Top Law Schools

I hope this won't devolve into a debate about whether guns are "right or wrong".

I felt this question deserved it's own thread and hopefully it hasn't been addressed here before. I want to hear thoughts from anyone really, but if you have a personal connection to shooting, please share your background. I think it would be interesting to hear from others associated with law, so I've included my own experiences here.

Firearms are in my blood. I come from a long line of men (and women!) who knew guns well. I knew of the existence of my father's guns by the time I was eight or so. I regularly practiced shooting rifles when I was growing up. My uncle is a winning competitor in a variety of shooting sports. I have done well in steel challenge matches, winning my class locally, and will hopefully move on to state and possibly national level competition in steel and possibly other competitions as well. I'll never be a world-beater but it will remain one of my greatest passions until I'm in the ground. It's also worth mentioning that I've never gone hunting - although I wouldn't have a problem shooting something that I was going to eat.

I'm a life member of the NRA and a concealed carry permit holder (and user)in NC. I've considered in the past getting more involved in 2nd amendment activism, like starting a group at my undergraduate institution to promote education on firearms law, safety, and training. I have taken a number of friends with me to the range that had never even held a gun and I can honestly say that each of them enjoyed the experience and stated that it was enriching for them.

After all this rambling, the point of my post: do you feel that revealing a firearms-oriented facet of your background is self-defeating for the purposes of law school admission and later hiring? I could see it possibly helping you stand out, but could easily see it being a black mark if the person reading your file is not a fan of guns. I'm really proud of my knowledge and achievements (although minor) but I don't want to shoot myself in the foot...no pun intended.

If this thread goes to shit with bickering, that would probably answer my question.

The way you presented your story seemed very politicized. Now, I don't know how this would be viewed by adcomm's or by employers (so I'm just spitballin' here), but as far as your experience with the shooting competitions and your passion for shooting (as sport) in general, I don't see why that would necessarily hurt. If it were me, to be on the safe side, I would not politicize it but rather, play it up as more of a passion than a political conviction.

That's my two cents, FWIW...

What do you think of studies like this?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... illed.html

Answer:

Most adcomms don't care about your PS as long it is typo free. Revealing controversial stuff hurts you because it shows a lack of judgement. The adcomm's job is to put together the highest-numbered class that wont be insufferable and make the year hard for the Dean of Students. By writing on 2nd amendment you are screaming "I am not socially aware and value personal political preference which could annoy someone over being professional." Most adcomms probably don't care about your beliefs but will question your judgement if you write a PS like this.

Attention other 0Ls: Don't write a PS on the other topics as well: sexual preference, rape, abortion, race (unless you are a URM), feminism, religion (especially atheism, christianity, mormonism, Catholicism, as well as Islam or Judaism if not a member). Don't write about the law. Also, avoid normative statements on anything. No one cares

TaipeiMort wrote:Answer:

Most adcomms don't care about your PS as long it is typo free. Revealing controversial stuff hurts you because it shows a lack of judgement. The adcomm's job is to put together the highest numbered class that wont be unsufferable and make the year hard for the Dean of Students. By writing on 2nd amendment you are screaming "I am not socially aware and value personal political preference which could annoy someone over being professional." Most adcomms probably don't care about your beliefs but will question your judgement if you write a PS like this.

Attention other 0Ls: Don't write a PS on the other topics as well: sexual preference, rape, abortion, race (unless you are a URM), feminism, religion (especially atheism, christianity, mormonism, Catholicism if a member, as well as Islam or Judaism if not a member). Don't write about the law. Also, avoid normative statements on anything. No one cares

+1 This seems like sound advice.

I didn't mean including it in my personal statement, just mentioning my specific achievements in competition as something extracurricular that I've done. Then, if ever specifically asked about it, maybe it would be an opportunity to connect with the asker. It could also be rope to hang myself with in an interview, depending on the politics involved.

Additionally, I wondered if low-level activism could draw unwanted attention. I know of judges and prosecutors in my home town who carry 24/7, so I know at least some people agree, but I think most people assume that someone in academia is more likely to be liberal.

For the record, I'm not very conservative. Think Hunter S. Thompson - a massive firearms enthusiast, and he was no Dick Cheney.

EDIT: Grammar, I'm tired.

atlas1886 wrote:I didn't mean including it in my personal statement, just mentioning my specific achievements in competition as something extracurricular that I've done.

You can include awards you've won (if they're actually prestigious, and only after high school), and include gun sports in your interests line. Just make sure that you also include other things so your whole resume doesn't read 'psycho gun nut'.

Ok: Interests include competitive target shooting, ethnic cooking, hiking, photography and recreational soccer. <== this sounds like a well-rounded individual who should be able to relate to a variety of people.
Not ok: Interests include competitive target shooting, skeet shooting, wild game hunting, paintball, bow hunting, fishing, taxidermy, and NRA meetings. <== this sounds like someone who gets way too many jollies killing things or pretending to kill things.

rinkrat/TaipeiMort:

Your statements both seem reasonable and I would agree.

I'll have plenty of other things aside from the aforementioned such as volunteering abroad, volunteering with an immigration law nonprofit, captaining intramural team, etc. I was too broad in the OP - I really mean to say that I would like to include some achievements like being #1 in a local competition, etc.

Tom Joad wrote:What do you think of studies like this?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... illed.html

While I am not really on either side of the second amendment debate, I'll answer this:

Everyone involved with the publishing of this article is intellectually dishonest. Where is it shown that carrying a gun "increases" the likelihood of getting shot? There is just a correlation between having a gun and being shot. If you are in a high crime area, you are more likely to carry a gun. If you are someone who thinks they will be shot, you are more likely to carry a gun.

The author could have just as easily imputed causality by saying something outlandish like "having teach for america increases risk of students being shot" or "voting democrat increases risk of being shot" because these areas have democrat-heavy populations and teach for american tens to focus on indigent communities with an elevated risk for gun crime.

Tom Joad wrote:What do you think of studies like this?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... illed.html

The study, in my opinion, does not tell the whole story. I am trying to avoid a guns vs. no guns debate and keep the thread focused on how it relates to law school, or anyone in law or law school who wants to talk about their firearms background. At some point, it would be fun to revisit this, either after this thread runs its course or in a new one.

If the original post sounded preachy, it was because I was trying to outline how deep my roots in the firearms world go. I feel like including at least the achievements more honestly reflect me as a person. In other words, I would feel better about myself having the balls to not omit something I'm proud of just because I'm scared of admissions. On the other hand, who wants to alienate people?

I just mentioned 2nd ammendment activism because it seems like starting any kind of gun-related group at an educational institution (like a university club shooting team, of which there many in the US) might still follow you in a negative way.

Maybe drop a line in your resume and if it jumps out at someone they will talk about it in an interview. If I was interviewing you I'd probably ask about that since I grew up on a farm and been around guns and regularly plink around and kill varmints.

Actually I have a legit question: what is the most common mistake you've observed informal shooters make? My cousin an me are in a bit of an arms race and since I'm in law school living of borrowed money I'm losing. I figure I can at least start taking my shooting more seriously and be able to out shoot that bastard.

Edit: For a Yale 250 or a diversity essay it isn't a terrible topic. Idk if it'd be the best but who knows what admissions ppl like. Liking to shoot guns isn't super contraversial and lots of people at my shoot like to go shooting actually -- including ppl in the ACS and what not. The only thing that might strike people as odd is the carry permit.

When you say 'mistake' are you talking about performance or safety?

I assume you're talking about performance but want to clarify first.

atlas1886 wrote:When you say 'mistake' are you talking about performance or safety?

I assume you're talking about performance but want to clarify first.

Yeah performance. People on ranges are obviously much safer with stuff like you can't load until you walk up but it makes sense I guess. I just follow the range rules.

Check PMs.

You should learn how to spell the name of the amendment you love so much.

I am a hunter, and I took it off my resume for OCI. I think I had it on there 1L year. It's a coin flip, but I figured that it might be off-putting and the upside was small.

Oops...fixed in the OP.

Tom Joad wrote:What do you think of studies like this?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... illed.html

It is leftist anti-gun propaganda!

Unless I win something really impressive, I am thinking currently that I might omit any mention of guns except at known conservative schools, should I apply to any. If I get involved in school club shooting I might even omit that as well.

That it could be a negative at all makes me sad.

atlas1886 wrote:Unless I win something really impressive, I am thinking currently that I might omit any mention of guns except at known conservative schools, should I apply to any. If I get involved in school club shooting I might even omit that as well.

That it could be a negative at all makes me sad.

I am probably wrong because I am pretty uneducated on the issue, but it would seem to me that shooting for sport is seen in a different light than carrying a concealed weapon. I feel that a majority of the bearing arms argument is about carrying weapons in everyday life and not necessarily about skeet shooting and other similar competitions. I think that if you win a competition that is a big deal, it can show passion and dedication (which are two of the most important qualities for most things). It is very possible that you could come across a total anti-gun person and they may hate everything about guns...but I feel that by and large, the issue for most people is about carrying weapons outside of places like competitions and whatnot. But, as I said, take my words with a grain of salt, because I may be wrong...perhaps someone else can verify.

atlas1886 wrote:Unless I win something really impressive, I am thinking currently that I might omit any mention of guns except at known conservative schools, should I apply to any. If I get involved in school club shooting I might even omit that as well.

That it could be a negative at all makes me sad.

I am a gun owner and lifelong hunter. I'll be honest though, most people I know who are really into guns are usually weird as hell. Not really because of the gun ownership thing, but just because of their odd personalities and backwoodsy-ness. There seems to be a strong correlation between these things and being a hardcore gun person, and I didn't want that brand. That's one of the reasons I left it off. Now that I got a jerb and got over that "first impression" hurdle, I don't mind being open about it.

I agree that some of the gun guys you see are kind of weird. I don't know to describe it..."intense" is a good word. I'd say it's like 5% of gun nuts that are that way, though. My opinion is that you see weird people in any crowd, but the fact that deadly weapons are involved tends to highlight any eccentricities.

The only time I've ever felt like someone needed to be supervised is two occasions when groups of young, stereotypical frat guys came in to the range and rented a Desert Eagle chambered in .50AE. A general joking demeanor and obvious lack of handgun training can unnerve you when someone is holding a hand cannon. Both times, I wanted to approach the group and correct their behavior but I felt it should be the resonsibility of the range employees, as long as it didn't become overtly dangerous behavior. The first time, one of the guys in the group that was a bit more mature starting telling the shooters to be quiet and pay attention to what they were doing. The second time, the range officer came in and politely reminded them to pay attention and walked them through the four safety commandments again (one of them had turned with the unloaded gun in his hand, pointing it up the range - huge no no).

I would never mention CCW to a school - I just mentioned it in this thread. As far as putting stuff on my application/resume, I ONLY was referring to shooting sports accomplishments and possibly leadership involvement in 2nd amendment or shooting sports organizations.

TaipeiMort wrote:

Tom Joad wrote:What do you think of studies like this?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... illed.html

While I am not really on either side of the second amendment debate, I'll answer this:

Everyone involved with the publishing of this article is intellectually dishonest. Where is it shown that carrying a gun "increases" the likelihood of getting shot? There is just a correlation between having a gun and being shot. If you are in a high crime area, you are more likely to carry a gun. If you are someone who thinks they will be shot, you are more likely to carry a gun.

The author could have just as easily imputed causality by saying something outlandish like "having teach for america increases risk of students being shot" or "voting democrat increases risk of being shot" because these areas have democrat-heavy populations and teach for american tens to focus on indigent communities with an elevated risk for gun crime.

I'm by no means virulently anti-gun, just to establish where I'm coming from. Haven't read the study either, just that link. But did you read the part about the study controlling for the error you just ascribed to them? You know, in the 2nd paragraph of the article?

"It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood."

atlas1886 wrote:
After all this rambling, the point of my post: do you feel that revealing a firearms-oriented facet of your background is self-defeating for the purposes of law school admission and later hiring? I could see it possibly helping you stand out, but could easily see it being a black mark if the person reading your file is not a fan of guns. I'm really proud of my knowledge and achievements (although minor) but I don't want to shoot myself in the foot...no pun intended.

I'm a hunter and a CCW permit holder. I've been shooting since I was probably ten years old. It's a lot of fun. I don't see how shooting anything is related to law admissions though. I have no idea where this would possibly come up on any application (it didn't come up on the ten apps I filled out this cycle). I don't have fishing on my resume. The only thing I would put on there is the accomplishments (i.e. Winter Games Trap Shoot Champ 2011).

I don't have any experience going after law jobs, but I'm sure its the same when applying to other jobs. If the person interviewing you shares that interest, bring it up. Otherwise no.

northerniowan wrote:

atlas1886 wrote:
After all this rambling, the point of my post: do you feel that revealing a firearms-oriented facet of your background is self-defeating for the purposes of law school admission and later hiring? I could see it possibly helping you stand out, but could easily see it being a black mark if the person reading your file is not a fan of guns. I'm really proud of my knowledge and achievements (although minor) but I don't want to shoot myself in the foot...no pun intended.

I'm a hunter and a CCW permit holder. I've been shooting since I was probably ten years old. It's a lot of fun. I don't see how shooting anything is related to law admissions though. I have no idea where this would possibly come up on any application (it didn't come up on the ten apps I filled out this cycle). I don't have fishing on my resume. The only thing I would put on there is the accomplishments (i.e. Winter Games Trap Shoot Champ 2011).

I don't have any experience going after law jobs, but I'm sure its the same when applying to other jobs. If the person interviewing you shares that interest, bring it up. Otherwise no.

Most people have a "Hobbies and Interests" section or something like that on their resumes, so it could come up there.