Pitting either a)careless or b)intentionally ambigous or c)outright inflammatory email

The BBQ Pit
41

To whom it may concern,

I saw this posting for my event and went WTF, I talked with Raoul and let’s say the conversation was not pleasant.

Raoul is actually a very gentle person, he has been very supportive of the shoots for the last 3 years and has taken personal intitative to advertise our monthly shoots.

I am not much of a internet person, but I do know things can get out of hand, especially when you offend people.

I view Martin Luther King as an American hero because when one groups rights are violated, all of our rights our violated and he stood up to evil.

It is sad that he was murdered, but I believe he lives and he is in heaven right now and I would not want to have to answer to God for that crime.

Martin Luther King’s death eventually changed America, his enemies made him stronger than ever.

Martin Luther King or any other human rights leader will never be targets at any shoot I run.

Our group is open to all people, regardless of race, color, creed, gender, sexual orientation or whatever. Straights are welcome too as long as they aren’t narrow minded.

Since it is my chapter, I offer apologies, corrective actions have been taken, something like this will not happen again.

The individual was careless and insensitive, however by now he must have a few hundred pissed off people writing him on this very issue, so I am sure he gets it.

The San Jose Pink Pistols meets informally monthly and we have a simple and social fun shoot.

Most of the people who attend the San Jose Pink Pistol shoots are private people, they are not politically active, I am the exception.

I’m the person who has traveled across the country at my own expense to network and outreach with other gun rights groups.

Indirectly I promote LBGT rights because of who I am so I assure everyone that corrective action has been taken.

Mistakes get made, I have made my share in my life and probably will make more.
Fortunately humans are wired to learn from their mistakes.

To everyone who was offended, all I can say is I am deeply sorry for this incident.

Nicki Stallard
SJ Pink Pistol Coordinator

42

Well, I guess Argent was right.

43

Nicki, I appreciate you taking the trouble to register and post here and thank you for providing an explanation of what happened.

44

You can take this for whatever you think it’s worth, but I must say the idea that your club makes notable people into ‘honorary’ targets is beyond bizarre. This is aside from any issue of race. If you want to try explaining why putting bullets into them is some kind of sign of repect, please have at it.

It is very difficult for me to believe that, should one of your honorees find out that his or her face were put on a target and shot up at a picnic, they would feel in any way honored.

I’m not the type of guy who’s going to go running to the press or organizing protests, because I understand you do indeed have the right to do such things whether or not I approve of them. I just offer this observation to you as the perpective of someone outside your culture looking in, and not getting it AT ALL.

45

I’ll second Arnold’s comments.

46

I’m an active target shooter, and in the “gun culture” or at least as much as a Massachusetts resident can be, and I fully agree with Boyo Jim’s comments. I’d never see shooting at someone’s likeness to be honoring or commemorating them in any way, shape, or form. In fact, the only identifiable likeness target I’ve ever shot at was a Hitler target, which trust me, was NOT to honor him.

And why on Earth do you do rapid, timed, then slow? NRA gallery match calls for the exact opposite, and you’ll shoot better that way as well. Starting out with rapid seems to be counterintuitive, especially if you’re trying to attract & retain new shooters.

47

Hey, this thread is for outrage! Start a new one if you want to discuss proper shoot procedure. :wink:

48

Well I’m outraged that they’d start with rapid! I bet they even hold their pistols sideways when they do it!

49

Now THAT’s an easy one. If I were shooting at targets, it would just be lots more fun to pretend to be a gangsta and blast away as fast as possible. Hitting the target is seconday, or lower than that. :slight_smile:

50

OK, nicki, I get that someone made a dumb mistake with the MLK-target thing.

Nevertheless, a gun group commemorating MLK day seems strange anyway. Would a gun group commemorate Gandhi?

I think, to understate it, that Martin Luther King, Jr. had a very different idea about how one secures their basic human rights than you do.

51

FYI, on the Pink Pistols links page, there are two if the most interesting, and oxymoronic, titles I’ve ever come across.

The Ethics of Firepower and
Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun which asserts as its opening statement:

52

I’ll third them, and add that if you are at all inclined to spend your time at an internet message board, you’re welcome to stick around, hang out, and contribute to any threads that catch your interest.

Believe me, we’ve had valued members find their way here by far more bizarre paths. :smiley:

53

Only “oxymoronic” if you believe it is inherently unethical to shoot someone. (If you do, there are thousands of soldiers, policemen, and just people who have had to shoot someone in self-defense, who might want a word with you.)

54

I’m glad to know

that even with a dearth of common sense

you still have a wealth of carriage returns.

55

You know, when somebody is going to go to the trouble to make amends the way she did in her post, that’s just churlish.

56

Ethics are not dependent upon firepower. Or even associated with it. Period. If the posession of a gun changes you ethics, your ethics suck.

57

It cOuLd Be WoRsE.

58

Again, tell that to - let’s say - the armies who liberated the concentration camps, just to use one example. Or a police officer who has to shoot someone on a shooting spree…or someone who has to shoot an attacker in self-defense…your assertion that there is no connection between ethics and firepower is totally senseless. There are ethics in EVERYTHING in life. Do you really not realize this? Or are you a complete pacifist who thinks that any violence, in any form whatsoever, is inherently unethical?

Is it ethical to shoot someone who is about to douse a tied-up man with gasoline and set him on fire?

The very question of this, brings up the “ethics of firepower.” The fact that it is a topic for discussion at all signifies that there are ethics involved.

59

Do you know how to read? Your moral position is no better or worse depending on whether you are holding a gun. Yes, hooray for the troops who liberated the the concentration camps. That has nothing at all to do with what I’m saying. The American troops would have been equally ethical had they managed to liberate the camps without guns, and the Nazis would have been equally reprehensible had they committed genocide with knives instead of guns. And had the Jews fought back against the Nazis, as they sometimes did, their moral justification would have been the same had they used knives OR guns.

60

Okay, but the fact remains that a gun is currently the most effective means of self-defense available to people. Therefore, the ethics of self-defense involve firearms. The fact that there are books about this subject shouldn’t surprise you, but you consider the titles to be “oxymoronic.” Could you explain what, exactly, is oxymoronic about the title “The Ethics of Firepower?” Please, explain it. (Do you know what “oxymoron” means?)

The ability to take life - which is what owning or carrying a firearm means - is up for all sorts of ethical questions and carries with it a myriad of potential moral issues. If you are really quibbling about this, then I think you’re just being contentious for the sake of it.