civility with weakness.

- Screaming at *each other* about Rosie or Citibank didn’t do a single bit
of good.

- What worked is when gun owners united (from every aspect of shooting,
owning every brand of firearm) and threatened the pocketbooks of K-Mart
and Citibank. That took unity. That took writing letters, faxes, e-mails,
letters to editors, phone calls, etc. etc.

It proves my point exactly. We must unite. That makes us strong.

Squabbling among ourselves is easy, many find it rewarding (in some
childish manner), but it fragments us and makes us weak.
-----

Let me try to put it a different way, +P.
All of this post has been in disagreement with your post. Not once did I
attack you as a person. I have disagreed with you as though we are both
gentlemen. Do you think I am weak? Must I insult your Mother for you to
take me seriously?

If I *DO* insult your Mother:
- does that strengthen my argument?
- does it make you look with favor upon my request?
- does it make me any more serious in your eyes?

If so, then I suggest, sir, that you are in the minority in the business world.

If I come to your school and scream at you that your instructors are (insult
epithets of your choice) and your school is worthless, would that put you in
a frame of mind to consider my complaint?

However, if I come to you and say, “One of your instructors said, (quote). I
felt that was inappropriate because of (valid reason). Could you explain
that for me?”

Which way would you hear my problem?
Which way would you blow me off as a loudmouthed malcontent?

In business and in politics, insults don’t work. Civil firmness works.

Proof abounds that fractional infighting is self-defeating. Let’s quit acting
like “boys and girls” and start acting like adults.

We need to defend every aspect of the RKBA in a united, coherent, and
powerful manner and quit trying to gain stature at the expense of other gun
owners.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms includes us all. Let’s act like it.

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
I have worked in politics of sorts all of my life. I have been a student of history for over 50+ years and traveled the world over. I just returned from Ireland where there are troubles.
One thing I have learned is the civil people seldom rule. Revolutions were never won by civil people.
Our rights to firearms ownership or even to have privacy are always under attack.
I don't think anyone here believes HCI has been civil. Who has won the most victories in the right to keep and bear arms?
Lack of civility can also mean fast, effective efforts to counter false or inaccurate information. Dancing in the blood of a school shooting is not civil. Our President's words recently have been highly inflamatory, inaccurate, and emotion based.
His comments have been far more effective than those of such persons as LePierre and Heston. Who recieved the most TV time this week?
There is a strong need for strong words and confrontation of the likes of Clinton and the Brady's.
I recently listened to an audio tape of a radio program Mr. Mulroy did a few years ago with the Chairman of Handgun Control Incorported, Tony Bouza. Mr. Mulroy cleaned up the studio with him. It is a classic. Mr. Mulroy repeated the performance a few years later when they appeared on a Fox Network program on gun control.
Had he been civil, the time on the air would have been wasted. People still discuss those programs in our local gun community. Before you are critical you may want to get a copy and see what his uncivil approach is.
Our local media loves it and we can use more of it. I shall take my laptop with me on a working vacation to follow this most interesting thread.
Cheers
Matt
 
OUTSTANDING, DENNIS!

Re, the drug war, Citibank, abortion, religion, (No, let's not go there again), there aren't many "fence sitters" there. No changin' minds.

But, the Second Amendtment has a lot of "undecideds." Common sense civility and strength will win more to our side than any fanatics or Rambos.

Hang together or hang separate.

[This message has been edited by DAVE MOON (edited March 08, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top