# Guns: hunting, fun, or self-defense?



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

There's a post in the "In the news" forum about a dealership that gives a voucher for an AK with a purchase of a new truck. in the interview he defends the ownership of guns by stating that they're for self defence. I also watched a TV show the other day (30 Days. pretty funny show) where an anti-gun person went and lived with a gun collector for a month. He also defended the ownership of his firearms by citing self defence. 

It got me thinking. Let me first say that I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE HAVING GUNS FOR SELF DEFENSE. However, I would never use the self defense argument because frankly I don't own guns for self defense for a couple of reasons. First I keep my ammo in a different room from my guns and if the need came to defend myself there's no way I could get the two togheter before it was too late. Second I honestly don't know if I could pull the trigger when the moment of truth came and I don't think a person who is not willing to use the gun has any business holding it in that situation. 

I was talking to my sister the other day about assult rifles. She is not Anit-gun but she would never own a gun for herself of any kind. She made the comment that she doesn't see why anyone would ever need an assult rifle. She asked me, "I can see owning a gun for hunting, but, what's the purpose of civilians owning assult rifles?" The first argument I thought of was self defence because I thought that was the argument that would hold the most weight in her eyes. But, instead I told her that a lot of people have them because they enjoy shooting them. They don't feel that they NEED them in case they have to form a militia but ARs are really fun to shoot. She was suprisingly very satisfied with that answer. I told her it's just like any other hobby. She likes scrapbooking and I like to shoot guns and hunt. 

I guess my question is: How do YOU defend the ownership of YOUR firearms to anti-gun people? I personally don't see anthing wrong with saying to them (since I dont use them for self defense), "I hunt, I enjoy shooting as a hobby and I use my guns in a legal and responsible manner." then leaving it at that.


----------



## lehi (Sep 13, 2007)

My question to you is... why wouldnt you use your guns for self defense? If someone came into your home to rob it, waving a gun. Wouldn't you be afraid that he might harm your family? I have heard many stories of guys defending their property and family with their firearms. Because face it, If the guy has a pistol, and you have a baseball bat, the odds are against you.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

I think every one owns a firearm for different reasons, and I think virtually every reason has validity. I also admire your honesty Willfish4food about not being sure if you could shoot someone if it came down to it 8) 
I own firearms for several reasons; but mainly for hunting and fun. 
I dont think that the hunting protion needs much explaination, but the fun part may.
Shooting to me is a lot of fun because it is an opportunity to compete against myself. I have to learn to controll my breathing, focus on the shot and nothing else around me, learn that "slow is smooth, and smooth is fast." I think that shooting rifles is an opportunity to learn self controll as well. Who better to learn from than yourself?
I too have struggled with the viability of civilians owning "assault" rifles (but did finally break down and buy an AR) but one thing to consider is the point that if we allow government to limit us on exactly which firearms we can own NOW, will that get their foot in the door to limit us LATER? If we let them limit us to specific firearms, I feel that the progression will go like this. 1) no assault weapons 2) no handguns 3) no high-powered rifles 4) no rifles (including rimfire) 5) no shotguns 6) no airguns 7) no archery..... no longer a citizen, just a subject to the government. This is why it is important to realize that just because you dont like assault weapons or handguns, dont allow them to take those away because they will want to take more as time goes on.
If we let them limit firearms in any way, what next? We just allowed a modification to the 2nd Ammendment right. So why cant we tolorate some modification to freedom of speech? While we are at it, why dont we limit freedom of religion too?.... By allowing one change, we open a floodgate of change.

Sorry to rant, but my whole point is; regardless of your desired use for a firearm, you shouldnt need to justify it or defend the use thereof. Just enjoy the sport as you understand it. Be safe while using your firearms. Share the sport with people who dont understand it or fear it. Abolishment is just a product of fear. Share your hobby with those who fear it, and help them understand it. Otherwise we'll have a modern day book burning on our hands (metaphorically speaking)


----------



## Dekashika (Oct 23, 2007)

Nice post Bax. I agree.


----------



## Frisco Pete (Sep 22, 2007)

The right to defend oneself and ones family goes back as far as man. Even the Romans admired the German tribesman because of their prowess with weapons based on this Teutonic belief that the ability to ably defend oneself, family, and tribe was _the_ major hallmark of a FREE man. When the Angles and Saxons came to Britain from Germany they brought this attitude. As a part of England's "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 a Bill of Rights was drawn up and William and Mary were made to sign it as a condition for the English monarchy to be restored. Part of it contained the proviso that every (Protestant) citizen had the right to keep and bear arms.

When America was colonized they brought this attitude with them here. It was a wild country and the people learned to be self-reliant both for hunting and defense. When it came time to fight the Revolution the right to own bear arms was critical to their success. In fact the first major fight was about the British going to Lexington and Concord to disarm the militia (_i.e._ any able-bodied male) of their cannon stored at Concord. We defended our right to bear military arms to the death on that occasion. While Words may have aided the Revolution, it was Guns in the hands of ordinary citizens that made it happen. And those rifles were ably used to deadly effect on the Redcoats in their retreat from Lexington bridge.

Therefore when the founders of the country wrote the Bill of Rights they wrote the 2nd Amendment to guarantee our right to bear arms - not just for sport, collecting, or hunting - but PRIMARILY for defense of self, family, country, and against tyrants both foreign and domestic, foreseeing the possibility of a government gone as always a possibility of human nature.

Many argue that there was a mistake in listing it second behind free speech, arguing that the right to bear arms is the single right in the bill that guarantees the other rights listed. In this they felt that the right for defense and to bear arms was an inalienable right of every man. 
Other governmental systems like France and Russia, and increasingly most of those today hold to the theory that rights are bestowed on the individual by the government - rather than the reverse, or a government of the people, by the people and for the people with governmental rights bestowed by the citizens - as our founders intended after studying the history of freedom very carefully. Obviously they intended the citizens to have MILITARY weapons in order to function as a militia. Therefore military-type weapons are in reality the ones we by inalienable right should be able to own if we choose. Sporting arms of other types really just ride in on the coattails.

One can argue that a government that doesn't trust its law-abiding citizens with arms is surely one that is suspect. Keep in mind that in the 20th Century and up until this day that literally MILLIONS of people have been killed by their own governments - more than any cause that those who would disarm you for societal reasons by a huge margin. In order to do this the government has to find a reason to disarm those people. So genocide by Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and various other ethnic cleansings and other campaigns to silence dissidents around the world depends on disarmament of the citizens.

In our own country we have seen court rulings that the Police are under no obligation to answer a 911 call or to protect your life as an individual. Certainly those who rely on government employees to take care of their self defense needs will need to understand that those needs may not be met in a timely fashion. In fact we have ample evidence of this in both the LA Riots and Hurricane Katrina. Civil servants like police literally disappeared at the critical time (some joining the mob) and the citizens were left at the mercy of the mobs who of course do not obey the various laws that prohibit criminals from owning guns and are quick to use that power to take what they want. In addition, those in government in New Orleans ordered police to seize any guns they could get from law-abiding citizens, while at the same time they feared any confrontation with the looters and avoided such at all costs. Honest citizens were stripped of the right to self defense and had to give in to the mob - "for their own good". 
Mississippi was hit with the same Hurricane but no disarmament took place and it was understood that citizens would be allowed to stand their ground and defend their property. The results were entirely different.

The media is very good at generating news that is alarming. This is because bad news sells and good news is boring. The terrific bombardment we get daily from the media is incredible. Therefore when an isolated incident or tragedy involving guns makes the news we tend to lose sight that it really is an anomaly. We also fail to see that many newspeople and sources have a built-in bias and feel that it is their duty to inform the ignorant masses (us) of the error of our ways. So we feel unsafe and unsure of ourselves and thus demand more protection from the all-wise nanny-government. We are not taught the basics of what is expected in a free society that the Founding Fathers intended for every citizen know. Therefore we are confused about what they really intended for our rights and the place of the government as a servant, not a master.

You may not feel that you need to own or carry a gun, or have one ready to defend your life, family, or property. You may only be interested in sport/fun/hunting use of guns. All that is fine. But one needs to understand that the inalienable right to own guns that are of the type a militia would use is the bedrock on which this country was founded.

So the answer is: *SELF DEFENSE* because we have the right to "life, liberty..." and hunting or fun comes under the category of "...the pursuit of happiness."


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Well said "Frisco Pete" !!!!!

As always that was a great read and dead on........


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Hunting and self defense. Shooting guns just aint that fun to me. :?


----------



## James (Oct 7, 2007)

> How do YOU defend the ownership of YOUR firearms to anti-gun people?


I have never felt the need to defend my ownership of firearms to anyone.

I do feel the need to defend self and family at all times. Who else is going to do it?


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Excellent post, Frisco Pete!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Hunting and self defense. Shooting guns just aint that fun to me. :?


A-FREAKING-MEN!

What kind of father/husband isn't willing to protect his family? :?


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

> What kind of father/husband isn't willing to protect his family? :?





> My question to you is... why wouldnt you use your guns for self defense?


Before myself, or anyone else who might hesitate to use DEADLY FORCE to stop an intruder, is branded as a coward or less than a man, let me share a little insight as to where I'm coming from. I have never owned a hand gun and have very rarely shot one. I am a poor shot at best. If the intruder has a gun and really is willing to use it a missed shot by me will definitely cause him to use it. DEADLY FORCE is just that. DEADLY. I have never considered taking someone else's life. If it came down to me or him I probably could do it. If it came down to my wife and/or children (when I have children) THEN I WOULD DO IT. The problem is not willingness in my eyes it is whether or not I would hesitate. Let's face it, in that kind of situation you're not thinking, you're reacting. I'm saying I don't know what my REACTION would be. I have no training in the use of firearms for self defense. There are trained individuals that make mistakes because of the pressure of the situation. So while I'm thinking clearly the rational side of me says I don't know if I would do it.

So bottom line for me is that I have not convinced myself within reason that I would do it. So I said I don't KNOW if I would. If being honest with myself makes me less than a man than sucks for anyone who thinks that. There was a guy that I worked with that kept a loaded hand gun under his bed. I suggested that keeping it there with no safe or other safety means was probably a bad idea. He said he wanted to be ready if he needed it. There's no nice way to describe this kid so I'll call it like i see it. He's your typical big talker all show kind of kid. He'd run his mouth and never back anything up. This situation will end in one of two ways. Either he'll be in a situation that he needs to defend himself and he won't do a **** thing or the first time his roommate forgets his key he'll be dead as he crosses the window sill. I personally would rather be on the not so sure side of the line than where he is.

I do believe that the need to be prepared to defend yourself and rely less the overworked public servants is increasing. In accordance with that my wife and I will be talking the concealed carry course as soon as our budget allows it. And as soon as my wife feels comfortable with having a handgun in the house I will get one. And when *I* feel comfortable with saying *I* would use DEADLY FORCE to defend my home I will say it.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Good post, willfish4food. Not everyone can and should depend on a gun for self-defense. In fact, I think an unprepared or ill-prepared gun owner can be a bigger threat to the safety of himself, his family and everyone else than any potential "bad guy".


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> Not everyone can and should depend on a gun for self-defense.


 You're right, people should depend on others for protecting their families. :?


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

I would suggest getting trained in the use of a handgun for self defense. I do understand what your saying but you can solve that by getting trained, the better trained the less mistakes you can make. I can honestly say if someone tried to attack my wife or kid I wouldn't even hesitate in shooting him with what ever gun a have at my disposal. Most call it paranoid but I would call it preparedness, cuz you never know. 
By the way a own guns for all three reasons.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I have them for all of the above. I have never thought self defense was the priority. No one that has not been through the experience can say for sure how they would react. You may train all you want but it is not the same as the real thing. I remember a vidio showing trained policemen firing multiple times at point blank range with no effect at a traffic stop. If it makes you feel better to carry by all means have at it, I certainly have no problem with it. Just not me, most of the time 8)


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

> willfish4food


Each of us have different conditions that we live in. We are the only ones who can evaluate those conditions. It is important to be honest in those evaluations. There are many ways to protect one selve from different situations. Nothing is going to be a 100%. So I look at it like dressing for a hunt in the fall. I dress in layers. Being in those layers allows for changes in conditions. When it comes to protecting my family it is the same. I can't have a gun laying around unsecured. I have a child with disabilities that will not permit this. My house is small and I sleep pretty soundly, so the odds of me waking and retrieving a gun, even from the night stand, for somebody who quietly entered my home will be slim. So I take other precautions to put the odds more in my favors. The key being that I have thought about it and have a plan. Is it perfect and fool proof? No.

The only person I would say was dumb would be the person who has no plan. One who walks in La La Land and will depend on someone else for their own well being.


----------



## Matt B (Sep 10, 2007)

I have to admire fishe's comments on why he feels his way. I also loved Frisco Pete's comments. Just wanted to share my views, not that many care. But I do. Having been in the military (along with others here), I have seen what happens in countries that don't have these liberties. 

In 1991 the medical unit I was in at the time saw a group of people try to take back their country. The men were gone engaging the army, the army would come to the villiages and shoot the women and children. Would armed citizens prevented this? Probably not, but they would have thought twice about it. I don't ever want to think about that happening here. But like Bax said, once they chip away and are gone. It makes the above scenerio a little easier. 

BTW I like guns, always have. I usually shoot traditional muzzle loaders. Guess what? Over 200 years ago a bunch of farmers had those, and created a nation. Are we perfect? Nope, far from it. But if it's so bad, how come so many people are trying to get here? Oh if you really want to protect the family. Teach the wife on how to use a shotgun, have it in a special spot, ready to roll. Mothers of any species have no problems taking out preditors of their cubs. 

Thanks for the rant. May God continue to bless america.


----------



## lehi (Sep 13, 2007)

hell Ive heard of older ladies pulling the trigger on home invaders with the old single shot 20 gauge.


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

> hell Ive heard of older ladies pulling the trigger on home invaders with the old single shot 20 gauge.


Perhaps some of you are still missing the point. I HAVE NEVER AND WILL NEVER SAY THAT IT'S WRONG TO DEFEND YOUR HOME WITH A GUN. I am saying that it is my PERSONAL choice not to use one at this time in my life. You implying I am weaker or in any way inferior to a little old woman because I choose not to use a gun to defend myself will not change my mind. I do, however, agree with the shotgun idea.


----------



## lehi (Sep 13, 2007)

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## grousehunter (Sep 11, 2007)

Single action firearms do no constitute an "assault weapon". This term is absolutely no different than saying "scary black gun". “scary black gun” exposes the complainer’s true feelings, so the anti-gunners use “assault weapon”. The U.S. Military along with every other military through out the world use true assault weapons which include rocket launchers, FULLY AUTOMATIC Rifles and Pistols, Grenades, and other types of weapons completely and totally controlled in this country. This must be pointed out every time this discussion comes up simply because laymen will always think about this definition when they here "assault weapon" and not what we are actually discussing, namely single action rifles.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

I own guns for the best reason of all the 2nd Amendment says I have the right to bear arms! :!: :!: I don't need to explain it further to anybody.

But to answer your question I use them for all three. :mrgreen:


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

I think that the Founding Fathers were quite clear about our "right to bear arms" :lol:


----------

