Not just human-shaped, either. Sometimes *specific *humans. 
My people have issues too, its just that the liberal media suppresses stories about the Frisbee and hacky-sack injuries that flood emergency rooms.
Hey, that’s not funny. I’ve actually torn my meniscus going for a double-jester…when i was much too old to be playing hacky-sack.
It’s funny that you mention it. You walked right into this one.
I shoot at my club regularly. We do, in fact, have a ban on human shaped targets which is enforced by the club.
The only time I can recall someone breaking the ban was when a bunch of macho guys were shooting their ARs at human shaped targets earlier this year. I asked a range officer what the deal was: He told me he asked them to stop, but they declined. He didn’t push it.
They were all cops.
So your insistence that human targets are common is wrong.
BTW, you’re also wrong about archery. With archery using three dimensional targets is actually a necessity. They are animals, not human, of course. But in order to see the angle your arrow takes through the target a three dimensional view is needed. A simple paper target wouldn’t make sense.
Archery shoots are in fact called “3-D shoots” because of the targets. Look for the signs. Depending on where you live, there will be signs on the side of the road that say “3-D” with an arrow pointing the way. Follow those signs and you’ll end up at an archery shoot.
Because home invaders with murderous or rapey intentions rarely wear convenient shirts with concentric circles on them.
The correct training for defensive use of a handgun is to aim at the center of body mass.
Good! Wholehearted approval.
So, “enforced”, sorta kinda?
Wouldn’t have pressed the point either. Met some damned fine men who were cops, “Protect and Serve”, and they meant it. Met the other kind, too, 'nuff sed.
Wait, what? I say albino squirrels aren’t common, you say you saw one, and and that means I’m wrong? You kidding?
And the rest of it? Ever meet a “gun nut”, by your own definition thereof?
Sell your fear to the chumps. Fear rots the mind and the soul, and I ain’t buying any. I know your sig is a joke, but mine isn’t.
Frankly,the term doesn’t have much meaning as it is. Which of the following people are anti-gun:
(1) Someone who owns several guns, enjoys hunting, enjoys recreational target shooting, and is willing to use one for home defense should the situation arise… but who strongly supports bunches of things like background checks, waiting periods, strict registration laws, mandatory training classes, etc, because he doesn’t want his kids to be exposed to lunatics or untrained people with guns
(2) Someone who personally hates guns, thinks that anyone who owns one has penis issues, has never touched one in person… but is a strong libertarian on principle so believes that guns should be legal and unrestricted
(3) Someone with a massive gun fetish who reads all the gun magazines he can, loves it when they get out the gatling gun on Mythbusters and blow shit up, but lives in a country where private gun ownership is 100% illegal, and is totally happy with that situation, although he sure as hell enjoyed paying money to fire a machine gun when he was in Vegas on vacation
?
You forgot pediatricians indoctrinated by ruthless medical school propaganda and “statistics”.
“Fear,” isn’t the right word, exactly. I carry car insurance not because I live in fear of a car accident, but because I know there’s a small, but non-zero, chance that I will be involved in a car accident. The insurance mitigates the consequences that might arise from that unlikely event.
Similarly, I know there’s a small, but non-zero, chance my family and I will be the victims of a home invader with personal harm on the agenda. Possessing a firearm and practicing with it allows me to mitigate the consequences if that happens.
Would you be willing to tell a cop what to do who lives in the same town or even a nearby town? I completely understand the hesitation on the part of the range officer.
Yeah. Me, too.
You weren’t speaking in generalities. You specifically called me out. You asked what would happen if I were to suggest not using human shaped targets and implied that I would be ostracized by my fellow gun owners if I did so.
That was wrong. Because in fact that’s exactly what I do and the 900 or so members of my club are quite happy with the situation, a few troublesome cops aside.
Now, if you had said some statement about gun owners in general then my one example wouldn’t refute it. But you didn’t. You were talking about me and the people I shoot with.
…and you were dead wrong.
Nope. Not really. I’ve met people who are more into it than I am. I’ve met people who do the cowboy action stuff and get dressed up. I’ve met all sorts of people. Out of the hundreds, probably thousands of gun owners I’ve met I can’t ever say I’ve been scared of one.
Have you?
Oh, and full disclosure alert:
I should have mentioned that Bricker was right that practicing on human targets is perfectly appropriate for home defense. So we do allow that (I think) on the indoor range where you are shooting at self defense distances.
It’s on the outdoor range where silhouette targets are prohibited. The thinking is that there’s no reason to practice shooting at people at fifty or a hundred yards.
How do you mitigate the non-zero chance that your firearm will kill a family member?
How do you mitigate the non-zero chance that your car will kill a family member?
How do you mitigate the non-zero chance that a meteor will kill you or a family member?
Exactly. I feel no need to mitigate the risk of vehicular or meteor homicide.
Or home invasion.
Plenty of controls are in place to mitigate that risk. My family all understands basic gun safety. Each and every firearm I own is stored protected by either a gun lock, or a gun safe. The home defense ammunition I use is factory-load jacketed hollow-point. I regularly practice shooting. I have a home alarm system that summons police when triggered. My rules of engagement are getting my wife and child and staying locked in an upstairs bedroom until help arrived, and only using lethal force if threatened.
That seems foolishly cavalier.
I grant there’s nothing much to do about meteors, but there are steps to take to mitigate the risk of vehicular homicide. Consistent use of seatbelts, checking tire pressure while you gas up, replacing tires before the tread gets too shallow, ensuring the spare is inflated – all these mitigate risks that can include death by your own car.
Ignoring these kinds of common-sense precautions is foolish.
Not if you live alone.
OK. take your word. They must simply not exist. Sure. Hugh Betcha.
Have I met some? Shit, son, I’m born and raised in Texas, got them in my family tree! Know all about the 2nd Amendment and couldn’t name and explain another amendment to save their peckerwood butt!
Aren’t you your own family member? That is – if the right front tire blows out while you’re zooming down the highway and you die in the resulting four car pileup, isn’t it true, in a sense, that the car killed your family member?
And in any event, how about a basic sense of civic responsibility? Your tire blowout also injures the other people in that four-car pileup I mentioned. Sure, the odds are small, but since you’re not doing anything else while the gas fills your car, doesn’t it make sense to check tire pressure, tread wear, oil, and wiper fluid?