6 ms·

There is a non-trivial portion of the population that feels rifles only exist to kill other people. How would you convince them to take such a course?

by hueving 10y ago

kzrdude 10y ago
Rifle shooting doesn't seem to be an important component. As a non-american scout my experience includes all the same things, except the shooting.
- waterphone 10y ago
  In many cases, it's less about knowing how to shoot a rifle (though that is a factor as well) and more about how to safely handle one. Even if you do not care for guns, there are many around, and knowing how to safely handle one and treat it with the care needed helps to prevent deadly accidents.
  - dvtv75 10y ago
    I'd add to that the ability to recognize when a weapon is not being safely handled, and either confiscate (in certain circumstances) or correct the person with the weapon, or just vacate the area.
- zipwitch 10y ago
  A rifle really is the best tool for: hunting large game for food and defending yourself from hostile megafauna.
jeff_petersen 10y ago
They could certainly opt out of any shooting education, it wasn't compulsory when I was a Boy Scout. Though I think the fact that they'd be shooting at paper targets would be a pretty immediate rebuttal of their beliefs.
function_seven 10y ago
It would probably be hard to convince them. But I'd try by drawing the parallels with encryption and illegal activity. To rephrase your statement There is a non-trivial portion of the population that feels encryption only exists to hide illegal activity. How would you convince them to use a VPN?
- pyre 10y ago
  Well, it also helps that encryption is a non-violent technology.
  - donw 10y ago
    I am very much pro-encryption-for-the-masses, but also consider it to be important to be able to argue multiple angles on any issue. So, playing Devil's Advocate, here is what an anti-encryption person would say in response: Nobody really needs encryption, and the common availability of military-grade encryption powers terrorism on a global scale. Terrorist groups use encryption to organize and coordinate attacks, such as the mass shooting in Paris that claimed 137 lives, with an additional 400 injuries. If this technology could be countered by intelligence agencies and law enforcement, it would become almost impossible to use the Internet to coordinate terror attacks, or to secretly support terror groups. Thousands of innocent lives could be saved if we just limited encryption to low-strength variants, which are still strong enough to safeguard emails and documents from nosy coworkers. And really, what legitimate use is there for strong encryption? If the government wants your salsa recipe, they are just going to throw you in prison until you tell them. Your online payments will still be secure if the government holds a master key. The only reason you would need strong encryption without government oversight is if you have something dangerous to hide.
    - dTal 10y ago
      >Terrorist groups use encryption to organize and coordinate attacks, such as the mass shooting in Paris that claimed 137 lives, with an additional 400 injuries. This is not true, and you should not allow someone to get away with statements like these. The Paris attackers made extensive use of unencrypted burner phones. Far from supporting it, this actually deals a fatal blow to the idea that terrorists could be stopped, if it weren't for that pesky encryption. They demonstrably can't. I'm frightened that, as a meme, "paris attacks demonstrate the need to weaken encryption" actually got off the ground. It demonstrates the power of government propaganda is sufficient to completely invert the lessons of an event to suit them.
douche 10y ago
It usually only takes one target or skeet shooting session to convert someone. Shooting things is really fun, when you do it in a safe way.
donw 10y ago
Well, as adults that can make their own decision, that would be up to them, of course. Hopefully this isn't too political, but I will try and answer your question. Part of self-reliance is the ability to make your environment safe. This is why you learn first-aid, CPR, how to use a fire extinguisher, how to properly use a knife, etc. In the United States, there are more firearms then people. This trend shows no signs of stopping any time in the near future. Statistically speaking, in a group that focuses on outdoor activities and self-reliance, there will be multiple gun owners. Some will probably have concealed weapons permits. Taking a gun into the wilderness is a sensible precaution. There are any number of dangerous critters, especially the ones with rabies. While in the backcountry, you will also run into other people that are armed. Our hypothetical non-gun-person is therefore going to be around guns. Guns are dangerous. Not knowing how to safely handle a gun makes non-gun people potentially dangerous to both themselves, and other people. The responsible thing is therefore to learn how to safely handle a weapon, including how to unload and clear it. They don't need to ever buy one, own one, or even like guns. But knowing gun safety is right up there with knowing CPR. You don't learn CPR by reading a book. You do it by practicing in a controlled environment. Same for gun safety.
- autokad 10y ago
  I was in body pump class, and the instructor said 'show us those guns'. after class, one of the attendees told the instructor they were pro gun control and were offended by his comments, and asked that he didn't say it anymore.
  - shaftoe 10y ago
    There's always "that guy".
- frenchy 10y ago
  This sounds so ... American ... to me. I've spent over a 100 days camping in the backcountry (and many more day trips) and never once carried a gun. Only once have I seen someone carrying firearms and it was a ranger specifically tasked with destroying a problematic bear. It just seems so much easier to just avoid wildlife in most places.
joshontheweb 10y ago
Take them bow hunting. They'll wish they had a gun real quick :)
gcr 10y ago
I was in scouts. Learning about rifles and shooting is completely optional. If you don't want that merit badge, you can just get something else.
pyre 10y ago
Well, it doesn't help that most of the gun enthusiasts' arguments for why they need their guns involve killing other people. That and I don't think that anyone needs a semi-automatic "assault-style" weapon to hunt for food. Most of the guns that we see in the news and the gun debates are not guns that I ever saw someone hunting with.
- rsync 10y ago
  "Most of the guns that we see in the news and the gun debates are not guns that I ever saw someone hunting with." Correct. Hunting rifles are typically much more powerful and lethal than handguns and "assault style" AR-15 and AR-derivative rifles. They shoot farther and with more velocity, they use larger (sometimes much larger) projectiles and are much more accurate.
  - losvedir 10y ago
    On the other hand, rifles are just a fraction (< 5%) of gun deaths in the United States.
  - LyndsySimon 10y ago
    When I lived in Arkansas, I took several deer with an AR-15. Now that I'm in Virginia I can't do that, because the cartridge isn't considered powerful enough to be humane. Here, I use a AKM in 7.62x39mm.
- AlexB138 10y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean by "assault-style", but assault weapons are inherently automatic weapons, not semi-automatic. I find it very odd that you specified "semi-automatic" which is, by far, the least dangerous of the two. Are you advocating for bolt-action rifles?
  - scott_s 10y ago
    The very definition of "assault weapon" is political. I use it to mean both semi-automatic and fully automatic rifles that were designed for combat. This is a common definition, but obviously, not fully accepted.
pjc50 10y ago
There's no reason for guns to necessarily be included in an outdoorsmanship course, of course. But I'll note that part of the reason the gun debate is so poisonous is advocates that are unwilling to draw a distinction between the use of guns against animals and the use of guns against humans - regarding any distinction between different types of guns or contexts of ownership as heretical.
AlexB138 10y ago
There are a staggeringly large number of firearms in the United States. Firearms are incredibly dangerous objects. Just about the only way to make one more dangerous is to have no idea how it works. I would also think that from an intellectual point of view, one would want to have at least a basic understanding of something you oppose so strongly, which is almost never the case when it comes to firearms. "There is a non-trivial portion of the population that feels rifles only exist to kill other people." I find it odd that you say people think rifles only exist to kill people. Pistols are used in the vast majority of shootings, and rifles in the vast majority of sport uses.
- hueving 10y ago
  People with strong anti gun stances aren't very rational about there uses.
betenoire 10y ago
lol. methinks you pull stats and scenarios outta your butt. You are asking how do we convince people who refuse to use guns how to learn how to use guns safely... Maybe you could just let them not use guns?
LyndsySimon 10y ago
I'd offer it to them if they'd like, but why push them into it? For what it's worth, there is also a non-trivial portion of the population that feels that confidence with weapons is an integral part of the American individualist spirit.

There is a non-trivial portion of the population that feels rifles only exist to kill other people. How would you convince them to take such a course?

by hueving 10y ago

There is a non-trivial portion of the population that feels rifles only exist to kill other people. How would you convince them to take such a course?

kzrdude 10y ago

Rifle shooting doesn't seem to be an important component. As a non-american scout my experience includes all the same things, except the shooting.

waterphone 10y ago
In many cases, it's less about knowing how to shoot a rifle (though that is a factor as well) and more about how to safely handle one. Even if you do not care for guns, there are many around, and knowing how to safely handle one and treat it with the care needed helps to prevent deadly accidents.
- dvtv75 10y ago
  I'd add to that the ability to recognize when a weapon is not being safely handled, and either confiscate (in certain circumstances) or correct the person with the weapon, or just vacate the area.
zipwitch 10y ago
A rifle really is the best tool for: hunting large game for food and defending yourself from hostile megafauna.

jeff_petersen 10y ago

They could certainly opt out of any shooting education, it wasn't compulsory when I was a Boy Scout. Though I think the fact that they'd be shooting at paper targets would be a pretty immediate rebuttal of their beliefs.

function_seven 10y ago

It would probably be hard to convince them. But I'd try by drawing the parallels with encryption and illegal activity. To rephrase your statement There is a non-trivial portion of the population that feels encryption only exists to hide illegal activity. How would you convince them to use a VPN?

pyre 10y ago
Well, it also helps that encryption is a non-violent technology.
- donw 10y ago
  I am very much pro-encryption-for-the-masses, but also consider it to be important to be able to argue multiple angles on any issue. So, playing Devil's Advocate, here is what an anti-encryption person would say in response: Nobody really needs encryption, and the common availability of military-grade encryption powers terrorism on a global scale. Terrorist groups use encryption to organize and coordinate attacks, such as the mass shooting in Paris that claimed 137 lives, with an additional 400 injuries. If this technology could be countered by intelligence agencies and law enforcement, it would become almost impossible to use the Internet to coordinate terror attacks, or to secretly support terror groups. Thousands of innocent lives could be saved if we just limited encryption to low-strength variants, which are still strong enough to safeguard emails and documents from nosy coworkers. And really, what legitimate use is there for strong encryption? If the government wants your salsa recipe, they are just going to throw you in prison until you tell them. Your online payments will still be secure if the government holds a master key. The only reason you would need strong encryption without government oversight is if you have something dangerous to hide.
  - dTal 10y ago
    >Terrorist groups use encryption to organize and coordinate attacks, such as the mass shooting in Paris that claimed 137 lives, with an additional 400 injuries. This is not true, and you should not allow someone to get away with statements like these. The Paris attackers made extensive use of unencrypted burner phones. Far from supporting it, this actually deals a fatal blow to the idea that terrorists could be stopped, if it weren't for that pesky encryption. They demonstrably can't. I'm frightened that, as a meme, "paris attacks demonstrate the need to weaken encryption" actually got off the ground. It demonstrates the power of government propaganda is sufficient to completely invert the lessons of an event to suit them.

douche 10y ago

It usually only takes one target or skeet shooting session to convert someone. Shooting things is really fun, when you do it in a safe way.

donw 10y ago

Well, as adults that can make their own decision, that would be up to them, of course. Hopefully this isn't too political, but I will try and answer your question. Part of self-reliance is the ability to make your environment safe. This is why you learn first-aid, CPR, how to use a fire extinguisher, how to properly use a knife, etc. In the United States, there are more firearms then people. This trend shows no signs of stopping any time in the near future. Statistically speaking, in a group that focuses on outdoor activities and self-reliance, there will be multiple gun owners. Some will probably have concealed weapons permits. Taking a gun into the wilderness is a sensible precaution. There are any number of dangerous critters, especially the ones with rabies. While in the backcountry, you will also run into other people that are armed. Our hypothetical non-gun-person is therefore going to be around guns. Guns are dangerous. Not knowing how to safely handle a gun makes non-gun people potentially dangerous to both themselves, and other people. The responsible thing is therefore to learn how to safely handle a weapon, including how to unload and clear it. They don't need to ever buy one, own one, or even like guns. But knowing gun safety is right up there with knowing CPR. You don't learn CPR by reading a book. You do it by practicing in a controlled environment. Same for gun safety.

autokad 10y ago
I was in body pump class, and the instructor said 'show us those guns'. after class, one of the attendees told the instructor they were pro gun control and were offended by his comments, and asked that he didn't say it anymore.
- shaftoe 10y ago
  There's always "that guy".
frenchy 10y ago
This sounds so ... American ... to me. I've spent over a 100 days camping in the backcountry (and many more day trips) and never once carried a gun. Only once have I seen someone carrying firearms and it was a ranger specifically tasked with destroying a problematic bear. It just seems so much easier to just avoid wildlife in most places.

joshontheweb 10y ago

Take them bow hunting. They'll wish they had a gun real quick :)

gcr 10y ago

I was in scouts. Learning about rifles and shooting is completely optional. If you don't want that merit badge, you can just get something else.

pyre 10y ago

Well, it doesn't help that most of the gun enthusiasts' arguments for why they need their guns involve killing other people. That and I don't think that anyone needs a semi-automatic "assault-style" weapon to hunt for food. Most of the guns that we see in the news and the gun debates are not guns that I ever saw someone hunting with.

rsync 10y ago
"Most of the guns that we see in the news and the gun debates are not guns that I ever saw someone hunting with." Correct. Hunting rifles are typically much more powerful and lethal than handguns and "assault style" AR-15 and AR-derivative rifles. They shoot farther and with more velocity, they use larger (sometimes much larger) projectiles and are much more accurate.
- losvedir 10y ago
  On the other hand, rifles are just a fraction (< 5%) of gun deaths in the United States.
- LyndsySimon 10y ago
  When I lived in Arkansas, I took several deer with an AR-15. Now that I'm in Virginia I can't do that, because the cartridge isn't considered powerful enough to be humane. Here, I use a AKM in 7.62x39mm.
AlexB138 10y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by "assault-style", but assault weapons are inherently automatic weapons, not semi-automatic. I find it very odd that you specified "semi-automatic" which is, by far, the least dangerous of the two. Are you advocating for bolt-action rifles?
- scott_s 10y ago
  The very definition of "assault weapon" is political. I use it to mean both semi-automatic and fully automatic rifles that were designed for combat. This is a common definition, but obviously, not fully accepted.

pjc50 10y ago

There's no reason for guns to necessarily be included in an outdoorsmanship course, of course. But I'll note that part of the reason the gun debate is so poisonous is advocates that are unwilling to draw a distinction between the use of guns against animals and the use of guns against humans - regarding any distinction between different types of guns or contexts of ownership as heretical.

AlexB138 10y ago

There are a staggeringly large number of firearms in the United States. Firearms are incredibly dangerous objects. Just about the only way to make one more dangerous is to have no idea how it works. I would also think that from an intellectual point of view, one would want to have at least a basic understanding of something you oppose so strongly, which is almost never the case when it comes to firearms. "There is a non-trivial portion of the population that feels rifles only exist to kill other people." I find it odd that you say people think rifles only exist to kill people. Pistols are used in the vast majority of shootings, and rifles in the vast majority of sport uses.

hueving 10y ago
People with strong anti gun stances aren't very rational about there uses.

betenoire 10y ago

lol. methinks you pull stats and scenarios outta your butt. You are asking how do we convince people who refuse to use guns how to learn how to use guns safely... Maybe you could just let them not use guns?

LyndsySimon 10y ago

I'd offer it to them if they'd like, but why push them into it? For what it's worth, there is also a non-trivial portion of the population that feels that confidence with weapons is an integral part of the American individualist spirit.