Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44

Thread: Ban human paper targets

  1. #1
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446

    Post imported post

    Am I the only one that finds the increasing prohibition on using paper human silhouette targets at pubic and private ranges troubling?. Oh except for the police.

    The DNR has banned them from their ranges. Direct calls of concern to DNR range supervisorat 517-641-4903 ext. 225. They will allow game animals, (which many people would object to.) but no pictures of non-game animals are allowed. That means you can't shoot at a picture of a kittenor a dogor a condor ...well you get the idea. After talking withthe DNR range supervisorhe stated the only reason that they are banned is for political correctness. He directed me to his boss Dennis Fox, DNR supervisor for Recruitment and Retention Programs 517-373-6714.


    Massachusetts actually banned the use of human paper targets. Except LEO use. These target help those that use them to simulate a real encounter with a criminal. They work or LEO's wouldn't be using them. What we have is another privilege to LEO's, a dangerous one, since the politically correct think it's OK for the police to shoot people but a no LEO can't, what message does that send? POLICE STATE.

    I guess I really find this frustrating and a bit scary, maybe it's justme.


    Massachusetts Morality -- Part II
    by
    Larry Pratt

    In a previous column, I wrote about an unbelievably stupid law in Massachusetts which says that state-licensed gun clubs "shall not permit shooting at targets that depict human figures, human effigies, human silhouettes or any human images thereof, except by public safety personnel performing in line with their official duties." Violation of this law could result in revocation of a club's license and a fine of no less than $1,000 and no more than $10,000.

    Two enthusiastic supporters of this ludicrous legislation are State Rep. Christopher Hodgkins -- who sponsored it -- and feminist attorney Gloria Allred.

    In an interview, Hodgkins says: "We don't believe it's necessary to shoot at any human effigy at all.... Why do we want people to be experts -- other than law enforcement personnel and those involved in Olympic sports -- to be able to have a bull's-eye on somebody's forehead or heart?" In other words, why should any private individuals learn to shoot effectively at human beings? The obvious answer: Because the police cannot protect everybody, because, sometimes, private individuals have to use deadly force against other human beings.

    Q: But, what's wrong with shooting at paper images of Osama bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao Tse-tung?

    Hodgkins: I just don't think we should be shooting at any effigy at a certified public range at all.

    Q: Why not?

    A: Because I don't think it promotes public safety. That's my opinion.

    Regarding the silly view of Massachusetts' Acting Governor Jane Swift that shooting at paper targets of humans promotes shooting at real humans, Hodgkins is asked: "But, shouldn't some humans be shot at, like those breaking into your home when you think your life is threatened?" He replies: "I'll stand by what I said and am not going to go any further."

    On the Fox Cable TV program Hannity & Colmes (8/20/02), Gloria Allred voiced her strong support for this Massachusetts law agreeing with those who have said "the only purpose of [shooting at] the image of a human is to target a human.... It's for possible assassination." She adds, incoherently: "I'm saying we don't need more Columbines."

    Previously, on the Cable News Network program Crossfire (4/28/99), Allred said:
    I feel very strongly about the handguns; I'd prefer not to see any kinds of handguns available to children. I'd like to see no handguns in the home.... all guns should have child safety locks on them. I think they should be locked up. I think that no child should have access to a handgun. I think if a parent allows access to a handgun of any kind of a child for any reason, then I think that parent should be subject to criminal prosecution.

    In an interview, Allred is asked about her preposterous statement that the "only purpose" of shooting at a paper image of a person is to target a real human. She replies: "Well, yeah. What other purpose could there be? Why not use a duck? -- [though] I'm not saying they should use a duck."

    Q: But, some people should be shot at, shouldn't they?

    A: It depends on the circumstances, you know, if it's reasonable self-defense.

    Q: But, the law you support bans, at licensed ranges, shooting at images of any human beings!

    Well, says Allred, this is "a whole different discussion" she doesn't want "to get mired down in." But, no, she would not favor legalizing targets of certain people because "once you okay certain people this will expand to other people."

    Q: So, you would say, with a straight face, that you really would object to shooting at an image of Osama bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot?

    A: You know, I don't want to get into the -- you know, the criminal de jour, you know.... I don't want to get into the content, which humans it's okay to shoot and which it is not.

    Q: But, the law you support does get into content! At licensed ranges, it outlaws shooting at any images that are human. This regulates content. And were you serious when on Crossfire you said there should be no handguns in homes?

    A: That would be nice.

    Q: Why would this be nice? Surveys show that perhaps as many as 2.5 million Americans every year use guns in self-defense?

    A: There have been many, many, many children injured and killed by guns in the home.

    Q: But, there have been many, many, many more guns used by people in self-defense than there have been guns that killed or injured children.

    A: I'm not going to get into the battle of statistics.

    Too late. Allred has already been in this battle. She loses.

    When told about the horrible slaughter in California (her home state), where two Carpenter family children were murdered by a maniac with a pitchfork, and one young family member was prevented from getting the gun in the house to defend them because the law required it to be locked up, Allred asks: "So, you're trying to tell me guns shouldn't be locked up away from children?"

    Well, actually, Gloria, what you were being told was that because of laws you favor, two Carpenter children were murdered! But, you had nothing to say about this other than to ask a rhetorical question.

    Q: Do you want to outlaw handguns?

    A: I'm for gun control.

    When told that the most detailed study to date of the Brady Law -- a study published in the Journal Of The American Medical Association -- showed that this "gun control" law has had no appreciable or detectable effect in reducing crimes committed by people with guns, she says: "It needs to be expanded then"!

    Wonderful! So, a "gun control" law doesn't work. The solution? Expand it! Truly, Allred's view here is a perfect example of what the philosopher George Santayana meant when he said: "Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim."

    Q: Seriously, name one gun control law that ever worked, that ever reduced crimes committed by people using guns.

    A: I think you should call Handgun Control and they can give you all that.

    Well, thanks but no thanks. Been there, done that. And they can't say either.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Marshall, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    44

    Post imported post

    This one is scary. Now I can agree, shooting people is bad, and kids shooting kids is bad, but I absolutely can NOT abide someone telling me what's ok to use for target practice.

    *S*

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Macomb, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    What I have to wonder about is, would Mx. Allred change her opinion it she were attacked by some maniac with a pitchfork?

    As for banning effigy targets, maybe we shoud pass some laws that require anyone convicted of a violent crime to always wear clothing that features illustrated target zones. If they want us to only shoot bulleyes, then make the damn crimals wear bulleyes.

  4. #4
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    So if I miss the bad guy and hit someone else can I say sorry but I was unable to practice with human silhouette targets.





  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321

    Post imported post

    you're absolutely right. it's ridiculous. my gun club doesn't allow the human profile targets either.
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

  6. #6
    Regular Member JeffSayers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Do you really wanna go there with me?, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    So if these people had their way we would be staking the lives of ourselves, our families, our neighbors and our country on our superior training of shooting dart guns at coffee cans after receiving a permit to do so and under direct supervision of Uncle Sam?
    United we STAND!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    Most SC CWP classes require shooting at a human size target for qualification and most use pictrues of someone. I think Osama or Nancy Pelosie pictures would make me shoot better.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    Most SC CWP classes require shooting at a human size target for qualification and most use pictrues of someone. I think Osama or Nancy Pelosie pictures would make me shoot better.
    then people like you are the reason human profile targets are banned at most places. shooting a human silhouette is not to be taken lightly. and certainly, one should never shoot at a picture of another human being. human profiles should be used as practice for real-world scenarios in which one is called upon to defend himself, his family or the innocent. it's not even funny to joke about shooting a politician. and certainly not in a public forum like this. the anti's will point to ignorant posts like yours and say, "see, that's why we need to take away their guns!"
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    but no pictures of non-game animals are allowed. That means you can't shoot at a picture of a kittenor a dogor a condor ...well you get the idea.
    what if you painted a little white foam around the mouth of the kitten to show that it was rabid. then it would be legal.
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PhenixCity, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    130

    Post imported post

    smellslikemichigan wrote:
    Venator wrote:
    but no pictures of non-game animals are allowed. That means you can't shoot at a picture of a kittenor a dogor a condor ...well you get the idea.
    what if you painted a little white foam around the mouth of the kitten to show that it was rabid. then it would be legal.
    /ROFL.................. come on now isn's it gettin just plain silly to ban targets , what next we gonna throw cotton balls at brick walls.......that way we don't hurt our selves and every one feels good they didn't miss the wall

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    smellslikemichigan wrote:
    PT111 wrote:
    Most SC CWP classes require shooting at a human size target for qualification and most use pictrues of someone. I think Osama or Nancy Pelosie pictures would make me shoot better.
    then people like you are the reason human profile targets are banned at most places. shooting a human silhouette is not to be taken lightly. and certainly, one should never shoot at a picture of another human being. human profiles should be used as practice for real-world scenarios in which one is called upon to defend himself, his family or the innocent. it's not even funny to joke about shooting a politician. and certainly not in a public forum like this. the anti's will point to ignorant posts like yours and say, "see, that's why we need to take away their guns!"
    So it is fine in this furum to call the police the po-po, jack booted thugs, lickspittle, doughnut cravers and encourage everyone to start repeating "Am I being detained" before the police even ask you to roll down your winddow on a traffic stop for going 25 MPH over the speed limit. But the cause of people banning guns is shooting a picure of nancy Pelosi. You are correct in that this is a screwed up country.

    How about if I just take your avatar and blow it up to full size to use for target practice?

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    smellslikemichigan wrote:
    PT111 wrote:
    Most SC CWP classes require shooting at a human size target for qualification and most use pictrues of someone.¬* I think Osama or Nancy Pelosie pictures would make me shoot better.
    then people like you are the reason human profile targets are banned at most places.¬* shooting a human silhouette is not to be taken lightly.¬* and certainly, one should never shoot at a picture of another human being.¬* human profiles should be used as practice for real-world scenarios in which one is called upon to defend himself, his family or the innocent.¬* it's not even funny to joke about shooting a politician.¬* and certainly not in a public forum like this.¬* the anti's will point to ignorant posts like yours and say, "see, that's why we need to take away their guns!"
    So it is fine in this furum to call the police the po-po, jack booted thugs, lickspittle, doughnut cravers and encourage everyone to start repeating "Am I being detained" before the police even ask you to roll down your winddow on a traffic stop for going 25 MPH over the speed limit.¬* But the cause of people banning guns is shooting a picure of nancy Pelosi.¬* You are correct in that this is a screwed up country.

    How about if I just take your avatar and blow it up to full size to use for target practice?
    that's rather poor attempt at deflecting from the real issue here. i don't think anyone else here is suggesting shooting at pictures of public officials except you. and while i don't use them, nicknames for police are harmless. i assure you that if anyone is going to get their door kicked in, it will be those who practice shooting at pictures of politicians and not those who call people names.
    feel free to do whatever you like with my avatar, up to, and including, blowing it up to poster size and taping it on your bedroom wall.
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    I thought you argument was about public perception. If you don't think that the attitudeof way some on here, whether right or wrong, give the anti gun folks ammunition then I don't know what to say. Nicknames may be harmless but to call all police lickspittle on cow dung is not going to win you any friends with the anti gun crowd and certainly not with me. I would not defend the few on here tha constantly refer topolice as that eve if Osama Bin laden was torturing them. Just my opinion.

  14. #14
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446

    Post imported post

    smellslikemichigan wrote:
    PT111 wrote:
    Most SC CWP classes require shooting at a human size target for qualification and most use pictrues of someone. I think Osama or Nancy Pelosie pictures would make me shoot better.
    then people like you are the reason human profile targets are banned at most places. shooting a human silhouette is not to be taken lightly. and certainly, one should never shoot at a picture of another human being. human profiles should be used as practice for real-world scenarios in which one is called upon to defend himself, his family or the innocent. it's not even funny to joke about shooting a politician. and certainly not in a public forum like this. the anti's will point to ignorant posts like yours and say, "see, that's why we need to take away their guns!"
    Well we disagree again. It's along the line of flag burning. Some hate it, and others recognize the fact that both paper targets and flags are just symbols of things real and imagined. Making a political statement is a right as much as firearm ownership. Take the "EMOTION" out of it and in the end a flag is nylon and a targetis paper, you can destroy both, but the Country still survives andso does the living thing symbolized on the paper.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    I thought you argument was about public perception.¬* If you don't think that the attitude¬*of way some on here, whether right or wrong, give the anti gun folks ammunition then I don't know what to say.¬* Nicknames may be harmless but to call all police lickspittle on cow dung is not going to win you any friends with the anti gun crowd and certainly not with me.¬* I would not defend the few on here tha constantly refer topolice as that eve if Osama Bin laden was torturing them.¬* Just my opinion.
    this issue goes back to firearms safety day one, whether it's what Dad, the NRA or the Marine Corps taught us. never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot. while an image is not the same as the actual object or person, the reason we shoot at profile targets is because someday we may have to defend ourselves against another human being. the same goes for shooting at wildlife targets that you intend to hunt. if you shoot at a picture of nancy pelosi, does that mean that someday you intend to shoot her?
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    smellslikemichigan wrote:
    PT111 wrote:
    Most SC CWP classes require shooting at a human size target for qualification and most use pictrues of someone.¬* I think Osama or Nancy Pelosie pictures would make me shoot better.
    then people like you are the reason human profile targets are banned at most places.¬* shooting a human silhouette is not to be taken lightly.¬* and certainly, one should never shoot at a picture of another human being.¬* human profiles should be used as practice for real-world scenarios in which one is called upon to defend himself, his family or the innocent.¬* it's not even funny to joke about shooting a politician.¬* and certainly not in a public forum like this.¬* the anti's will point to ignorant posts like yours and say, "see, that's why we need to take away their guns!"
    Well we disagree again.¬* It's along the line of flag burning.¬* Some hate it, and others recognize the fact that both paper targets and flags are just symbols of things real and imagined.¬* Making a political statement is a right as much as firearm ownership.¬* Take the "EMOTION" out of it and in the end a flag is nylon and a target¬*is paper, you can destroy both, but the Country still survives and¬*so does the living thing symbolized on the paper.
    i'm not saying that shooting pictures of politicians or burning flags should be illegal or banned. and i definitely think human profile targets are harmless. i'm just questioning the intelligence and mental state of someone who would shoot at a picture of an elected official.
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

  17. #17
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446

    Post imported post

    smellslikemichigan wrote:
    Venator wrote:
    smellslikemichigan wrote:
    PT111 wrote:
    Most SC CWP classes require shooting at a human size target for qualification and most use pictrues of someone. I think Osama or Nancy Pelosie pictures would make me shoot better.
    then people like you are the reason human profile targets are banned at most places. shooting a human silhouette is not to be taken lightly. and certainly, one should never shoot at a picture of another human being. human profiles should be used as practice for real-world scenarios in which one is called upon to defend himself, his family or the innocent. it's not even funny to joke about shooting a politician. and certainly not in a public forum like this. the anti's will point to ignorant posts like yours and say, "see, that's why we need to take away their guns!"
    Well we disagree again. It's along the line of flag burning. Some hate it, and others recognize the fact that both paper targets and flags are just symbols of things real and imagined. Making a political statement is a right as much as firearm ownership. Take the "EMOTION" out of it and in the end a flag is nylon and a targetis paper, you can destroy both, but the Country still survives andso does the living thing symbolized on the paper.
    i'm not saying that shooting pictures of politicians or burning flags should be illegal or banned. and i definitely think human profile targets are harmless. i'm just questioning the intelligence and mental state of someone who would shoot at a picture of an elected official.
    Fair enough, you realize that shooting paper targetsis not the same as shooting a real person, if it was many video games would be banned, where kids shoot at images of people with graphic detail. Are they likely to go and kill the people that are portrayed in the game? There is no solid evidence that this is the case.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  18. #18
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446

    Post imported post

    smellslikemichigan wrote:
    PT111 wrote:
    I thought you argument was about public perception. If you don't think that the attitudeof way some on here, whether right or wrong, give the anti gun folks ammunition then I don't know what to say. Nicknames may be harmless but to call all police lickspittle on cow dung is not going to win you any friends with the anti gun crowd and certainly not with me. I would not defend the few on here tha constantly refer topolice as that eve if Osama Bin laden was torturing them. Just my opinion.
    this issue goes back to firearms safety day one, whether it's what Dad, the NRA or the Marine Corps taught us. never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot. while an image is not the same as the actual object or person, the reason we shoot at profile targets is because someday we may have to defend ourselves against another human being. the same goes for shooting at wildlife targets that you intend to hunt. if you shoot at a picture of nancy pelosi, does that mean that someday you intend to shoot her?
    Your first sentenceis certainly true, but your argument isn't. It's a long stretch to compare an image of a person to the real thing. Your last sentence is absurd. I shoot at targets of dinosaurs, does that mean I will go and hunt one? I have seen targets of all sorts of things realand imagined, does thatmean I will shoot them? I'm not following ya.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    smellslikemichigan wrote:
    Venator wrote:
    smellslikemichigan wrote:
    PT111 wrote:
    Most SC CWP classes require shooting at a human size target for qualification and most use pictrues of someone.¬* I think Osama or Nancy Pelosie pictures would make me shoot better.
    then people like you are the reason human profile targets are banned at most places.¬* shooting a human silhouette is not to be taken lightly.¬* and certainly, one should never shoot at a picture of another human being.¬* human profiles should be used as practice for real-world scenarios in which one is called upon to defend himself, his family or the innocent.¬* it's not even funny to joke about shooting a politician.¬* and certainly not in a public forum like this.¬* the anti's will point to ignorant posts like yours and say, "see, that's why we need to take away their guns!"
    Well we disagree again.¬* It's along the line of flag burning.¬* Some hate it, and others recognize the fact that both paper targets and flags are just symbols of things real and imagined.¬* Making a political statement is a right as much as firearm ownership.¬* Take the "EMOTION" out of it and in the end a flag is nylon and a target¬*is paper, you can destroy both, but the Country still survives and¬*so does the living thing symbolized on the paper.
    i'm not saying that shooting pictures of politicians or burning flags should be illegal or banned. and i definitely think human profile targets are harmless. i'm just questioning the intelligence and mental state of someone who would shoot at a picture of an elected official.
    Fair enough, you realize that shooting paper targets¬*is not the same as shooting a real person, if it was many video games would be banned, where kids shoot at images of people with graphic detail.¬* Are they likely to go and kill the people that are portrayed in the game?¬* There is no solid evidence that this is the case.
    that's true, they probably aren't going to shoot the people in the games in the real world. but then again, they are using a plastic controller and not a firearm with live rounds. i think my comparison between human profile and animal targets still holds water when you consider the mindset behind shooting at those style targets is preparation for shooting a human or animal. playing a video game is not practice or preparation for shooting anything.
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    smellslikemichigan wrote:
    PT111 wrote:
    I thought you argument was about public perception.¬* If you don't think that the attitude¬*of way some on here, whether right or wrong, give the anti gun folks ammunition then I don't know what to say.¬* Nicknames may be harmless but to call all police lickspittle on cow dung is not going to win you any friends with the anti gun crowd and certainly not with me.¬* I would not defend the few on here tha constantly refer topolice as that eve if Osama Bin laden was torturing them.¬* Just my opinion.
    this issue goes back to firearms safety day one, whether it's what Dad, the NRA or the Marine Corps taught us. never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot. while an image is not the same as the actual object or person, the reason we shoot at profile targets is because someday we may have to defend ourselves against another human being. the same goes for shooting at wildlife targets that you intend to hunt. if you shoot at a picture of nancy pelosi, does that mean that someday you intend to shoot her?
    Your first sentence¬*is certainly true, but your argument isn't.¬* It's a long stretch to compare an image of a person to the real thing.¬* Your last sentence is absurd.¬* I shoot at targets of dinosaurs, does that mean I will go and hunt one?¬* I have seen targets of all sorts of things real¬*and imagined, does that¬*mean I will shoot them?¬* I'm not following ya.
    shooting at a dinosaur target is amusing and appropriate behaviour, as such. but there is nothing amusing about shooting at someone's picture. (i would hunt a dinosaur if i could find one, wouldn't you?)
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

  21. #21
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446

    Post imported post

    smellslikemichigan wrote:
    Venator wrote:
    smellslikemichigan wrote:
    Venator wrote:
    smellslikemichigan wrote:
    PT111 wrote:
    Most SC CWP classes require shooting at a human size target for qualification and most use pictrues of someone. I think Osama or Nancy Pelosie pictures would make me shoot better.
    then people like you are the reason human profile targets are banned at most places. shooting a human silhouette is not to be taken lightly. and certainly, one should never shoot at a picture of another human being. human profiles should be used as practice for real-world scenarios in which one is called upon to defend himself, his family or the innocent. it's not even funny to joke about shooting a politician. and certainly not in a public forum like this. the anti's will point to ignorant posts like yours and say, "see, that's why we need to take away their guns!"
    Well we disagree again. It's along the line of flag burning. Some hate it, and others recognize the fact that both paper targets and flags are just symbols of things real and imagined. Making a political statement is a right as much as firearm ownership. Take the "EMOTION" out of it and in the end a flag is nylon and a targetis paper, you can destroy both, but the Country still survives andso does the living thing symbolized on the paper.
    i'm not saying that shooting pictures of politicians or burning flags should be illegal or banned. and i definitely think human profile targets are harmless. i'm just questioning the intelligence and mental state of someone who would shoot at a picture of an elected official.
    Fair enough, you realize that shooting paper targetsis not the same as shooting a real person, if it was many video games would be banned, where kids shoot at images of people with graphic detail. Are they likely to go and kill the people that are portrayed in the game? There is no solid evidence that this is the case.
    that's true, they probably aren't going to shoot the people in the games in the real world. but then again, they are using a plastic controller and not a firearm with live rounds. i think my comparison between human profile and animal targets still holds water when you consider the mindset behind shooting at those style targets is preparation for shooting a human or animal. playing a video game is not practice or preparation for shooting anything.
    I found then lost an article on the development of human targets. It was very informative. I'll try to find it. The idea certainly has a psychological aspect. The gist of the article stated that in WW-I only about 10% of the soldiers fired their guns at another human, unless directly under the control of an officer. These solider used circle targets for training. It was thought that there is a subconscious and ancient part of our brain that tells us not to kill other people, that we as a species prefer to flight as opposed to fight or harm another person if at all possible. By WW-II the army started using human targets and the firing rates rose. By Korea they used human targets that fell when hit, again fired shoots increased. By Vietnam the rate was over 50%. The theory is that the soldiers were conditioning that part of the brain to over-ride that flight impulse. So firing at human targets have a real purpose in training for war or self-defense. Hench the use by LEOs. The study did say that the training just conditions us to fire when needed, that the training doesn'tturn you into a cold blooded killer.Hench the video game comparison.

    The article gave an example of an LEO that practiced disarming a person with a hostage. Lots and Lots of practice. He would train by taking away the BG's gun (another officer playing the part) then after the disarm he handed back the training weapon to the BG (LEO)...over and over. You can see where this is going. One day in a real situation he disarms the real BG and out of habit handed the weapon back to him. The article didn't mention what happened then.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  22. #22
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446

    Post imported post

    smellslikemichigan wrote:
    . (i would hunt a dinosaur if i could find one, wouldn't you?)
    I don't know, some seem really scaryat least the one's I've seen. Perhaps the lumbering plant eaters. Bet it would be expensive, like an African safari, can't afford those either.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    smellslikemichigan wrote:
    Venator wrote:
    smellslikemichigan wrote:
    Venator wrote:
    smellslikemichigan wrote:
    PT111 wrote:
    Most SC CWP classes require shooting at a human size target for qualification and most use pictrues of someone.¬* I think Osama or Nancy Pelosie pictures would make me shoot better.
    then people like you are the reason human profile targets are banned at most places.¬* shooting a human silhouette is not to be taken lightly.¬* and certainly, one should never shoot at a picture of another human being.¬* human profiles should be used as practice for real-world scenarios in which one is called upon to defend himself, his family or the innocent.¬* it's not even funny to joke about shooting a politician.¬* and certainly not in a public forum like this.¬* the anti's will point to ignorant posts like yours and say, "see, that's why we need to take away their guns!"
    Well we disagree again.¬* It's along the line of flag burning.¬* Some hate it, and others recognize the fact that both paper targets and flags are just symbols of things real and imagined.¬* Making a political statement is a right as much as firearm ownership.¬* Take the "EMOTION" out of it and in the end a flag is nylon and a target¬*is paper, you can destroy both, but the Country still survives and¬*so does the living thing symbolized on the paper.
    i'm not saying that shooting pictures of politicians or burning flags should be illegal or banned. and i definitely think human profile targets are harmless. i'm just questioning the intelligence and mental state of someone who would shoot at a picture of an elected official.
    Fair enough, you realize that shooting paper targets¬*is not the same as shooting a real person, if it was many video games would be banned, where kids shoot at images of people with graphic detail.¬* Are they likely to go and kill the people that are portrayed in the game?¬* There is no solid evidence that this is the case.
    that's true, they probably aren't going to shoot the people in the games in the real world. but then again, they are using a plastic controller and not a firearm with live rounds. i think my comparison between human profile and animal targets still holds water when you consider the mindset behind shooting at those style targets is preparation for shooting a human or animal. playing a video game is not practice or preparation for shooting anything.
    I found then lost an article on the development of human targets.¬* It was very informative.¬* I'll try to find it.¬* The idea certainly has a psychological aspect.¬* The gist of the article stated that in WW-I only about 10% of the soldiers fired their guns at another human, unless directly under the control of an officer.¬* These solider used circle targets for training.¬* It was thought that there is a subconscious and ancient part of our brain that tells us not to kill other people, that we as a species prefer to flight as opposed to fight or harm another person if at all possible.¬* By WW-II the army started using human targets and the firing rates rose.¬* By Korea they used human targets that fell when hit, again fired shoots increased.¬* By Vietnam the rate was over 50%.¬* The theory is that the soldiers were conditioning that part of the brain to over-ride that flight impulse.¬* So firing at human targets have a real purpose in training for war or self-defense.¬* Hench the use by LEOs.¬* The study did say that the training just conditions us to fire when needed, that the training doesn't¬*turn you into a cold blooded killer.¬*¬*Hench the video game comparison.

    The article gave an example of an LEO that practiced disarming a person with a hostage.¬* Lots and Lots of practice.¬* He would train by taking away the BG's gun (another officer playing the part) then after the disarm he handed back the training weapon to the BG (LEO)...over and over.¬* You can see where this is going.¬* One day in a real situation he disarms the real BG and out of habit handed the weapon back to him.¬* The article didn't mention what happened then.
    that adds up when i recall marine corps boot camp. from day one, running cadences are filled with violent imagery and glorify the killing of one's enemies, all this to desensitize the recruit to the harsh mental reality of killing another human. this is, of course, necessary to the effective training of a combat effective individual. kill or be killed.
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    smellslikemichigan wrote:
    . (i would hunt a dinosaur if i could find one, wouldn't you?)
    I don't know, some seem really scary¬*at least the one's I've seen.¬* Perhaps the lumbering plant eaters.¬* Bet it would be expensive, like an African safari, can't afford those either.
    i just realized that i probably could shoot a dinosaur if i found one because DNR probably doesn't regulated dinosaur hunting. AND i don't think they're on any endangered species list!:celebrate
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424

    Post imported post

    I wonder if Ms Alred has a purse gun. I do know that Hanoi Jane was a "committed" anti who wanted to carry a gun for self-defense after a particular bad earthquake..
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •