Gun owners study

[SERparacord]

USAF (retired/Blue ID Mafia since 2007). I fired 80 rounds a year through an M-16. I shot A LOT more than that growing up on a farm in Indiana.

Most military are lacking on handgun training for the average soldier.

 

[dontcha]

hell, they are lacking realistic training with the RIFLE. man. when I went thru, Nam was still hot and I fired 200 rds in Basic. ZERO rds thru a pistol. Never fired a rd my entire bit in Korea, neither did anyone else there, their entire 13 month tour. Millions of us went to nam with no more rifle training than what Basic offered and none of that was combat oriented, at all.

 

[j4jenk]

4 years active duty Army followed by 5 years in the Indiana national guard. I shot before I joined and a lot more after I got out.

 

[Vamptepes]

Grew up in a family full or military vets and father who is still IMPD. But i got into firearms when i was young through hunting. First hunt i was like 4 years old (just tagged along) got my first .22 at age 5 and did my hunter's ed that same year. I've done freelance security work for multiple companies including ORP watching the tires for the nationwide and truck races (boring job watching tires making sure nothing happens to them). Went to join the military in different branches and was turned down at those time due to tattoos of all things. Even though i have friends who have way more then me that got in. Tried to join Brownburg PD this year but was rejected because i failed my stupid jump test.

 

[hookedonjeep]

All my knowledge pertaining to firearms comes both passed down from my father, and also real world experience. My father taught me the 4 laws long before he even let me near a gun. After that, it was hunting; him teaching me the value and sanctity of human life, and how to properly use firearms to not only put meat on the table, but also to keep ALL predators at bay (2 and 4 legged). Beyond the vast amounts of knowledge gained from my father; common sense, real world applications have continued to fill in the blanks.

 

[gstanley102]

I'm not a gun owner because I'm a vet.
I learned to shoot on the high school rifle team.
After that, I was hooked.

 

[Kedric]

US Army here. I had never shot a gun before that, but I was hooked the first day of BRM. Have done a lot of shooting and training since.

 

[the1kidd03]

hell, they are lacking realistic training with the RIFLE. man. when I went thru, Nam was still hot and I fired 200 rds in Basic. ZERO rds thru a pistol. Never fired a rd my entire bit in Korea, neither did anyone else there, their entire 13 month tour. Millions of us went to nam with no more rifle training than what Basic offered and none of that was combat oriented, at all.

They've gotten considerably better than the Nam era.

 

[TheEngineer]

neither for me...i must be one of those crazy rednecks with a gun that they warn everyone about

Well after reading some of the more recent posts, i suppose i should clarify my smarta** remark...

I do not have a military/LEO background, but I do come from a military family...I have a great deal of respect for both military personnel and LEOs for the sacrifices that they make.
That being said...like many here, I was introduced to firearms at a young age by my father for our first hunting trip. He started by teaching my the 4 rules before evening seeing him with a gun, then moved to allowing me to help clean them and get a better understanding of how they worked before i even fired one...I've been hooked ever since.

 

[the1kidd03]

A little insight:

I did not open this thread to compare the merits of service based firearms training to any other. I did not open it to in some way degrade any other form of firearms education. I encourage training in any form you can get it.

I certainly did not open this thread as to provide some sort of evidence that military training is better, or that service is a requirement of 2A. All of these things should be evident in the way the poll was designed (question content, limited responses, etc.)

Those of you who know me, know that I intentionally, and sometimes unintentionally, put myself around a great deal of anti-gun personalities. I do this for specific reasons. Mainly, so that I can research and investigate more in depth psychology behind the average anti-gun person; the reasons why they feel the way they do. This allows me to more effectively identify and address specific points in changing their perception of guns, gun owners, gun use, etc. as well as communicating points to them more effectively. Something which, through these endeavors, I've become quite experienced in (and good at based on feedback.) The FAR majority of them are simply ill-informed which leads to their negative perception of all things 2A and defense related.

One of the common arguments amongst this crowd is that of "only police and military should have firearms." Their premise lies in the misconception that all persons in these roles are so heavily trained in firearms and defensive situations that only they are qualified to carry arms. The average gun owner seems to be much more aware that this is a myth or misconception. Not always, but a majority of the time.

A good counter to this, or rather, demonstration point in the fallacy of this theory WOULD HAVE BEEN to be able to say, "Well, would you feel better to know that the MAJORITY of gun owners are military or police veterans?" I posted this poll here as a test bed to see if it's worth posting elsewhere in order to further substantiate this counter point. At a percentage hovering around 35-40% being prior service, it is not an insignificant number at all but I don't know that it's substantial enough to change many minds unless you can validate the term "majority."

THAT is the reason for this thread. Train whenever and wherever you can. Training never really hurts. Being prepared is the most important aspect. Carry on and thanks for you polling ladies and gents.

 

[buzz815]

Vietnam vet here. I was a door gunner on a helicopter gunship. Was a gun nut before Vietnam and it continues today.

 

[GMtoblat]

A little insight:

I did not open this thread to compare the merits of service based firearms training to any other. I did not open it to in some way degrade any other form of firearms education. I encourage training in any form you can get it.

I certainly did not open this thread as to provide some sort of evidence that military training is better, or that service is a requirement of 2A. All of these things should be evident in the way the poll was designed (question content, limited responses, etc.)

Those of you who know me, know that I intentionally, and sometimes unintentionally, put myself around a great deal of anti-gun personalities. I do this for specific reasons. Mainly, so that I can research and investigate more in depth psychology behind the average anti-gun person; the reasons why they feel the way they do. This allows me to more effectively identify and address specific points in changing their perception of guns, gun owners, gun use, etc. as well as communicating points to them more effectively. Something which, through these endeavors, I've become quite experienced in (and good at based on feedback.) The FAR majority of them are simply ill-informed which leads to their negative perception of all things 2A and defense related.

One of the common arguments amongst this crowd is that of "only police and military should have firearms." Their premise lies in the misconception that all persons in these roles are so heavily trained in firearms and defensive situations that only they are qualified to carry arms. The average gun owner seems to be much more aware that this is a myth or misconception. Not always, but a majority of the time.

A good counter to this, or rather, demonstration point in the fallacy of this theory WOULD HAVE BEEN to be able to say, "Well, would you feel better to know that the MAJORITY of gun owners are military or police veterans?" I posted this poll here as a test bed to see if it's worth posting elsewhere in order to further substantiate this counter point. At a percentage hovering around 35-40% being prior service, it is not an insignificant number at all but I don't know that it's substantial enough to change many minds unless you can validate the term "majority."

THAT is the reason for this thread. Train whenever and wherever you can. Training never really hurts. Being prepared is the most important aspect. Carry on and thanks for you polling ladies and gents.

If you had told us this at the start we could have given you the results you wanted!

 

[the1kidd03]

If you had told us this at the start we could have given you the results you wanted!

LOL. True. But we already have the numbers and facts on our side. No reason to play the anti-gunners game and skew it or manipulate more in our favor.

 

[Rockhopper]

I'm a Marine.

 

[erice1984]

7 yrs Army.

 

[stormryder]

Double Veteran, USAF then ARNG 13.5 years total before Medically retired for TypeII Diabetes(no Pension). Got more weapons training and practice on my own.

 

[metaldog]

Family has many vets. Father was USAF Vietnam & myself Army Desert Shield/Storm. Started shooting at 5 years old & hunting at age 7 (squirrel & dove). Grew up being taught a respect & appreciation for guns & what they can do. None of my own kids went into service, but all have been taught how to care for & use guns. Surprisingly, my youngest daughter (18 now) is very fond of shooting & is a very good shot. She also shares papa's love for the 1911 & older military weapons.