Shooters are some of the most law-abiding and trustworthy people on the planet, at least here in the U.S.
This is not hyperbole, nor is it merely personal opinion (though it is
also my personal opinion). As an example, criminal statistics through all of the 1900s (and into the 2000s) have consistently shown that legal concealed carry permit holders commit less crime than almost ANY other possible demographic---including police officers. If we were being precise, "less crime" should more accurately be stated as "far less crime."
Yes, there are idiots out there who own guns. And crazy people who own guns. And...you get the idea. However, the percentage of gun owners (and shooters) who fit into those idiot/crazy categories is demonstrably less than occurs in the general population. (Again, as evidenced by the percentage of gun owners involved in crime.)
So what happens when you get a bunch of shooters together and have them start competing? You have people being human, with normal human emotional reactions. And yet, for the most part, overall these shooters exhibit a level of responsibility and maturity far above the normal population.
Example:
Awhile back, in a large sectional match, one individual was beginning his first stage of the match. It was an expensive match, and not only had he paid to participate, he had volunteered his time to both set up a stage, and to be a Range Officer for the entirety of the match once he was done shooting.
And on his first stage, the first thing he had to do was open a door, and move through the doorway---and the doorjamb caught his firearm, pulled it out of the holster, and it fell to the ground.
Instant disqualificiation from the match. Never got to shoot a single shot.
What did he do? He accepted the DQ, walked off and spent 15 minutes calming down, then came back and worked the rest of the match as an RO. Didn't complain, just did what he said he'd do. He certainly wasn't happy about it---but he didn't argue the DQ.
The ENPS shooters have DQ'ed several people over the course of the past year---and you know what? Almost none of them argued. They didn't try to fight the rules, they didn't try to complain that they should be a special case "just this once" --they accepted it and moved on.
Let's contrast that with parents during Little League baseball. Or high school sports. Or pretty much any other competition you'll ever see currently. The spectators often wildly overreact, causing problems for the officials and sportsmen (and women) of the game. And some sports-people create spectacles of themselves, gaining attention by their bad behavior. In the last Olympics, there were several demonstrations of Olympic athletes who demonstrated a complete lack of good sportsmanship---the TKD athlete who deliberately kicked a referee in the head immediately comes to mind.
We hear about numerous examples of this. And yet, in a case where people have loaded weapons available to them---we
don't see it happening.
Yes, of course there is the occasional idiot who yells or spouts off. In any human endeavor, there is always going to be an idiot. But still---among the shooting sports, that just isn't going to happen very often. And it never involves a violent confrontation.
So let's give a contrasting example from a shooting sport: A shooter zooms through a stage, with good accuracy and quick shooting, ends up at the final position, takes 3 targets through a port, then turns and shoots one last target to his right. However, that last target was past the 180 degree line.
DQ.
Shooter argues the point, calls the match director (as is his perogative) for a judgment. MD sees the situation, hears the description and judgment from the RO, and upholds the DQ. Shooter grumbles and walks off, later talking loudly about "I know why they did that" and "it wasn't anything dangerous," meaning that a DQ should be for doing something stupid (which tends to equate to dangerous) ---and that he had simply turned and shot a target, which was backed by a berm, with no spectators nearby or even remotely in the line of fire.
I'll note that 3 weeks later, he is still unhappy about it, and doesn't really think he should have been DQ'ed. And yet, if he had been the RO for the stage (and he is an RO) I'll bet he would have DQ'ed the shooter also.
I was the secondary RO for the stage, so this is firsthand. The shooter broke the 180, and not merely with the muzzle, but took 2 shots past the 180 line. That is a DQ by the rules, plain and simple.
Breaking the 180 is a serious infraction---not merely because the rulebook says so, but because of WHY it was put in the rulebook in the first place. Shooting past the 180 means that you are shooting
backwards, so if someone is behind you and to the side, you might be aiming at them. Even if no one is on the sides, and there are berms there to catch the bullet, rocks do exist, and bullets may ricochet from the berm and continue backward through the middle of the watching crowd. We DQ people for merely having their muzzle past the 180 line---much less for shooting past it.
It isn't safe. The shooter was DQ'ed.
And he wasn't happy about it, and still isn't. And yet, as an RO, I'm fairly certain that underneath all of the complaints, he knows it was justified. That stage (and that DQ) happened to mean a lot to him, for a number of reasons. That doesn't change the fact that what he did was dangerous, and against the rules.
Interesting note: this was the same shooter from the first example, who was DQ'ed in the big match without shooting at all, and who handled it so well.
You'll note here that even with the loud talking and the arguing, none of it was confrontational, nor aggressive, nor potentially violent. People were unhappy---yet there was no signs of impending problems.
Because people who own guns, in general, and more particularly, people who shoot regularly, are better than that. On average, the self-control and responsibility that shooters demonstrate on a day-to-day basis is simply highly than the rest of the population.
Don't take my opinion for it---watch some shooting matches. If you are waiting for the kind of bad sportsmanship you see in other sports, you'll be waiting a long time.
Don't take my opinion for it---look at the statistics on who commit crimes.
Police Officers have a higher rate than concealed carry permit holders when it comes to committing crimes.
You still have people being human---grumbling, arguing, and occasional bad feelings. People will be people, so pettiness occurs, as does anger and bad judgment. And yet, overall, there is a limit on how much occurs---a limit that is common to shooters, and unfortunately
uncommon to the general population.
I don't like everyone I shoot with. And I don't think that everyone I shoot with adheres to the safety standards of gun handling that I require of myself and my students. Yet none of that changes the fact that I have no problem shooting with them. They are human, and occasionally have bad days--and yet, I know they will act with maturity and responsibility when we shoot.
