Gun enthusiasts say their sport is not violent

[JohnLocke]

Gun enthusiasts say their sport is not violent
Monday, June 7, 2004
Associated Press
----
NEWBURGH, Ind. - Target shooters who participated in a pistol championship along the Ohio River bristled at the perception that their sport is violent, saying it teaches self-defense.
"Safety is paramount," Pete Laub, a gunsmith from Hanson, Ky., told the Evansville Courier & Press Saturday. "It's no different than a hammer. When you teach someone how to use a hammer, you teach them not to hit their thumb."
Jim Barbour of Indianapolis said he does not understand why sometimes violent sports such as hockey are held in higher regard than defensive shooting.
(...)
Many locals participated, but so did people from California and Canada. One shooter was in a wheelchair.
Jake Martins said all 12 shooting scenarios in the match were meant to teach self-defense.
Shooters gunned down cardboard silhouettes and steel targets representing attackers, household intruders and purse snatchers.
In some scenarios, shooters must avoid hitting bystanders, which are represented by silhouettes marked with an X. Participants are scored on speed and accuracy.
"It's all about defending yourself," Martins said.
----
Read the rest here.
----
I'm leaving the Gungeon now. You may now begin the bile tossing. :P

[OpSomBlood]

1. It's not violent.

n/t

[CO Liberal]

7. If That's The Case.....

...why do they sell targets at gun shows featuring pictures of Bill and Hillary Clinton????

[OpSomBlood]

8. The deranged fantasies of a tiny minority of shooters are irrelevant.

Punching holes into a piece of paper is not violent. Violence is defined as exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse.

[CO Liberal]

10. Or Practicing to Commit Said Violence

As evidenced by targets with people's pictures on them commonly offerred for sale at gun shows.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fescue4u]

27. SO I guess cops are being violent???

WHen they train by shooting the silohets (sp?) of people?

[CO Liberal]

37. Do Those Silhouettes Have Faces?? No...

But if they trained with pictures of someone like Timothy McVeigh, I would consider that violent. Since they don't, they're not.

Why do you have to use this as an excuse to engage in cop-bashing???

:shrug:

[DoNotRefill]

69. actually, many do...

there are plenty of targets out there with faces on them. They normally have two people, a "bad guy" and a "no-shoot" person standing in front of them as a hostage. The idea is to shoot the bad guy, and not the good guy.

These were developed as a way to increase realism for training LEOs. Because it's a VERY rare situation that a cop is confronted by a dangerous "black Q silhouette" shaped aggressor. Most aggressors look like people. Go figure.

[MrBenchley]

14. Like hell.....

[MrBenchley]

15. For the same reason

they hand out far right wing literature at gun shows....

[PopeyeII]

49. Shouldn't shooting pictures be considered a first amendment right?

We can burn the flag and burn straw dummies of Bush. I see no difference.

[MrBenchley]

77. hey, even ugly demented scum have the right to free speedch

as do we....to point out that they're ugly demented scum....

"For his research, Patterson watched an emergency-room operation and went to a gun show, where he saw cutout target figures of former President Clinton and Sen. Hillary Clinton."

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/entertainment/books/7134018.htm

[MrBenchley]

2. In some scenarios, shooters must avoid hitting bystanders

Thank Koresh for small favors....

[onehandle]

3. 99.99% of the time it's technically not....

It's that sliver of time when a bullet is entering the brain of a eight year old, who's found his father's gun, that you can say it's violent.

Of course if some yahoo's set up targets in the middle of a Mall, and started shooting at them, some might recognize that gun use is violent.

[OpSomBlood]

5. Is shooting a more violent sport than archery?

And why are both sports in the Olympics?

[iverglas]

9. uh oh

I woulda said exactly the same thing -- target shooting isn't violent at all.

Except that target shooting is not what the article is about.

Target shooters who participated in a pistol championship along the Ohio River bristled at the perception that their sport is violent, saying it teaches self-defense.

... Jim Barbour of Indianapolis said he does not understand why sometimes violent sports such as hockey are held in higher regard than defensive shooting.

... Jake Martins said all 12 shooting scenarios in the match were meant to teach self-defense.

Shooters gunned down cardboard silhouettes and steel targets representing attackers, household intruders and purse snatchers.

In some scenarios, shooters must avoid hitting bystanders, which are represented by silhouettes marked with an X. Participants are scored on speed and accuracy. "It's all about defending yourself," Martins said.

Sorry. Olympic target shooting doesn't have Thing One to do with defending yourself.

I mean, we can all see the difference between Olympic target shooting and, say, Olympic wrestling or judo or what have you, eh?

If Olympic target shooting had something to do with self-defence, the participants would be shooting at one another ... or at least at cardboard silhouettes of people. They don't.

One could presumably use a tennis racket for self-defence. And yet people who play tennis don't aim their balls at cardboard silhouettes of people, and don't commonly characterize their sport by saying "It's all about defending yourself."

Hell, I can even see the difference between a sport in which the people sometimes use violence against other players (say, hockey) and an activity that consists of preparation for using violence against people not involved in the activity (the activity being described here).

Uh oh:



http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/

[Liberal Classic]

11. There is fencing

Though fencers usually face off against a similarly armed opponent, there's nothing stopping a mad olympic fencer from runnin' out and skewering someone. A silly example and the weapons are archaic but fencing once had a more deadly purpose.

Touché!

[mosin]

12. "mad olympic fencers"

I can just picture the headlines. :)

[iverglas]

24. an irrelevant aside

that has no home now.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=62894&mesg_id=63021&page=


When you said I found that part condescending as well, I should have focused on the "as well", as in "as you did". I instead focused on the "that part", in a sentence immediately following the quoted bit of what I'd said, and took it as referring to what I'd said rather than to what I was saying it about, and as meaning that you found what I'd said condescending ("as someone else did"?) rather that you found what I was saying it about condescending.

The mildness of your rebuke was perhaps prompted by recognition of the potential ambiguity of what you'd said, in its particular context and format. Had I noticed the ambiguity, I should of course have sought clarification; good as I normally am at such things, I flubbed it. Gotta work on those metacognitive skills I guess. ;)

[LibLabUK]

18. As a one time fencer....

the thought of using a fencing weapon for anything but fencing is quite frankly hilarious...

You would have to try really, really, really hard to do any lasting damage to someone with a foil, bout the only way would be poking someone in the eye.. which is easier said than done (except by accident ofcourse).

Epees and sabres would probably give nasty welts.

If you broke the blades of a foil or epee then you would probably be able to serious injure someone.. I've seen someone hit in the leg with a broken foil, but it was hardly a life threatening wound.. just a deep scratch.

So a "mad olympic fencer" would probably have to buy a different type of sword if he wanted to go out and cause mischief... probably something like a cavalry sabre, cutlass or rapier would do the job... but the actual blades of the sport are useless for mischief.

[Romulus]

20. that't not what I saw on TV

An wasn't there some movie where the fencers drew blood during some sort of pissing contest? You mean that wasn't real? :shrug:

[LibLabUK]

21. Hehe

Do you mean 'By the Sword' (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101524/)?



I actually quite like that film...

[Liberal Classic]

34. I did say it was silly

The weapons used in the sport of fencing were originally designed as training weapons. As a fencer, I'm sure you're aware that before this swordmaster was a dangerous profession. The number of people who have lost their lives to the modern sport of fencing is small. As you say, the most common happenstance is a snapped foil between the plastron and helmet.

However, that's not the issue I wanted to raise. I believe the question is the violent nature of some sports. As refined and gentlemanly as fencing is, is it not at its core a violent sport?

[LibLabUK]

38. in my experience

"As refined and gentlemanly as fencing is, is it not at its core a violent sport?"

No more so than chess.

Infact my old Salle president used to call it "Chess with sweat".

I fenced throughout my time at secondary school, and was captain of the fencing team (for my sins), and in all that time I never stepped on to the piste to commit violence.

I was there to outwit, outsmart and outplay my opponent... and aggression would have stood in the way of that.

[Liberal Classic]

40. I never raised a foil in anger

But that is not my question.

It has been suggested that marksmen who ready themselves on the firing line are engaging in a violent sport. Others have claimed it is pure sport. I have made the (somewhat awkward) comparison with fencing.

Does this analogy not hold up, or does it have merit.

Even if the sport itself is not violent, does the sport not spring from violent roots as has been said of marksmanship?

(As an aside, one of my high points is practicing with the Columbia University New York fencing team while on holiday. Cheers.)

[DoNotRefill]

70. So, sporting clays would be violent?

after all, that's what it's about....it's a highly stylized representation of hunting small game, in which clay targets are used to spare the poor fuzzy bunnies and birdies.

Now LIVE shoots are violent. But shooting at targets? Not violent.

It's a VERY rare training session that involves blood being spilt.

[FeebMaster]

6. An eight year old accidentally shooting himself isn't violent.

It's an accident. Maybe there is negligence on the part of the father, maybe even criminal negligence, but there is no violence.

[Fescue4u]

26. More like 99.999999999999% its not.

If it was 99.99% then that means 1 out of every 10 cases of bullets kills someone.

[slackmaster]

4. It sure as hell is violent for the TARGETS!

"It's no different than a hammer. When you teach someone how to use a hammer, you teach them not to hit their thumb."

Try telling that to a NAIL!

:freak:

[OpSomBlood]

36. Who will look out for the targets?

n/t

[slackmaster]

39. The European Lesser Skeet is extinct in most of its native habitat

:freak:

[NorthernSpy]

60. and that...

... was the best joke here all day. Kind of works on different levels.

:D

Mary

[OpSomBlood]

13. Olympic sports that are more violent than shooting:

Hockey
Fencing
Judo
Tae Kwon Do
Wrestling
Boxing

Feel free to add.

[DonP]

16. The Biathalon?

Isn't the Biathalon in the winter olympics supposed to be a recreation of a military mission?

Cross country skiing, combined with rifles and steel targets at selected stages of the course IIRC?.

[LibLabUK]

19. So is the modern pentathalon...

It's the recreation of the mission of a military messenger.

Epee
Equestrian
Shooting
Swimming
Running

[Hrumph]

58. No, actually it's based on hunting skills.

I guess it's just coincidence that hunting skills so closely mirror some battle skills.

[iverglas]

84. coincidence

I guess it's just coincidence that hunting skills so closely mirror some battle skills.

Yeah. Like how the ability to barbecue pork chops so closely resembles the ability to burn a witch at the stake.

(bad editing edited)

[iverglas]

22. absolutely

But as I said, the tale that started this thread had nothing to do with Olympic shooting. Olympic competitors do NOT fire at cardboard cutouts of human beings. Olympic competitors are NOT training for self-defence.

Hockey players are engaged in trying to put a puck in a net and, along the way, sometimes contact other players forcefully.

Wrestlers are engaged in combat with other wrestlers that involves using force to win the match.

Olympic shooters are engaged in trying to put a bullet in a target.

Yer shooters training for "self-defense" are NOT engaged in a sport, they are engaged in the acquisition of a skill for a particular purpose. Just as I learned how to type in order to succeed at school and work, and not so that I could engage in the hobby of typing, and other people learn how to program computers in order to succeed at school and at work, and not so that they can engage in the hobby of computer programming.

Wrestlers and boxers and judo-doers sometimes engage in their activities in order to be able to defend themselves (or learn a teachable skill for employment purposes), and in that case they are not engaged in a sport either.

Yer shooters here are not engaged in a sport, Olympic or otherwise. Period.

So your attempt to compare what they are doing to Olympic hockey or Olympic wrestling or Olympic anything else is, as I might have mentioned, a feat of comparing



and what I would add to your list would be

a pink tutu
a French fry
and
several species of small furry animals gathered together in a cave and grooving with a Pict.

Of course, we have now moved beyond that and well into



territory.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

25. Stick to the stentorian op...

it's clearly all the speed you can handle...

[billbuckhead]

28. They would kill someone snatching a purse, I think that's very significant

No jury would give someone the death penalty for stealing a purse.

[FeebMaster]

29. You wouldn't?

I'd hardly call it the death penalty, but consider the things carried in purses. Driver's license with your home address, your keys to your home and vehicle. What happens when your purse snatcher decides to move up in the world and clean out your house, maybe while you're inside it depressed about the $60 that was in your purse?

[billbuckhead]

31. Killing someone over a purse is evil

Time and time again many in the unregulated gun crowd reveal a lack of good sense and judiciousness. It's scary to have someone with a gun walking around thta thinks killing purse snatchers is OK.

[FeebMaster]

32. Is snatching purses ok? (nt)

[TX-RAT]

33. Would you shoot someone for stealing your purse Feeb?

[FeebMaster]

41. I don't carry a purse. (nt)

[TX-RAT]

42. You don't answer the question either.

[FeebMaster]

43. The question was:

Would you shoot someone for stealing your purse Feeb?

Which I quite clearly answered. I don't carry a purse. I don't even own one for that matter.

[TX-RAT]

44. Strike 2

Want to try again or just keep playing games. Yes or no answers can be so tough.

[FeebMaster]

46. Playing games?

You asked a question and I answered it. If you had asked me "Have you stopped beating your wife?" I would have had to answer I don't have a wife. Sorry if you don't like the answer to your question, maybe you should come up with a better question.

[TX-RAT]

47. You answered nothing.

[FeebMaster]

48. That's clearly incorrect.

You asked: Would you shoot someone for stealing your purse Feeb?

I answered: I don't carry a purse.

[TX-RAT]

50. Post 29 answers my question

Funny billbuckhead had no problem dealing with your use of " your purse".

[FeebMaster]

51. I'm not billbuckhead.

If you had asked, for example, "if you carried a purse would you kill someone for taking it?" I would have answered something like this.

I certainly wouldn't hunt someone down for taking it and then kill them. But I wouldn't hesitate to shoot them while they were in the process of taking it. As I said, purses generally contain all sorts of vital information and the means to access your home. Not to mention the very act of taking a purse from someone is an assault on their person.

Here is a counter question for you: If a purse snatcher grabs someone's purse, is the person being robbed justified in pulling a gun during the struggle?

[Zynx]

52. Kill the mugger?

If I'm being mugged and have a gun of my own, I'm going to shoot him dead.

If he's mugging someone else and is armed with a deadly weapon, I'll shoot him dead.

If he just steals a purse without threatening to kill the woman, I'm not going to shoot to kill because the police would most likely rule it excessive force. Still would merrily shoot out a leg.

I don't understand arguments of "protect the predatory." Makes just about as much sense as a "Tolerate Vampires" group if they existed.

And the gun isn't making me any more violent. I'd be tempted to beat or knife the scumbag if the situation presented itself and I wasn't armed.

[billbuckhead]

56. It's unAmerican to kill a mugger, the 8th amendment says so

But then it's obvious the weapons worshippers only care about their misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment. They wipe their asses with ther rest of the billl of rights. Remember 8th grade? Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor CRUEL AND UNUSUAL punishments inflicted. HELL RUSSIA DOESN'T EVEN HAVE THE DEATH PENALY ANYMORE. These phony gun whore walmart patriots make me sad for this nation.

[FeebMaster]

57. The eighth amendment is there to restrict the government.

It has nothing at all to do with personal self-defense, which is what killing a mugger would be. You guys should stick with the self-defense is a violation of due process argument, it was funnier.

[OpSomBlood]

59. If a mugger threatens personal harm, killing him is not unreasonable.

If the guy pulls a knife or a gun and demands your wallet, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that your life is in danger. Why this is even being debated is way beyond my comprehension.

[billbuckhead]

66. Judge, Jury and Executioner

Saying the Constitution protects your right to execute a mugger only debases this great document. And saying this kind of thing on a Democratic website?

[mosin]

67. I am opposed to capital punishment...

but I also believe in the right of self-defense. If a mugger is threatening me or a member of my family with death or serious bodily injury, then I am sure as hell going to put our lives before the mugger's life. It is not an execution, it is lawful self defense in an attempt to stop an attack. There is no desire to kill, only to stop the attack. If the mugger doesn't want to run the risk of being killed in the process of being stopped, he shouldn't mug me.

What part of that is hard to understand?

[billbuckhead]

72. The crimes aren't equivalent, purse snatching vs death

It's thinking like this that leads to the highest nurder rate of advanced nations. Once again a lack of good moral judgement from the gun crowd. Your same pathetic self defense argument can be used when you guys talk about the "sport" in assault rifle ownership, then the majority of society shouldn't put their families at risk having these guns plentiful and a part of our culture.

The first place that needs disinfected in the White House is where the NRA set up shop.

[FeebMaster]

73. The only crime is the purse snatching. (nt)

[mosin]

74. "crimes"

Enjoy your sense of moral superiority. See where it gets you when confronted with a knife or gun-wielding mugger. If you're lucky, you'll only lose your wallet or purse. You'll just have to hope the mugger isn't having a bad day.

Your effort to compare "crimes" is disingenuous. We're only discussing one "crime" here: mugging. We're not talking about shooting a cut-and-run purse snatcher or a pick pocket. We're talking about using legally justifiable self defense against a mugger who is threatening physical violence. How hard is it to understand that it is the mugger who is introducing physical violence? The mugger's intended victim is privileged to respond in kind. The mugger has an easy way to avoid the confrontation.

I have been an NRA Life Member since I was child, as has my father. My wife is an NRA member. My two children are NRA members. The NRA is a moderate, mainstream civil rights and firearms safety organization. I would hope they would have a strong influence on any occupant of the White House.

[billbuckhead]

75. Do you approve of the NRA blacklist? Typically the gunner wishes me harm

I do feel superior to a NRA member. Your organization represents the worst in America. I feel total justification in hating the NRA and it's members as much as I hate Al Queda or the KKK.
And the conversation was about shooting a purse snatcher.
"Shooters gunned down cardboard silhouettes and steel targets representing attackers, household intruders and PURSE SNATCHERS."

[mosin]

76. Prejudice

I do feel superior to a NRA member. Your organization represents the worst in America. I feel total justification in hating the NRA and it's members as much as I hate Al Queda or the KKK.

You show your prejudice very clearly in those statements. I'm sorry that you don't understand how offensive it is to equate the NRA and the KKK.

The NRA represents what is best about America. The NRA devotes enormous resources to safety and training programs that encourage responsible gun ownership. The NRA is the best defender of the ideal that every law-abiding American is the best guarantor of his or her own liberty and safety.

The worst in American is found in groups like the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center. These groups encourage the elitist notion that citizens are too irresponsible to own guns, that we should all depend on the government for our defense and security. They are unwittingly doing their best to destroy America.

And the conversation was about shooting a purse snatcher.

"Shooters gunned down cardboard silhouettes and steel targets representing attackers, household intruders and PURSE SNATCHERS."

But you were responding to my posts, and I have consistently made clear a distinction between cut-and-run purse snatchers and purse snatchers who threaten physical violence (i.e., muggers). I explained that IDPA matches cannot make that kind of distinction in setting up stages. They are stationary cardboard targets!

[MrBenchley]

88. Tell it to Ted Nugent

"The NRA represents what is best about America."
Yeah, and Wayne LaPierre is the queen of the sugar plum fairies.

"The worst in American is found in groups like the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center."
Gee, and yet they seem to get along just fine without bigots, nutcases and criminals on THEIR boards.

"These groups encourage the elitist notion"
Funny how the RKBA bunch keeps throwing out this meaningless term "elitist." I used to hear that all the time during the civil rights days....those of us who wanted to end Jim Crow were elitists. Funny thing, many of the same people who were sticking up for Jim Crow are still around, now loudly spouting "gun rights".

[billbuckhead]

108. All this gun rights crap is just code for racism

That's why it's allright to shoot a purse snatcher in the back because in the minds of the gun nuts they see the "perp" as a minority.

[FeebMaster]

109. HAAAAAAHAHAHAHAH

Best post ever!

[FatSlob]

112. I agree. Hilarious.

Bill has an excellent sense of humor!

[MrBenchley]

110. I don't know many decent people who are fooled

by GOP scumbags like Tom DeLay and Trent Lott spouting rubbish about "self defense."

[TX-RAT]

111. Now thats taking it right over the edge.

Even with my stance on gun control.

[mosin]

114. "a minority"

they see the "perp" as a minority

I'm a "minority," as you put it, whom do I see the "perp" as?

[billbuckhead]

107. Killing a purse snatcher would be at least manslaughter

This lack of good judgement makes the NRA and it's fellow travelers among the most depised people in America and among the Republicans strongest allies.

[FeebMaster]

68. I only said the 8th amendment restricts the government

Killing a mugger isn't an execution, it's self-defense.


"And saying this kind of thing on a Democratic website?"

:eyes: <======== I wish this smiley was bigger.

[TX-RAT]

80. Which state would we be talking about

Personally i would say yes if an assault took place, or a weapon was shown. If there was no assault and no weapons legally you could not shoot. There would have to be bodily harm or threat of bodily harm. Texas has down graded some crimes to misdemeanor, i believe purse snatching falls into that category.

(If a purse snatcher grabs someone's purse, is the person being robbed justified in pulling a gun during the struggle?)

Pulling your weapon is one thing discharging it would be another.

[FeebMaster]

100. How are you defining purse snatching?

When I think purse snatching, I'm thinking of a purse sitting on a table or something not being carried and someone grabbing it and running. If a you're carrying a purse and someone grabs it and you don't immediately let go, in my opinion, that purse snatching has escalated into something else since the very act of getting the purse requires an assault on the owner of the purse.

If you're justified in pulling a weapon on someone who is within arms reach of you then you'd better be justified in discharging it. Besides, all the person being robbed has to do is say the guy doing the robbing tried to grab their gun. We hear all the time that if you try and use a gun in self-defense, a criminal will just take it away from you and use it against you. Best not to let that happen.

[TX-RAT]

101. Depends

Grabbing the purse and running = no deadly force
Grabbing the purse off your shoulder = no deadly force, could be a argument.
Knocking you down or assaulting = deadly force, gonna have another argument.
Using a deadly weapon = deadly force

( all the person being robbed has to do is say the guy doing the robbing tried to grab their gun )
Lying to law enforcement or filing a false report = " criminal "

Just my opinion.

[FeebMaster]

102. I guess we're more or less in agreement.

Grabbing the purse off your shoulder = no deadly force, could be a argument.

This is the only questionable one to me really. I think a person would be morally justified in using deadly force. Like I said, people keep important stuff in purses: your address, access to your house, etc. Hell, how are you going to even get home to quickly change your locks if your money, car keys, and cell phone are gone? I doubt law enforcement would agree, though, so it's probably best not to plug the purse snatcher in the back as he runs away.


( all the person being robbed has to do is say the guy doing the robbing tried to grab their gun )
Lying to law enforcement or filing a false report = " criminal "

Assuming it's a lie. Besides, who is going to dispute the claim?

[TX-RAT]

103. who is going to dispute the claim?

The suspect if they survive for one, eye witness for the other.

(so it's probably best not to plug the purse snatcher in the back as he runs away.)
Your probably correct. Shooting after the threat is gone = bad idea

[FeebMaster]

104. You were a cop

you should know how unreliable eyewitness testimony is. We're talking about what would probably amount to less than five seconds total from grabbing the purse to the shot being fired. If ten people saw it happen you'd get at least ten different stories about what really happened.

The suspect? "Really I was just trying to rip that purse out of her arms when she shot me for no reason." There's a credible witness.


(so it's probably best not to plug the purse snatcher in the back as he runs away.)
Your probably correct. Shooting after the threat is gone = bad idea

Only a bad idea legally.

[TX-RAT]

105. unreliable it may be

But still admissible. I'm not the one to convince, it' the 12 jurors.

(Only a bad idea legally)
Going from victim to felon = bad idea

[FeebMaster]

106. Harder to convince 12 people than 1.

Going from victim to felon = bad idea

Like I said, only legally.

[mosin]

64. Killing purse snatchers

Shooting a purse snatcher would be illegal in almost every U.S. state. In most states, you cannot use lethal force solely to protect property. (I am aware of exceptions such as Texas, where you can use lethal force to prevent "theft during the nighttime.")

Muggers, home invaders, and the like are threatening more than property, so lethal force may be justified, depending on the circumstances.

I shoot IDPA (International Defensive Pistol Association) matches and the scenarios aren't that specific as to whether a "bad guy" is a cut-and-run purse snatcher or a steal-the-purse-at-knife-point purse snatcher. There are simply "bad guy" targets and "no shoot" targets. There's no attempt to simulate the finer legal aspects of self defense scenarios. It's simply a target competition where the shooter is required to move, use cover, and engage multiple targets.

[MrBenchley]

30. Hell, some of our "enthusiasts"

can hardly wait to gun somebody down over the sligthest excuse....and lie to the cops afterwards.

[DoNotRefill]

71. but iverglas...

being able to put steel on target in high-pressure situations is EXACTLY what olympic target shooting is about.

In the real world, that translates to being able to shoot an attacker if attacked.

The skills are IDENTICAL.

[iverglas]

79. analogies with gaps

being able to put steel on target in high-pressure situations is EXACTLY what olympic target shooting is about.

In the real world, that translates to being able to shoot an attacker if attacked.

The skills are IDENTICAL.


Kinda like those gaps in goalies' teeth?

Obviously, one could say that hitting people in the face with hockey pucks is what shooting a puck hard and straight under pressure translates into in the "real world".

Me, I just wouldn't be prepared to say that a bunch of people on a rink slapshotting pucks at the heads of cardboard cutouts of people were playing hockey.

[MrBenchley]

35. Hey, the KKK say they're not racist, too....

and Cheney says he doesn't get a dime from Halliburton...

It doesn't matter what any bunch of yahoos claim, but how believable their claim is.

Jim Barbour of Indianapolis said he does not understand why sometimes violent sports such as hockey are held in higher regard than defensive shooting.
Jeeze, Jim...get a clue. We don't have between 80,000 and 115,000 Americans hit by pucks every year....

[Zynx]

45. Violence

against paper targets and game animals doesn't count. While I wouldn't recommend standing in front of them while they're firing unless you really can't stand Bush any longer, I'd like to see evidence that people who work their butts off on a gun range to become good shots are more likely to go whack someone than the general population is.

I suspect they are actually considerably less likely to go kill someone at random. Shooting isn't a cheap or half-hazard hobby, so the population involved with it is almost certainly less criminally inclined.

As far as the guys who want to shoot a burglar or a home invader rapist/robber/cannibal/vampire, who cares? Someone breaks into my house at night, if my dogs don't kill them first, I'll unload a centerfire rifle round or a buckshot shell into their face. If I can't get to a gun, I'll hit them in a head with a phone or stab them with a spoon.

[billbuckhead]

53. Criminals just steal the guns.

The break into homes all the time to steal them.

[Lamorat]

54. Better make stealing

a crime too, to stop it.

[iverglas]

96. you keep makin' em

Better make stealing a crime too, to stop it.

I'll keep pointing out what bunk they are.


http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/

Stealing, of course, IS a crime.

Anybody gonna answer the question I asked a while ago?

Do y'all just leave your stuff lying around on the front lawn all night, confident that because stealing is a crime, nobody will steal it?

Or do you put it somewhere behind a locked door?

Do fancy jewelery shops rely on laws -- or even locked doors -- to ensure that their stuff isn't stolen -- or do they hire guards, and put their stuff in locked cases with alarms?

Laws (i.e. the possibility of punishment, if not the social disapproval expressed by the laws) probably deter SOME PEOPLE from stealing.

I don't know of anyone who relies on laws alone to protect them from behaviours on other people's part that they would rather not suffer.

Why would anyone think that anyone else was suggesting relying on laws alone to protect anyone from harms caused by people using firearms??

Well, actually, it seems to me that this is EXACTLY what the "RKBA" crowd IS suggesting.

Off with the heads of anyone who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime. Etc.

About as likely to eliminate the use of firearms in the commission of crimes as it is to eliminate the commission of the crimes themselves, might anyone think?

Now, doing something to keep firearms out of the hands of people who are likely to use them to commit crimes / cause harm ... nah, that's just silly.

Hell, laws work good enough to stop theft, right?

[FatSlob]

55. Yup, my sport isn't violent.

Except to clay targets, paper targets, and the odd toilet or gourd I shoot on the range.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NorthernSpy]

62. huh?

There's a video game in which you're supposed to kill all the Hatians? And all who object are Christian Fundy NeoCons who don't belong here?

Nope, don't like the sound of that.


Mary

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mosin]

65. Censorship

I don't think video games like that should be censored, but I find them distasteful and don't understand the entertainment value.

And I don't think that makes me a "chritian fundy necon."

[iverglas]

78. hallelujah, I have apparently been saved

If you have a problem with violent video games then you are a chritian fundy neocon and dont belong on this board.

I have evidently been converted to religiosity and resigned my membership in the local democratic socialist party without even noticing.

Now who's gonna start the tombstoning process?

[MrBenchley]

81. What religion worships chrit?

[iverglas]

83. perhaps

a Chritian belongs to a gang that eschews and denounces the violence against minorities glorified by that game.

The Chrits and the Blubs, perhaps? Sissies and whiners and bleeding hearts. Like u an me.

[MrBenchley]

87. Or maybe our trigger-happy friend just couldn't spell

and meant Jean Chrétien?

Did the former prime minister ever speak out against violent video games?

[iverglas]

89. not as far as I know ...

But the RC Bishop of Calgary (Alberta ... even the RCers are fundie loons) who denounced him for opposing the criminalization of abortion just denounced his successor Paul Martin this week ...

[MrBenchley]

90. Sounds like our Second Amendment Caucus here...

they're all anti-reproductive choice, as well as being stupid as shit.

[TX-RAT]

82. you are a chritian fundy neocon and dont belong on this board

"Damn" and just when i was starting to like it here.

[Wickerman]

85. Oh crap, looks like I got a lotta banning to do

and right as I was getting used to the lot of you.

:sigh:

[CO Liberal]

91. If People can't Follow a Simple Set of Rules on a Message Board...

...why do they expect us to believe that people would always use guns responsibly if there were no laws to govern their use??

:shrug:

[Wickerman]

92. I've considered that

I know how good I am at following rules and I know I have a temper sometimes - makes me consider that CCW is not for me. We have a poster or two (or have had, I've lost my scorecard) who have some severe anger management issues who are also CCW holders. That is why I get nervous about the topic.

As I've stated before, I don't trust the asshole driving the car next to me - should I trust folks who can't follow simple rules on a message board or correspond civilly, w/out rancor, to carry deadly force? I honestly don't know - but it does make me nervous...

For the record - none of this is directed at the poster of the rule violation - I can't see him as I type and don't even recall who it was - only general musing.

[slackmaster]

93. I see grounds for hope

Many people behave differently on message boards than they do in person. The (largely false) perception of anonymity and lack of a human face lead to more aggressive verbal behavior than they would indulge in a personal confrontation.

If we treated each other as if we were chatting over dinner or had just met as strangers in an airport bar we'd all get along a lot better. I think only a very small minority of us would be openly hostile if we were in each others' physical presence, regardless of differences of opinion.

Most of us sincerely want George W. Bush out of Washington, DC. That's why this site exixts, is it not?

[TX-RAT]

94. exactly

"Damn" we agree again. Something must be wrong.

[Wickerman]

97. Yeah? Well, screw you /kidding

:P

I hope you are correct - and to be clear I am only referring to a few specific examples that decorum forbids me from mentioning. That small minority is the group that concerns me.

Most of us sincerely want George W. Bush out of Washington, DC. That's why this site exixts, is it not?

Amen, brother!

[mosin]

113. Shrub

Most of us sincerely want George W. Bush out of Washington, DC. That's why this site exixts, is it not?

I'd settle for getting Shrub out of the White House. He can put all his possessions, including Saddam's gun, in a shopping cart and stroll around DC for all I care.

[MrBenchley]

95. I worry more...

about our trigger-happy friends who post all that "I need my popgun to overthrow tyranny" stuff. I've often wondered if the main purpose of some of them is to get macabre over-reactions out of the more susceptible "enthusiasts", so that some folks can say "look how dangerous those lefties are."

[Wickerman]

98. The subtle disrupter approach?

yeah, we get some of that, no doubt. We also get the direct appeals to violence, complete with links to the anarchy sites. We remove those as fast as we can.

oh, hell, I guess I just worry all the time. :scared:

[MrBenchley]

99. Exactly...

Limbaugh has made a couple of attacks on DU on his radio show...

[JohnLocke]

115. Kick