Changing attitudes about firearms

  • Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Oblio13

Settler
Sep 24, 2008
703
2
67
New Hampshire
oblio13.blogspot.com
A young friend of mine recently fired a 12-gauge through his foot. It was his own fault, and he acknowledges that he broke several basic safety rules and paid the price. He's got months of operations and skin grafts ahead of him, and it'll hinder him for the rest of his life.

What shocks me is how many coworkers of mine (who've never met him, we were just discussing it) expressed absolute glee over his misfortune. My father had a terrible accident as a result of a moment of carelessness with a chainsaw, and no one ever said "Good". I had a nasty accident with a circular saw, and don't remember anyone expressing happiness about it. If one of my coworkers described an awful car accident to me and I said "They deserved it", I'd be talking to the Human Relations department about keeping my job.

Attitudes have certainly changed dramatically over the last few decades. A couple friends and I used to take our .22's to high school and keep them in our lockers so we could rabbit-hunt our way home afterwards. Nowadays that would bring on the SWAT teams and make international headlines.

Anyway, I was thinking about what a remarkable and disappointing change it is from the days when an ax and a rifle were the standard outdoor accoutrements, and people relied on themselves for food and self defense. Most folks seem to have been trained to think self reliance is somehow evil.
 

jojo

Need to contact Admin...
Aug 16, 2006
2,630
4
England's most easterly point
Thats terrible for your friend. I think self reliance is also viewed as not good for business: if you can do it yourself, you don't have to pay some business to do it for you. So I think "the economy" does not want self reliance generally, and the Marketing men have done a very good job at making you think that "the professionals: should be called in. Most people seem to have become unable to do things for themselves, or even to think for themselves. Most people have become so insecure about their own abilities that they don't dare think they could do things if only they tried. In another thread some while back I suggested we are being "domesticated" in the same way sheep have had most aggression/self reliance bred out of them. Nobody said anything about this. (probably thinking I was off my rocker:D )

I know it seems outlandish to think we are being slowly domesticated, but the principles, and the results, are the same: most people seem to have become be unable to think for themselves any more, just like the sheep. We are nice and comfy, well fed, protected from the wolf on the other side of the barbed wire, and from ourselves too. I know, I must be loopy!!!!

As to anybody thinking it's funny, I despair sometimes.
 

Wallenstein

Settler
Feb 14, 2008
753
1
46
Warwickshire, UK
I guess maybe the waters are muddied by the proliferation of handguns and "assault weapons"* that people own these days. Do you need a fully automatic rifle to hunt rabbits? Is there any need to carry a .357 magnum to the grocery store? Perhaps if responsible gun owners disassociated themselves from the more extreme rhetoric of the NRA etc the debate might move forward?

*yes, I know the definition is a tricky one but I think there is a gap between a .22 "one for the pot" weapon and an AK47.
 

Treemonk

Forager
Oct 22, 2008
168
0
Perthshire
On the bright side, he's keeping his foot, even if it will never be right again.

As for the gun thing, it is a strange situation. TV and film is saturated with firearms and yet the actual personal experience most people have is nil. The only time people see guns in the news is crime reporting and of course we have the legacy of hungerford, dunblane, columbine etc. Gives a very skewed perspective. I really applaude the likes of Hugh F-W and Ray Mears for shooting game for the pot on camera, trying to educate that the vast majority of gun use is not perverse or deviant.

As for the general public, I've said it before, blinkered and lost in their HELLO magazines, completely oblivious. Walk down any high street and admire the mooing herd.
Talking to our receptionist today - she has no knowledge of the Clwydian hills - less than 30 miles from where she has grown up and lived her entire life! Oh well, at least it keeps them quiet for me.
 

wicca

Native
Oct 19, 2008
1,065
34
South Coast
I think the change in opinion actually started a very long time ago Oblio but was slow to be expressed. Possibly it started once a firearm was no longer deemed necessary as a 'tool' but became something people owned primarily for sport or pleasure (and I include hunting in that as that too, strictly speaking, became unnecessary to survive)
Certainly in the UK where the general knowledge of firearms is minimal, things changed dramatically after the first multi killing of innocent people took place..by someone who owned firearms for 'pleasure.' There has always been armed crime here, a brief outcry when a policeman or someone was shot but only after the first major incident which tragically was not the last, did the law and to a large extent public opinion, really change drastically.
Now your country is experiencing the same quite understandable reaction to what really are nothing more than rampages with firearms which we read about after they take place in your schools or public places. Without your constitutional 'right to keep and bear arms' I think you would be in a very similar position to us with regard to personal ownership of firearms. I think that changes are on the cards too for American gun owners.
(post made by someone who was obliged to "surrender" 4 handguns following a change in the UK law.)..:)
 

Treemonk

Forager
Oct 22, 2008
168
0
Perthshire
I was just pondering that a significant difference between UK ans US is that shooting for sport was often maintained for a rich few whereas hunting in the US is far more egalitarian. I would not be surprised if there is also some sort of residual class animosity also at play in the UK
 

Wayland

Hárbarðr
I have to admit I gave up my guns after the Hungerford thing.

I could see what was coming and some of my friends that hung on until after Dunblaine got really clobbered when they lost their guns then.

Shame it hasn't made the slightest bit of difference to gun crime stats.

Do you think all those crooks know they're breaking the law? :bluThinki
 

wicca

Native
Oct 19, 2008
1,065
34
South Coast
I have to admit I gave up my guns after the Hungerford thing.

I could see what was coming and some of my friends that hung on until after Dunblaine got really clobbered when they lost their guns then.

Shame it hasn't made the slightest bit of difference to gun crime stats.

Do you think all those crooks know they're breaking the law? :bluThinki

Think it has Wayland...overall.. they've increased..:lmao:
Never forget, restrictions and laws only affect the law abiding..:D
 

British Red

M.A.B (Mad About Bushcraft)
Dec 30, 2005
26,709
1,947
Mercia
I was just pondering that a significant difference between UK ans US is that shooting for sport was often maintained for a rich few whereas hunting in the US is far more egalitarian. I would not be surprised if there is also some sort of residual class animosity also at play in the UK
How odd...I have never associated shooting as a sport for the rich fiew. I have held firearms certificates for over thirty years and have rarely encountered wealthy shooters. Even most of the pheasant shhots I have known have been run as "co-ops" by farm labourers, chimney sweeps, fencers etc. There are a few (very few) expensive day rate shoots but most people I know who shoot are ordinary working blokes - that covers game, target, pistol, rifle, shotgun, black powder, etc. Hardly a "toff" amongst the lot.

I suspect any "class animosity" is simple prejudice rather than based on any real understanding of the incomes and background of shooters.

Not having a dig - simply saying that my experience simply does not gel with shooting as a "sport maintained for the rich few".

Red
 

Treemonk

Forager
Oct 22, 2008
168
0
Perthshire
to be fair red, I did put in the qualifier "often" and I'm not necessarilly talking about now either. Land ownership and class structure a century ago was masively different. Don't forget the woods closed for the pleasure of the owner and the poachers shipped to Australia for taking a rabbit!
My own experience of shooting has always been very class-less too. There are still a lot of heavily guarded shoots around though and they tend to be more visible due to the concentration of birds provided for the numpty clients who couldn't hit the side of a barn. Don't forget grouse moor either - that is not a cheap hobby. Paying by-the-point for your stag is perhaps another example.
I'm sure that you are right that any class animosity is derived from ignorance. I was just wondering out loud that it might be a factor. No evidence, just pondering
 

firecrest

Full Member
Mar 16, 2008
2,496
4
uk
People perceive that if you are carrying a gun then the intention is to injure or kill an animal or human. Thus, anyone who shoots themselves accidentally is getting to experience what they were about to put another being through. That is why some people express glee that is absent from chainsaw injuries or car crash injuries- these are seen as victimless pursuits.
Guns are also treated with mistrust, the same as you might mistrust somebody carrying explosives around. A person who has not grown up around guns or in a city only percieves them as weapons used to threaten in anger and in which case, represents a volatile element - can they safely argue or be around somebody who owns guns? They might feel threatened.
The arguement can be taken a part of course by point out that animals shot by guns had a wild and free life and were not bred cooped up and slaughtered upside down on a conveyor like the sanitized meat they buy in the supermarket. Hunting for the pot is far more humane in my opinion.
 

joejoe

On a new journey
Jan 18, 2007
600
1
71
washington
I have to admit I gave up my guns after the Hungerford thing.

I could see what was coming and some of my friends that hung on until after Dunblaine got really clobbered when they lost their guns then.

Shame it hasn't made the slightest bit of difference to gun crime stats.

Do you think all those crooks know they're breaking the law? :bluThinki

strangley enough the opposite with me. made more determined to get my fac. which i had wanted for years
 

Matt.S

Native
Mar 26, 2008
1,075
0
36
Exeter, Devon
I guess maybe the waters are muddied by the proliferation of handguns and "assault weapons"* that people own these days. Do you need a fully automatic rifle to hunt rabbits? Is there any need to carry a .357 magnum to the grocery store? Perhaps if responsible gun owners disassociated themselves from the more extreme rhetoric of the NRA etc the debate might move forward?

*yes, I know the definition is a tricky one but I think there is a gap between a .22 "one for the pot" weapon and an AK47.

'Assault weapon' is a term created by the US media which is used as a meaningless scaremongering word. Some US states have a legal definition of 'assault weapon' and there is a federal definition, but these tend to be based on cosmetic features that look scary to some people.

If we ignore the abuse of the word 'need', full-automatic weapons are heavily restricted by federal law. They require extensive FBI paperwork and background checks, fingerprints (run against criminal databases), local chief law enforcement permission, a $200 transfer tax and the most basic, worn-out one will cost about $5,000, most several times that. Some states outlaw their ownership completely. Furthermore they cannot be moved out of state (even to a target shoot) without prior written permission from the relevant government department, and all such guns must have been manufactured and registered before 1986. I can't see why anyone would take their very expensive gun into the field to shoot rabbits, what if it gets damaged? You may be thinking of semi-automatic. That's a very different kettle of fish and quite popular for a variety of purposes. By the way semi-automatic rifles are popular for rabbit-shooting in the UK also.

Carrying a pistol for self-defense purposes is a very old practice on BOTH sides of the pond. Granted it's been mainly illegal in the UK for 50 years but for a long time so it was too in the US. Now over 40 states have a general 'shall-issue' principle for pistol-carry licenses and violent crime has demonstrably fallen in reaction.

The American NRA is not actually very hard-core and has been losing members because of this; they are seen to kow-tow to politicians too many times for a start. What do you consider a 'responsible gun owner'?
 

British Red

M.A.B (Mad About Bushcraft)
Dec 30, 2005
26,709
1,947
Mercia
People perceive that if you are carrying a gun then the intention is to injure or kill an animal or human. Thus, anyone who shoots themselves accidentally is getting to experience what they were about to put another being through. That is why some people express glee that is absent from chainsaw injuries or car crash injuries- these are seen as victimless pursuits.
Guns are also treated with mistrust, the same as you might mistrust somebody carrying explosives around. A person who has not grown up around guns or in a city only percieves them as weapons used to threaten in anger and in which case, represents a volatile element - can they safely argue or be around somebody who owns guns? They might feel threatened.
The arguement can be taken a part of course by point out that animals shot by guns had a wild and free life and were not bred cooped up and slaughtered upside down on a conveyor like the sanitized meat they buy in the supermarket. Hunting for the pot is far more humane in my opinion.


What a brilliant post. :You_Rock_

Neatly shows how (responsible) gun ownership is indeed humane and misunderstood.

I do tire of "townies" who perpetrate cruelty and destroy wildlife by buying intensively farmed meat and monoculture vegetables trying to end the ways by which meat animals can live natural and free lives by being too lazy to actually find out about hunting, farming and general country life. Including the fact that pest control with a rifle is far kinder than by posion or trap.

Superb post - I'd rep you if I could!

Red
 
I find the glee shown at the accident in the OP (an "accident" that was "caused" by the victim as mentioned - but still) as unsurprising as I find it sickening.

Shame he's going to have such a bad time of things, can't be good.


I agree with most of the above comments.

I see no reason to frown upon the carrying and use of firearms for self defence (the more people do that, the less they are needed - and vice versa)

From what I've read (and there's a lot of it) I also agree that the ban on handguns has had a clear negative impact on violent crime. The increase in murders with handguns has been striking post-ban.

Also agreed about hunting for the pot vs industrial slaughter.

Finally on the hunting for sport front.
While I don't like the idea of killing for fun - a large part of sport hunting is done as pest control or as a strange sort of farming - both of which are valid things and if a sport industry can be built on it - great.


Oh - and I'm technically a townie.
Born and bred in Manchester - though I come from farming stock.
I say leave the country to the culchies and the towns to the townies. Either one imposing their will on the other just isn't right.
 

British Red

M.A.B (Mad About Bushcraft)
Dec 30, 2005
26,709
1,947
Mercia
I may just take the last sentence as a new sig line if I may Big Shot - that says it all to me!
 

firecrest

Full Member
Mar 16, 2008
2,496
4
uk
Thanks for your comments Red:D
though you might be interested to note I was born and bred in a working class town and spent my childhood playing computer games or playing outside meant playing round the back of the factory next door. Its not nessisarily environment that breeds attitudes, its good old edumication!
 

rancid badger

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
How odd...I have never associated shooting as a sport for the rich fiew. I have held firearms certificates for over thirty years and have rarely encountered wealthy shooters. Even most of the pheasant shhots I have known have been run as "co-ops" by farm labourers, chimney sweeps, fencers etc. There are a few (very few) expensive day rate shoots but most people I know who shoot are ordinary working blokes - that covers game, target, pistol, rifle, shotgun, black powder, etc. Hardly a "toff" amongst the lot.

I suspect any "class animosity" is simple prejudice rather than based on any real understanding of the incomes and background of shooters.

Not having a dig - simply saying that my experience simply does not gel with shooting as a "sport maintained for the rich few".

Red

Well, I've seen both sides;

The shoots I have observed on the moors above Stanhope; definitely prove that, up there at least, if you turned up in anything cheaper than a 1 year old Range Rover or Land Cruiser( Porsche Cayenne's are also acceptable!)...........well,you weren't one of the shooters.:D
The clothing worn by the shooters was usually brand new and they didn't seem to hit much
These shoots are run ( at the rqd safe distances etc) at either side of the main road's from Consett over to Weardale, so I suppose a lot of folk passing; see all the expensive vehicles and kit and assume that only "Rich People" shoot. It's an easy mistake to make if you think about it.

At the same time, I also have experience of lads who get together to shoot, usually clay but when the opportunity arises,a bit of woody or general rough shooting. Most of these lads ( and lasses actually) are just ordinary working folk, with no delusions of grandeur and affordable transport.They are also, undoubtedly MUCH better shots than the toff's;)

The thing with these sort of shoots and I would imagine the shoots Red refers to; are held on private land, usually not that near main roads, so Joe public might hear the shots but have no idea that it's the local plumber, mechanic, bus driver, farmer etc making the racket.

Actually,thinking about it; to be fair, I'm sure the toffs would welcome any of the rough shooters, to come along for a day on the moors......as long as they were waving fertilizer bag flags and blowing whistles etc:D

cheers
R.B.
 

Sniper

Native
Aug 3, 2008
1,431
0
Saltcoats, Ayrshire
I've been a shooter all my life, I've shot deer, rabbits, pheasant's, and a multitude of game. In my other life with the Army I've even had the duty of hunting human prey, perhaps that is why I cannot understand the difficulty people have with differentiating between hunting for food and killing humans. Most shoots as has been said is a type of farming where animals are bred for the pot, except we can have the pleasure of the chase, or the stalk which somehow makes the game taste even better. Too many people nowadays think that meat comes from a factory instead of a farm. Shooting people unless under the state of war and under orders of the government is a criminal offence and needs to be thought of as such. An annual cull of certain species is a necessity to preserve the health and well being of the group or herd, it also reduces damage to crops etc but the only people who seem to appreciate these things are country living folks and the few townies that take the time to understand the situation or are involved with the shooting fraternity. When many people I work with or I know see a rabbit in the fields or a deer browsing at the edge of a wood their first thought is "Oh is'nt that a cute bunny" or "look at the bambi" whereas whats going through my mind is I wonder if it would be better stewed or fried with onions and a red wine and mushroom sauce.
Unfortunately after Dunblane I also gave up my guns, rifles, and pistols seeing what was coming, and fortunately for me it was before anyone else did.
 

dogwood

Settler
Oct 16, 2008
501
0
San Francisco
I think the change in opinion actually started a very long time ago Oblio but was slow to be expressed. Possibly it started once a firearm was no longer deemed necessary as a 'tool' but became something people owned primarily for sport or pleasure (and I include hunting in that as that too, strictly speaking, became unnecessary to survive)

Actually, in the US, the statement about hunting as recreation isn't exactly accurate. Sure it's recreation for some, but for others, it's essential to living.

I was partly raised in the Appalachian mountains and then in the South and I assure you that hunting for the pot was absolutely necessary in poorer areas of both regions.

When I moved out west, subsistence hunting wasn't too important, but guns were most certainly a tool -- culling coyotes that might be predating on livestock, for example. (In point of fact, ranchers get a little too nuts about coyotes, but that's another discussion...)

When I lived in Alaska, hunting was also essential for many families -- one moose could provide a family of four with meat for a year. And in some parts of Alaska and Canada having a gun around was prudent because of the wildlife.

(Of course, Canadian gun ownership is on par with American, but gun violence there is very rare -- gun ownership don't cause crime. Crime springs from the cultural matrix and from poverty.)

So there are certainly areas where hunting is still essential.

I was raised around guns in places where one saw trucks with gun racks (and rifles) in them on a daily basis. Lots of Americans were raised that way. No one thought a thing about it. Tools. Simple as that.

I agree that as we've become more urbanized on both sides of the pond that the people have begun to associate them entirely with crime. But to generalize about common experience simply based on urban experience is a mistake -- there are a whole lot of people for whom guns are still a necessary tool.

I also agree with the comment by the poster who said that the NRA isn't helping things. Don't get me wrong, I own multiple guns and I'm a staunch advocate for gun rights, but I absolutely *loathe* the NRA and think it's irresponsibly strident and unreasonable.

Crime will happen irrespective of the weapons at hand (the knife violence you have in the UK proves this). But people need to stop being scared of guns and remember they are just specialized tools.

I feel allowing the discussion of crime to rotate around the specifics of weaponry is socially irresponsible: let's intelligently eliminate the *causes* of crime and then the *means* won't matter.

Now for the OP -- I'm sorry to hear about the accident, but I confess to being shocked that he shot himself in the foot with a 12 gauge and still has the foot at all!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

BCUK Shop

We have a a number of knives, T-Shirts and other items for sale.

SHOP HERE