Do these qualify as "pictures of real people"? After all, they do remind me of the current president's cheerleaders.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Are These "Real People" Targets?
I was recently taken to task for shooting at "pictures of real people." I recalled that fallacious accusation when I unpacked the targets I ordered for the fun day at the range coming this weekend.
Do these qualify as "pictures of real people"? After all, they do remind me of the current president's cheerleaders.
Do these qualify as "pictures of real people"? After all, they do remind me of the current president's cheerleaders.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No, no they don't count as real people. And this PC craziness is utter nonsense. I got taken to task for the same thing at a range here in Texas by an overzealous RO. They were the old school hostage targets - they weren't pictures but drawings of a bad guy holding a hostage, and yet that was too risque for that particular range.
ReplyDeleteMatt W, I've even heard complaints about USPSA and IDPA targets having "heads."
DeleteAnd how many people expect to defend themselves against 8" circles or geometrically shaped people?
ReplyDeleteI practice for what I believe is the most likely reason I'll need firearms - defense from another person. Anyone has a problem with that can take up the job of defending me 24/7.
3b, those ranges that don't allow movement promote the same false sense of preparedness.
DeleteI am sorry I didn't express myself well previously. It's not that the targets look like people that bothered me. I totally understand that and agree. It makes sense to shoot at (generic) human targets. What bothered me on the previous post was the statement, "(W)e enjoyed a good laugh over the 'government official' targets."
ReplyDeleteIs it PC to express disdain at (even pretended) assassination? Intentional or not, that is how the post can be interpreted.
And to answer the question posed here: Of course not. Zombies should not only be shot. They deserve the double-tap.
Welcome back Anson. You'll notice the subject in those targets is depicted pointing a weapon in a threatening manner. I'd submit that puts the simulated scenario in the realm of self-defense, not assassination. (The irony that the Treasury Dept collects money from citizens at the point of a gun is too obvious to be ignored.)
DeleteAnson,
ReplyDeleteIs it necessary that everything in life be "politically correct"?
And a follow up and more important question -- Shouldn't government officials have the least bit of concern that they are subject to assassination?
While there is a huge truth to the phrase "you can't please all the people all the time"; government officials shouldn't have to worry about the average citizen starting to take them out IF they are following the law, the Constitution and the morals/Ethics of society they are supposed to represent or serve.
This is a serious question about a serious subject. I'm not making light of it. But in all honesty, how does it hurt?
Moral or ethical people know the difference between right and wrong, between humor and reality -- even dark humor.
Oh good grief. It's a piece of paper with a picture on it. I personally don't care what that picture is. If I put up a picture of Momjeans and shoot at it it doesn't mean I'm planning to assassinate him. It just means I'm disgusted and shooting at a picture of Momjeans to entertain myself.
ReplyDeleteThere was that time I shot at a picture of broccoli. I probably offended some vegans.
ReplyDeleteAnd I like broccoli.
I'm offended that they are offended.
Delete