Public Support for the Shooting Sports

I guess this goes in the “we’re winning” column, but the optimist in me sees room for improvement.

Seventy-one percent of those polled approve of recreational shooting, with 44 percent strongly approving. …

The most noteworthy part of the survey documents a slight but consistent upward trend in American opinions favoring shooting sports. In 2001, 59 percent indicated shooting sports were “perfectly acceptable.” In 2006 the percentage had climbed to 63 percent; this year shooting sports are “perfectly acceptable” to 66 percent. In contrast, the percentage of Americans who said “shooting sports are inappropriate” dropped from 11 percent (2001) to 5 percent (2011).

On Being Fit and Shooting

Caleb thinks that being fit makes you a better shooter. While I generally would agree, I know some utterly fantastic shooters I would not classify as fit. Actually, far from it. That said, I think it does help. I’ve had instances shooting where I’ve felt my stability would be significantly improved if I were in better shape. Certainly you will shoot better if your pulse rate is lower. So I would say it helps, but in the overall scheme of things, I think there are a lot more important aspects to being a good shooter.

BTW, Gun Nuts Media is sporting a new look. It’s cleaner and more modern, and it looks like they’ve also embraced threaded comments (which maybe they had before, but when you blog you don’t comment on other people’s blogs. It’s a rule :) )

Groupon Comes Around on Shooting Sports

Just a few days ago, the gun blogosphere was talking about this article that said Groupon refuses to do gun-related deals so as not to offend anyone. Well, I guess that position didn’t last very long when they saw their competitors were making thousands of sales off of shooting sports bargains (something we have documented before).

I saw this deal for more than half off of a round of sporting clays in New Jersey come across the @GrouponPhilly Twitter account this morning.

Yay for learning!

Training on Public Ranges

When the Balloon Goes Up has some tips on how to train on public ranges, which often don’t allow draw from holster, or appreciate you getting all IDPA on them. I’m fortunate that my two local commercial ranges, Classic Pistol in Southampton, and Ready Aim Fire in Bristol, both allow shoot from holster. When I go to the range I’m primarily interested in checking that my magazines feed cleanly from full to empty, something I can’t do at my club because of its strange rule limiting shooters to no more than five rounds in a magazine. I’m also interested in timing draw to well aimed fire. For that, there are several timers available for iPhone. Sometimes they don’t work on a crowded range, but often I’ve managed to get the sensitivity high enough it’ll only trip on my own gun.

We’re Winning, Part 248

Gun wary reporter from the Boston Globe, Kevin Paul Dupont, takes a look at shooting scholarships being offered by schools, and manages to do a good article on the topic.

According to Hammond, college shooters are typically a cerebral lot. His current coed squad of 10 includes eight shooters who are pursuing engineering degrees. Over the years, he said, his athletes in arms have come from various cultures, including city kids and some from small-town hunting communities. By and large, the students are bright, disciplined, goal-driven athletes who have the requisite endurance and patience to squeeze off 60 shots at a target, needing to remain on their spot for 1 3/4 hours.

Read the whole thing. A big problem our opponents face, despite being trounced in the new media space, is the traditional media has been more willing to take our issue seriously, and cover it more fairly. I think a few things are driving this. One, most online articles now include e-mails to the reporters. While there are a lot of bozos on the Internet, there are still plenty of our people who are willing to engage with folks on the other side in a reasonable way. I think this has come a long way to helping the media take us seriously.

The other is the rise of alternative media, which through interacting with traditional media has provided a source of information, and more importantly correction, when the traditional media has gotten it wrong. Despite the fact that I’ve had only a handful of reporters ever comment on a link of mine to a story of theirs, I’m sure a lot more at least notice when new media sources are talking.

This is, of course, bad news for advocates of gun control, which have always relied on emotions rather than facts to make their case, and who engaged in a campaign of vilification and mischaracterization of gun ownership and Second Amendment advocacy, depersonalizing us with terms like the “gun lobby,” or by suggesting that our whole issue is driven by “gun industry profits,” rather than by individual citizens who value our shooting heritage and value the right to keep and bear arms.

Winning on Lead Bullets

This is good news:

A group called the Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit in 2009 asking the courts to prohibit the use of lead bullets on Bureau of Land Management property in Arizona. It contended that California condors were being poisoned by scavenging game killed by hunters using lead ammunition.

A federal judge has thrown the lawsuit out, however.

Threats to lead based ammunition is one of the biggest problems we’re facing today. Had this suit been allowed to proceed, it would have been really bad news.

The Gun Culture Has Changed, Professor Messner

I love me a good tale about gun owners and their psychology, especially those tales which are woven by lofty academics who pretty clearly haven’t been outside of the Ivory Tower for a while. Over at the HuffPo, there’s no clearer example of some of the nonsense of this type. I invite you, dear readers, to go look at part one and part two, of the HuffPo interview with Professor Michael Messner, author of King of the Wild Suburb: A Memoir of Fathers, Sons and Guns. Let me share with you some excerpts from the interview, and discuss why I think his thinking is antiquated, and most decidedly out of touch with the gun culture of today:

You write movingly that “those hunting trips with Dad and Gramps were actually about fathers and sons finding a way to love each other. These outings were not so much about hunting for deer: they were about hunting for each other.” You have two sons who are now young adults. Because you gave up hunting before they were born, you never had that as a catalyst to connect with them. Is that a continuing source of sadness? Did you find other less violent ways to bond with them that will stick with them throughout their lives, as your experiences hunting with your father and grandfather have stayed with you?

What exactly is flawed about men bonding through activity? Men and women are somewhat different, I think, in how they form friendships. Men tend to bond with each other more through activity, and I think this is not really different for father and sons. He speaks of this type of bonding as if it were a bad thing, but that strikes me as rather narrow minded.

Part of the tension–and this is really only possible to see in retrospect–is that this 1950s identification with Davy Crockett was very much a pre-civil rights era celebration of white masculinity, and the violent subjugation of the continent from Native peoples, and eventually of the Southwest from Mexico. Still today, in a good deal of popular culture as well as in political debates about gun violence, we tend to think of white guys with guns as protectors and heroes, while reacting with fear to images of black or brown men with guns.

The Professor is making connections that I think only exist in his mind. You can embrace masculinity without racism or sexism. Because some of the people who embraced masculinity in the past, also happened to be racist and sexist, does not mean the two need to be forever connected. This strikes me as incredibly weak thinking for an academic. It also just amazes me we can’t have a discussion about gun ownership with people on the left without bringing up the whole “scared of brown people” motivation for gun ownership.

Well, I guess I’d be surprised to hear that sort of politicized passion about something like hunting coming from a young guy today. However I am happy to see so many young men today — including my sons Sasha and Miles — for whom ideas like equality with women, gay and lesbian people are taken for granted.

Professor Messner is a man living in the past. He’s had his thinking tainted by the left-wing baby boomer culture that focuses heavily on gender, and rejects a flawed conception of masculinity that is entirely of their own making. Would it surprise Messner that “equality with women, gay and lesbian people are taken for granted,” even among many gun owners and hunters today? Would it be such a shock to discover we’ve changed along with the rest of society?

Women are now the fastest growing demographic of gun owners. Most of us have not only been tolerant of this trend, but outright embraced the ideas of women being involved in our sports. Younger men want to share their hobbies with their wives. And why not hunting and shooting as a hobby for a couple to share? Many of us have also either been completely tolerant of gay gun rights groups, or have outright embraced their coming to our cause. I also think I’ve been a vocal advocate for legalizing gay marriage. Does it mean anything that I can announce this on a blog about gun rights without worrying about losing readers?

Get out of the past Professor Messner. We’ve come a long long way since the gun culture of your father and grandfather. The hunting and shooting culture has changed into something more tolerant and inclusive. I would invite Professor Messner to step out of the Ivory Tower of academia for a bit, an attend something like an Steel Challenge or USPSA national competition, and then talk to some of the women shooters about how they view their relationship with firearms, hunting, and shooting through the lens of their gender. Sure, you’ll give them a little chuckle about such a blast-from-the-past question, but some of their answers might just surprise you.