What the hell, I was going to the range anyway. I bought a couple and fired off just over 50 rounds of .45 ball.
A number of ranges don't permit the use of human image targets, for they don't want to deal with any negative press about letting customers "train to shoot people". Some, I've heard, even ban silhouette targets, permitting only bullseye targets. I've shot at ranges that ban head-shots, others that ban shooting at any rate faster than once per second.
Their ranges, their rules. They may have reasons other than squeamishness. And there is nothing wrong with slow-fire target shooting. But if one of the reasons for having a weapon is for self-defense, then bullseye shooting is helpful if you think that you may ever get attacked by a large black circle.
So it may be worth the effort to find a range that will at least let you practice on targets that have some passing resemblance to what you might have to shoot at for real. Then, when you do go to the range, try practicing using the firing techniques that best suit you and your weapon of choice.
8 comments:
Their range, their rules, sure. But you know what *pisses me the fuck off*? My local range: no human targets. Except for the ones they sell with Obama printed on them. Those are OK.
That would be worth a call to the local newspaper.
Or the Secret Service.
That guy sort of looks like Andy Griffith, which raises a whole host of questions: is he merely defending himself against the criminal pointing the gun at him? Or does he represent law enforcement turned against the populace? And why is *Andy Griffith* pointing a gun at anyone in the first place?
Not Andy Griffith. I've added a link to a story about the target.
Seeing as how my benighted city is currently in a pitched battle to ban those carrying guns from *walking through the park*, despite vehemently clear state law to the contrary, the last thing I need is more bad press... but it's a nice thought.
dbliss, you are in Indianapolis?
Nope, Seattle, WA. Which has the dubious distinction of probably having the greatest contrast between the "liberal", gun-hating idiots in the city vs. the amazingly gun-reasonable idiots at the State. For example, I think we're the only place on earth where if the government arrests and tries you for defending yourself, and you prevail, they have to reimburse you for all your costs in defending yourself.
The state has established complete preemption in no uncertain terms, but the pigfucking morons that have gotten themselves elected to city office don't give a shit, they only care about OMG GUNS ARE SCARY PROTECT THE CHILDRUUNNNZZZZ!
It pisses me off. You might have picked up on that. :)
Oh. I asked because, as you may know if you've read Tam's or Roberta's blogs, the same fight is going on in Indianoplace.
I've read about the mess in Seattle, but I didn't know that you get your attorney's fees paid for. Given that state law is unequivocal, I'd sue for malicious prosecution, as well.
Post a Comment