But why? The first time you see a guy at the range, isn’t he just a random stranger at the range?
The fact *that *he’s at the range leads to some pretty strong and reasonable inferences about his intentions and training, doesn’t it?
I don’t know why you keep repeating this point, because its nonsense. I do not dispute that some homicides have benefited society. I’ve never disputed this. In fact, I’ve specifically called attention to this fact in three separate posts
What I’m saying is that irrespective of the correctness of your conclusions,
- your reasoning about justified homicides and gun benefits was flawed
- in a way that implicitly and significantly overstates gun benefits
- and even if you weren’t being dishonest at the time, your refusal to acknowledge and correct that false implication constitutes dishonest bullshit.
Any questions?
I’m not sure what 2square’s reasons are, but I agree with him (her?) and I give some of my reasons for that upthread.
You can’t be sure of not getting killed even at a gun range, yanno.
There are no safe places and safe company, when there are means available to easily kill you. None.
So you know I was just guessing and you criticize the guess for not being a cite? I wish I had some sort of cite but I can only point to a spike in gun purchases, not a spike in gun owning households. The reasons i suspect an increase in the incidence of gun ownership are entirely anecdotal.
Yeah, why are you making such a big deal over my assuming that there is at least one murder prevented by hundreds of justifiable homicides? I acknowledged the mistake several posts ago, you are the one that is hanging on to this as if it makes any difference whatsoever.
You and I have different definitions of “acknowledging my mistake,” I guess.
Well, yes. Welcome to the Dope!
:checks join date:
OK, you’re an extremely slow learner.
Just in case, here are 5 more:
What? “Some gun blogger said so” is not good enough for you? Dumuri would prefer to feel truths at you. He has no time for facts, cites, and knowing things.
How do you expect him to both practice his quick draw and read? There are only so many hours in the day.
Indeed. Such a person wishes to hunt and/or defend their home and be good at it.
Not quite, try again.
Somebody at the range can be presumed, not always accurately, to be there to enjoy the sensual feel of shooting, and the challenge of punching holes in pieces of paper in precisely the right spot. One is not there to practice home-invasion or other fantasy-hero scenarios, since those aren’t typically offered at gun ranges, are they?
This is silly.
Even people who actually carry guns for work (police; soldiers) don’t get to practice completely realistic scenarios when training with their weapons. Yes, they undergo much more training than civilians, and have access to different types of locations and to simulated raids and stuff like that, but the fact is that even cops and soldiers never actually know exactly how they’ll do in a real-life situation until the situation actually arises. And for most cops and soldiers, the majority of their firearms practice is carried out at the range.
Shooting at the range might not prepare a person completely for “home-invasion or other fantasy-hero scenarios,” but for most people, it’s about the most they can do. As with so many other physical activities, physical practice provides a level of familiarity and muscle memory that can be crucial when the real thing occurs. Baseball players taking batting practice don’t face full-speed pitches, and don’t face the full range of change-ups, curveballs, and sliders that they’re likely to see in an actual game, but the batting practice is helpful nonetheless.
Criticizing people for going to the range seems to me to be rather disingenuous because, if they didn’t go to the range, you’d probably argue that their lack of practice with the weapon is a good reason for them not to own a gun at all. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t, right?
I’ve already said, multiple times, that the guys described in the OP are idiots. I see no need for people to be toting their guns in public. I also think that owning a gun for self-defense is, for the most part, a sign of excessive paranoia. But lumping all gun-owners together as fetishists of one sort or another is not only unfair to them, but undermines the many solid arguments in favor of reasonable gun regulation and control.
And if gun owners go to the range for the “sensual feel of shooting, and the challenge of punching holes in pieces of paper in precisely the right spot,” so what? For me, that’s actually one of the few really understandable reasons for wanting to own a gun. The last time i fired a gun was over 20 years ago, but before i was 25 years old i fired quite a lot guns in my life. I fired hunting rifles, semi-auto military weapons, and shotguns (never handguns) at a variety of targets, from paper to clay to animals. And, to be honest, firing a gun is fun.
The feel of the weapon; the challenge of accuracy; the satisfaction of making a good shot; all of these things make it enjoyable. It’s really very similar to the feeling you get from landing a long golf shot right on the green, or making a nice backhanded grab and throw from shortstop on a softball field, or completing a difficult section of a video game, or bowling a strike at the lanes. I imagine it’s similar to the satisfaction of completing a perfect lap in a racecar, or making a nice smooth landing in a light aircraft, or nailing a difficult section of a ski run.
Point is, you have to be on your guard whenever firearms are around, and especially when they’re in use. Even if nobody is TRYING to shoot you, accidents happen whether through stupidity, negligence, or just dumb luck.
Personally, I’d be more on my toes in a gun range then say, just walking down the street. Even if I know the shooters.
What is silly is to use the word “completely”. There is no such thing as a completely realistic simulation, and to imply that anyone else said so and go on to make that claim is silly.
What else is silly is to claim that someone at the gun range is there to practice being a hero - which, if you’ll actually go back and read for comprehension, is what was being replied to.
Is there any reason to engage you further?
Who do you see doing that? Quotes?
Did you see anybody calling it wrong?
Never mind, I did try to continue to engage you even after you showed you were actually engaging a strawman. My fault, won’t happen again.
Good to see that your general mode of argumentation is about as honest and sophisticated here as it is in most other areas.
It’s truly depressing, sometimes, to be arguing on the same side of politics as you.
True story: Back in my USMC days I was the SNCOIC in charge of running our unit through qual day at the rifle and pistol range. I have some marksmanship instructor training. Anyway, on the pistol range a senior staff NCO’s 9mm jammed.
Now, this is an outdoor pistol range where shooters stand side by side, about 7 or so feet apart, with no dividing walls between shooters.
This Marine, instead of raising his hand for help as I’d instructed all shooters to do (we are an artillery unit, not infantry and certainly not MP), he decides to see what caused the jam. In so doing he brings the pistol up to look at it and, in so doing, he points the barrel to the shooters to his left!
Fortunately I was about 15 feet away. Instead of calling out and possibly startling him, I quickly walked there and immediately grabbed the barrel and pointed it downrange.
Also fortunately, the shooters to his left did not notice the major safety infraction. I handled it quickly and quietly, without “showing up” the Marine who made the mistake. I certainly counseled him, unofficially (meaning, no write-up).
And this mistake, for USMC units and all Marines are supposed to qualify with their issue weapon once a year.
Yes, mistakes are made, and if you’re at the range you should be aware of who is around you and how shooters are acting. On a civilian range, if someone is acting unruly or in an unsafe manner, if you don’t feel it’s right to talk to them directly then either report it to the range master, or just leave - GTFO!
<------------ Laughing. You’re kidding me, right? This is supposed to make us feel good. -cackle-
So…this is a safer situation than, say, the UVA shooting or the Sandy Hook massacre or the shooting of police officers in Las Vegas or the shooting in a college in Seattle or Columbine or or or or or or or or… right?
Uh. Riiiiiiight…because it was a bunch of military shooters. One of whom could have blown the brains out for one of his band of brothers. Copy that, Gold Leader.
What a bunch of dinks.
Fuckin’-A. :smack:
I’m not trying to make you feel good. I was sharing information about one instance from my military career, and agreeing with the poster who said you can’t be complacent at the range (my words).
Please. If we can’t have a civil discussion then take it to the Pit. But you’ll be alone. I won’t be there in your pissing contest.