Is rifle/shotgun ownership an indicator of stance on handguns and CC?

Is owning a rifle/shotgun a good indicator of a persons stand on handguns and CC?n

  • Yes, rifle/shotgun owners ARE more likely to be pro-handgun and pro-CC

    Votes: 23 62.2%

  • No, rifle/shotgun owners are NOT more likely to be pro-handgun and pro-CC

    Votes: 14 37.8%
  • Total voters
    37
P

Playboypenguin

Moderator
There has been some discussion on the boards lately about whether gun ownership s on the decline or rise. I personally think it is on the decline and a lot of studies support that.

One thing I do notice about the studies is they lump handgun ownership and rifle/shotgun ownership (and sales numbers) all together.

I am not a fan of using this as an indicator of America's stance on the 2A since I do not think that rifle/shotgun ownership is a good indicator of a person's stance of the RKBA.

We all know hunters that own rifles and homeowners with a shotgun for HD that are still anti-RKBA when you get down to it. They separate "working" guns like hunting rifles and shotguns from "man killers" like handguns. I choose these words because they are the very terms a friend I know used to defend his shotgun but condemn my 1911 on day.

A lot of people seem to think rifles/shotguns are okay but handguns are not since they are too easily hidden and are designed solely to kill people.

So my question is..."Do you think owning a rifle/shotgun is a good indicator of a persons stand on the right to own/carry a handgun?"
 
to back up your thoughts on this, as I recall the discussion going in England, it was the refusal of the rifle/shotgun owners/users to support the handgun owners that got handguns banned so easily, then of course, the rifle/shotgun owners lost their guns as well. I've seen a few videos about thoughts of the English and Australians, now that they've lost those rights, and they are adamant to tell Americans to stick together and not give up our guns.

So I suspect it is as you suggest. Especially persons who think owning a shotgun but never training with it, will protect them. Plus, that's the same person that thinks they only need to point a shotgun into a room to kill 10 people in the room. hmm :)
 
Yes but not much.

Yes because owning a rifle or shotgun take them immediately out of the population segment opposed to all firearms so statistically there is a greater likelihood of them being pro handgun & CCW.

Not much because it is a huge population that only owns a rifle or shotgun, far more than those with handguns and immensely more than those with CCWs.

This is not an opinion question, it is straight statistics. The answer is yes. That yes though is not overwhelming, simply the result of removing those opposed to all firearms from the pool.
 
I'm voting yes.

Simple reasoning is that people tend to be one side or the other on the firearms fence. Either they own a firearm and support them, or they don't and they don't want anyone else to either. Yes, there are those who don't own a firearm but do support them, but you won't find many average-joe people going the other way around. Those who do own a firearm, in my experience, tend to support the idea as a whole---handgun and CCW included into the entire package.
 
Yes because owning a rifle or shotgun take them immediately out of the population segment opposed to all firearms so statistically there is a greater likelihood of them being pro handgun & CCW.
Click to expand...
I am not sure I would agree.

It puts them in a catagory that thinks rifles for hunting or shotguns for hunting or HD are ok but does not make them more likely to be pro-hangun or concealed carry.

In fact I think it sometimes makes them more likely to be anti-handgun and CC if they are a hunter type since they see people who own handguns as drawing unnecessary attention and causing bad press for gun ownership as a whole and fear they will cause all firearms to be eventually outlawed.

Some of the most rabid antis I have ever met where hunters.
 
I voted yes, but only because of the way the question is actually worded. I think rifle owners are more likely than non-rifle owners to be pro handgun/CCW, but it's not a given by any means.

Living in Colorado I know a lot of hunters. Most of them don't care about pistols, AWB (or they actually support it! Rather like Jim Zumbo used to be), and are just blind to politics. They don't consider a politicians viewpoint on guns, though they would if the politician was a strict banner (rifles and everything).

It's annoying as all hell.
 
I don't see a realistic distinction. Arms are arms. There has been discussions whether nukes or bioweapons fit into the right to bear arms but outside of arguments drawn from sophistry I don't see how a shotgun is less of a man killer then a handgun. Other then concealability I would prefer the shotgun.:D

This is a main argument in Heller BTW. Long guns are acceptable but somehow DC saw handguns as unacceptable. Hence the suit.

Your friend ought to be asked if he thinks of handguns as an offensive or defensive weapon. As an offensive weapon they are the wrong tool. Your friends shotgun would be far more effective in a CQ offensive scenario where a BG with no concern about the who gets hurt is interested in inflicting damage to get what he wants. Where a handgun would be far easier to defend against.

The concealment of handguns is only an issue if concealment is only done by the BG. It's for the serenity of others when done by the majority of law abiding, responsible people. Serenity in that it isn't seen and therefore doesn't worry others about your intent, and serenity in that the there ARE good guys out there armed and ready to defend themselves and others.

Does long gun ownership reflect support for handgun ownership? Obviously not to your friend. And working off the premise that they are separate tends to elevate the anti-argument. The false premise is that they are mutually exclusive. They are not. The right to keep and bear arms isn't distinguished but what caliber, barrel length, or if it's a carbine or not. If some such as your friend feels that his shotgun is effective for home defense it is only reasonable for him to concede that your handgun is for personal defense.
 
Maybe it's the Texas crowd I hang with but the bow and game hunters usually own at least 1 side arm and have no problem with concealed carry. Many don't carry on a regular basis but their wifes do.

Biggest problem I see is with the cost and distance of being able to hunt. Fewer opportunities to shoot and own a firearm mean less exposure to future generations to the joys of getting out in the woods and learning the art of and respect of gun ownership.

When you've never been exposed to something it's real easy to be against or fearful of it.
 
Other then concealability I would prefer the shotgun.
Click to expand...

Concealability along with (often) higher capacity is actually what makes them so objectionable to many over most shotguns/"hunting" rifles. To somebody that can't imagine actually carrying a concealed handgun themselves, it's easy for it to become something that only a criminal would need.

As for the original question, I'd say probably not. I've known enough long gun owners who were relatively anti-gun (especially concerning handguns) and at least a few non-gun owners who were pro-gun (after all, you need not exercise a right to support it) that I really don't think of it as much of an indicator.

Now, if the rifle in question is something along the lines of an AR-15, FAL, etc. then that might correlate a little more strongly with being pro-gun.
 
For those who do not see how a long gun owner could look down upon other arms simply look up Jim Zumbo. Then there are the Fudds I have run into at the trap range who beam with pride showing off their hand made trap guns but have no time for the crazy militia types with black rifles or who want to carry guns around town.
 
In fact I think it sometimes makes them more likely to be anti-handgun and CC if they are a hunter type since they see people who own handguns as drawing unnecessary attention and causing bad press for gun ownership as a whole and fear they will cause all firearms to be eventually outlawed.
Click to expand...

I think geography plays a large role. While I am painting a broad stroke with this, I think people who own rifles and shotguns for hunting are mostly all in rural, or country areas where these types of activities are more common. These areas are also much less likely to have any type of urban fallout reaching them, small town, everyone knows each other, etc. They probably don't see the practicality of a handgun when going outside. These people are likely the same people who don't see the use for an "assault" (I know it's wrong, hence quotes) rifle or "combat" shotgun.

These people who own just a rifle or shotgun and condemn all other guns, probably buy into the media's sensationalization of scary looking guns and don't care about the 2A. They honestly believe the 2A is about hunting and sporting, just like the BATFE and the rest of the govt. wants them to believe.

EDIT: Talking about the above types got me thinking that they are closer to the antis than they would admit. It's fine if they refuse to own handguns or scary rifles and shotguns, but they cross the line when they say those types of guns shouldn't be allowed. It's been said by others before, but this is exactly the divide that is hurting all of us, and they are incredibly foolish to believe their clean looking guns aren't next up for prohibition.
 
I believe pro-gun is just that, pro-gun with no particular bias to favor handguns over longguns (or longguns over handguns). Fully automatic guns (machine guns) is a different issue in my mind.
 
Generally gun ownership breeds gun support. Owning a long gun doesn't mean that you support CCW. My father for example is long gun and handgun owner and was once an avid hunter. While he always takes a handgun with him on road trips, he feels that there is no need for me or any one to have a CCW.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top