PDA

View Full Version : RULE II of Firearm Safety


scottaschultz
March 31, 2009, 05:09 PM
First of all, I am not anti-gun in any way. I have quite a few (by some standards) ranging from .22 rifles, pistols and revolvers to 10ga shotguns.

To my point, The #2 Rule of Firearm Safety is "NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY"

I see a lot of posts here and on other forums from well-intentioned folks who seem to have lost sight of this basic concept, especially when it comes to personal defense. I can't help but believe that some of these people really do not understand the concept that what they are carrying is a lethal weapon. Firearms were designed to do only one thing; kill. Guns were not meant to merely scare people or to just wound or subdue an aggressor. Discharging a firearm of any caliber can, and often does, result in killing another living creature.

Yes, many of us, me included, spend lots of time destroying targets at the range. For me, it is a great source of stress relief and I take pride in constantly trying to improve my accuracy. But I also hunt; small game, large game and waterfowl. When I point my 30-30 at a deer, it is not my intention to cripple it. When I point my 12ga at a turkey, I do not want to wound it. When I point my 10ga at a goose, I don't want to scare it out of the sky.

I am very much OK with saving money on trials for "BG's", but all I ask is that all of you new or prospective CCW holders, is that you are prepared to follow through with your actions once you pull your weapon and that means killing someone. No, that does not mean you must pull the trigger if you pull your weapon, but please remember that your actions could result in the death of a human being and once that happens, your life will change... forever!

Scott

Brian Pfleuger
March 31, 2009, 05:15 PM
Firearms were designed to do only one thing; kill.

The initial concept may have been invented to kill. Modern firearms are designed for several reasons that have nothing to do with killing.
As a wise man once said "If my guns are designed to kill then they're all defective."


Guns were not meant to merely scare people or to just wound or subdue an aggressor.

Yet, they are legally and wisely used to scare people every day.


...is that you are prepared to follow through with your actions once you pull your weapon and that means killing someone.

No, it doesn't. It could mean scaring them or shooting them and they surrender and not die OR killing them. It doesn't MEAN killing, it MEANS defending.


No, that does not mean you must pull the trigger if you pull your weapon, but please remember that your actions could result in the death of a human being and once that happens, your life will change... forever!


Agreed.

scottaschultz
March 31, 2009, 05:45 PM
OK, I agree that not all guns were designed to kill. I have friends who shoot these hyper-accurate .22 rifles and these guys are amazing. Nonetheless, a Suhl 150 is a lethal weapon and is quite capable of killing.

The point I am trying to make is what some call the "Speedo Principle" and that is, "Just because a Speedo comes in your size does not mean you have to wear one!"

Of course the 2nd Amendment applies to everyone, but not everyone should own a firearm. Of course guns are pulled all the time and never fired and everyone goes home, or to jail, but at least they are alive.

As crazy as it sounds, I would rather face an aggressor in a proverbial dark alley than most people with a CCW permit. At least with the aggressor, I know what his intentions are, but with a guy who just bought a .45 at his local sporting goods store and took an 8 hour CCW class, how can I ever know that he will be making a good decision when it comes to discharging his weapon. LEO's train for this all the time and sometimes, rarely, they still get it wrong.

Yes, it is his right to own a gun and carry it, but sometimes it scares the living daylights out of me when I think about being someplace where this guy might be in a "situation".

Scott

KLRANGL
March 31, 2009, 06:00 PM
As crazy as it sounds, I would rather face an aggressor in a proverbial dark alley than most people with a CCW permit.
If you were so worried about people with CCW permits making the wrong decisions, then why dont we hear about all these wrong decisions? Because they dont happen. Every group of people have the bad apples, but CCW holders are proven law abiding, responsible people.
I get this response from all my anti-gun friends, but the fact is there is no proof you can bring to the table that CCW holders are irresponsible with their weapons, just fear and doubt.

That aside, you cannot legislate responsibility... Are you advocating the government come in and tell you if you are or are not responsible enough to carry a weapon?

And using a forum as a measure of peoples level of responsibility is not smart. People act totally different through the internet than they do in real life. Not to mention it is hard to properly convey your meaning across a medium such as this.

troy_mclure
March 31, 2009, 06:15 PM
a firearm is a tool. nothing more, nothing less.
admittedly its a highly specialized tool, but still a tool.

PoorSoulInJersey
March 31, 2009, 08:03 PM
I'm not really sure what your point was with this post. That we should treat defense shooting like hunting? Or just that more people with a CCW should take decent training and practice regularly? People make good and bad decisions every day, just look at the automotive accident reports. Get over it.

As a civilian, our only legal use of a firearm is to stop a threat of bodily harm or death. We're going to have to prove that we used the minimum amount of force necessary.

You might very well draw your pistol, fully prepared to fire, and the BG runs away. At that point, you really can't shoot him. Until that moment, though, my muzzle WAS covering something I was willing to destroy: the threat to my life.

All that said, I'll add:

In a self-defense situation, you are shooting to stop, not expressly to kill. If you shoot him once, he drops to the ground crying and rocking in a fetal position, you can't shoot him again.
Don't draw a gun unless you are willing to use it
There are no "warning shots"
Hunting is very different from self-defense use for firearms. You are using the tool (your firearm) for a very different purpose: to definitely kill and eat, not just stop a threat
If you're not willing to use a gun to stop a threat, don't carry one.
If you don't trust this person enough to be around him when he's armed, then either get him to think about it more or stop hanging around with him.

Keltyke
March 31, 2009, 08:29 PM
how can I ever know that he will be making a good decision when it comes to discharging his weapon.

I gotta ask - How do WE know YOU will make a good decision in the same circumstance?

Brian Pfleuger
March 31, 2009, 08:46 PM
As crazy as it sounds, I would rather face an aggressor in a proverbial dark alley than most people with a CCW permit. At least with the aggressor, I know what his intentions are, but with a guy who just bought a .45 at his local sporting goods store and took an 8 hour CCW class, how can I ever know that he will be making a good decision when it comes to discharging his weapon.

Well, you can be pretty sure that the CCW holders intentions are FRIENDLY at least. Since the crime rate for CC holders is like .5% or some such thing, I don't think they (WE) are the problem. I keep reading and re-reading that whole second amendment thing, I must be missing the part about taking classes. So many people are sure, it MUST be there.

How about this one? I took an 8 hour class that involved firing 10 rounds and included NO instruction on defensive shooting. I bought my gun, GULP, sight unseen, and having never fired that particular caliber, from an on-line retailer who didn't verify my experience....

How good will MY decisions be?

edistomick
March 31, 2009, 08:48 PM
"As crazy as it sounds, I would rather face an aggressor in a proverbial dark alley than most people with a CCW permit. At least with the aggressor, I know what his intentions are, but with a guy who just bought a .45 at his local sporting goods store and took an 8 hour CCW class, how can I ever know that he will be making a good decision when it comes to discharging his weapon."

Huh?? An aggressor is out to harm you for no reason! A CCW has no reason to harm you!! Having a CCW makes a person a loose cannon?? A CCW has proven to be law abiding. A BG has proven to be NOT law abiding.
By your logic, you'd rather walk through an inner city ghetto at night than through many suburban Wal-Marts!
Thing is, since it's Concealed Carry, you never know who is carrying! There are more people carrying in most areas than BG's in "safe" areas. Are you stating that you are afraid to be in traditionally "safe" areas?
Since BG's in ghettos aren't allowed to CCW, does that make it safer for you?

I don't understand your premise/logic/reasoning at all.

Nnobby45
March 31, 2009, 09:07 PM
Discharging a firearm of any caliber can, and often does, result in killing another living creature.......
Scott

but please remember that your actions could result in the death of a human being and once that happens, your life will change... forever!


I think you need to separate the SD use of a firearm from the recreational aspect.

Are you really so self righteous that you need lecture the rest of us on the consequences of using deadly force because you know the consequences and we don't? Apparently.

Yes, I know that if I shot the person who was trying to murder me or the people I love most in the whole world, that such action could result in the death of that person. But thank you, anyway.

The nature of your post casts doubts on your own willingness to do what it takes to defend your life or others should the time come.

Double Naught Spy
March 31, 2009, 09:37 PM
Firearms were designed to do only one thing; kill.

OK, I agree that not all guns were designed to kill.

In looking at the designs of several firearms, I cannot find any that indicate killing as part of the design. While varied, the basic design element of firearms is the launching of a projectile(s) down range in some sort of controlled manner via propulsion from combustion-based expanding gasses. It is the projectile that may kill, not the gun. Many guns have operational differences from one another, but the singular underlying function remains consistent.

It is an application parameter, not a design parameter, if the firearm is used to launch a projectile for the purpose of killing. Notice that the function of the gun does not change with application. Whether shooting in the air, at the ground, at a paper target, as a warning shot, or at living creature, the way in which a given gun functions does not change.

Design and application are not one in the same.

No, that does not mean you must pull the trigger if you pull your weapon, but please remember that your actions could result in the death of a human being and once that happens, your life will change...

And you should please remember that in a life threatening situation that if you do not pull the trigger, your life may cease to change ever again except in the transition from life to death. With that stated, if you are involved in a life or death situation, even if you don't pull the trigger and you survive, your life will have also been changed forever.

jgcoastie
April 1, 2009, 12:16 AM
My advice to you: Stay away from Alaska and Vermont.

Niether of those states require any type of permit to carry a concealed weapon. That means that anyone who may legally own a firearm may carry it.

You'd crap your pants if you had to spend a day in Kodiak, Seward, Homer, Kenai, Anchorage, or any other town up here... Literally ANY person you meet could be carrying a firearm, and they probably are. And they don't have that measly 8-hour course you so poorly spoke of...

Alaska and Vermont both have extremely low crime rates... And by low, I mean LOW! So it would seem that the presence of firearms really do prevent crimes... Huh, I guess ol' George Washington really did know a thing or two...

Rich Miranda
April 1, 2009, 01:19 AM
Scott, I spent a long while reading, then re-reading your post. I don't really find any major point of contention with the possible exception being your claim that some TFL members have lost sight of the fact that guns are lethal weapons (last time I checked, that's why we're all here). I suppose it could be a subjective observation.

But if the final line of your post was your thesis, I must point out that, at least for me, the whole reason I acquired my CHL was that - if needed to protect my life or that of my loved ones - I was perfectly fine with killing somebody. At this point, as a proud CHL carrier, I don't need to realize that my "actions could result in the death of a human being." That was all considered prior to getting the CHL (if you want to nitpick, it was before I ever bought a gun, period).

In other words, before I acquired my CHL, I asked myself, "What am I willing to do protect myself and my family?" One of the answer choices is: Carry a firearm that will effectively stop a threat. Obviously, I realize that stopping the threat now may stop it permanently (AKA killing). If I'm alive to agonize over the fact that I have actually ended someone's life in a self-defense situation, I have succeeded.

Rich Miranda
April 1, 2009, 01:29 AM
I must point out that, at least for me, the whole reason I acquired my CHL was that - if needed to protect my life or that of my loved ones - I was perfectly fine with killing somebody.

I'm going to quote myself to expand on this a little. No, I am not a 'cowboy' or a vigilante. I hope that I never, ever have to draw my weapon in anger. But people are killed every day in this country. I believe I have a right to avoid being one of them, and I appreciate Texas for honoring my right to self-defense.

No, I am truly scared of killing an innocent. I'm not kidding, and y'all can laugh all you want, but I have had nightmares that I killed someone innocent (never with a gun though). It was one of those dreams where it seems so real and when I woke I literally THANKED THE LORD OUT LOUD that it hadn't really happened.

But with regard to killing someone who means me serious harm or is trying to kill me? Not a problem.

KLRANGL
April 1, 2009, 09:44 AM
But with regard to killing someone who means me serious harm or is trying to kill me? Not a problem.
No need to explain yourself. The ability to take a human life is probably the most critical mental aspect to carrying a concealed weapon. Right there with discipline and responsibility...

Design and application are not one in the same.
Talk about hitting the nail on the head.
The way I look at it, guns are not designed to kill. Bullets are designed to kill...
When I load my USPc up with some wadcutter FMJs for the range, its no more a killing machine than your sports car or SUV. Can it kill, of course. But so can you kid driving your car home from some party.
On the other hand if I put in my Hornady TAP JHPs, its express intent from that point on is to take someones life. Those rounds have been designed to expand and create the most internal damage as possible.
The firearm itself is, to steal someones sig, is just 'a single piston, single stroke internal combustion engine with a free floating piston.'
Kills me every time ;) (what a crappy pun)

LaBulldog
April 1, 2009, 10:01 AM
It is possible to pull a gun on someone with the intention to shoot and within a split second the situation changes, such as the threat to life and limb immediately retreats, runs away. I have no problem with that. It happens all the time in police work.

However, to pull a gun on someone just to threaten them is a very bad idea, and possibly a criminal act.

I modified rule #2 for my purposes as:
"Never point a gun at anything you are not willing, and justified legally to destroy."

Housezealot
April 1, 2009, 01:10 PM
scottashultz,
whats the deal here, I just read another thread on the tactics forum
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=348736
you seemed to have a negative view of guns for self defense there too,
what do you suggest we all do to make us worthy of owning a firearm?

scottaschultz
April 2, 2009, 01:08 AM
It is the projectile that may kill, not the gun.

So if I just take a bullet and throw it at you, you would die?? A bullet is no good until or unless it is fired from a gun.

And yes, I do believe there are people who do not search their souls and ask themselves if they could kill another human being, whatever the circumstances.

That said, I will just stick to hunting. At least there I know what I am dealing with.

Good night.

LoneWolf22056
April 2, 2009, 01:19 AM
I once had an "interview" where I was asked how I felt about taking a human life. I was just barely 18 and the thought had not seriously crossed my mind before that point. But I made up my mind that instant on a simple basis.

If it's a matter of me or them, I'd rather it be them every single time.

Would I have any regrets? No. If someone is out to take my life and It's up to me to save my own by taking theirs, it's a non-issue. The same thing is going through their mind and they're going to try their utmost to put you in the ground. It's your duty to yourself and your future to stop that from happening.

I have never taken a life but I think on simple terms. I don't care that some might say that I'm only saying this because I've never experienced it. There's no reason to complicate anything. Would you rather live or die? Given a choice, I'll take "live" every time, by any means necessary.

Self preservation is not something you need to go soul-searching for. That's it, plain and simple. The contemplative ones about this subject are most likely to end up as a corpse in a body bag.

Double Naught Spy
April 2, 2009, 06:51 AM
scottaschultz said,
So if I just take a bullet and throw it at you, you would die?? A bullet is no good until or unless it is fired from a gun.

Thank you for now seeing the light and helping explain the design function of a gun. I don't think you intended to do it, but you did. Basically, you are saying that the function of the gun is to bring the bullet up to speed and to control it such that it will hit a target. There is nothing in your statement to suggest that the gun kills.

As I said above, I have yet to see any gun designs that have in them a design parameter of killing. Killing is but one application for which a gun may be used, but isn't a design element. Design and application and Design and intent of use are not one in the same.

ZeSpectre
April 2, 2009, 08:43 AM
Firearms were designed to do only one thing; kill.
Actually a firearm is a hole punch. The killing part is optional :D

So if I just take a bullet and throw it at you, you would die?? A bullet is no good until or unless it is fired from a gun.
The term "Bullet" originally comes from the term for whatever you propelled from a sling and predates firearms by many centuries.

Creature
April 2, 2009, 09:02 AM
As crazy as it sounds, I would rather face an aggressor in a proverbial dark alley than most people with a CCW permit

Good luck with that.

Croz
April 2, 2009, 09:21 AM
That said, I will just stick to hunting. At least there I know what I am dealing with.

Yeah, because no one has ever been shot and killed by someone while hunting.

pax
April 2, 2009, 09:22 AM
If you're a gun owner who thinks the only purpose of a gun is to kill, you're probably a hunter because that's what hunters do with their guns. If you think its only purpose is to maintain civilization by protecting the innocent and defending the social order, you're probably a cop or a member of the military. If you think a gun's only job is to punch holes in a target on a Saturday afternoon, you're a plinker or a gamester. If you think its only purpose is to protect life, you probably CCW. And if you think a gun can and should be used for all these things, you're a realistic person who understands that very few things in life have "only one purpose."

It isn't news to anyone in this forum that guns can be used to kill. But guns can also save innocent lives, when used in defense of self and others. Anyone who doesn't understand that has no business owning a firearm, no matter how many deer he's dragged out of the woods.

pax

Creature
April 2, 2009, 09:42 AM
Well said, Pax.

OldMarksman
April 2, 2009, 09:42 AM
As crazy as it sounds, I would rather face an aggressor in a proverbial dark alley than most people with a CCW permit

From Dictionary.com:

Crazy: Adjective

2. Senseless; impractical; totally unsound

Sure does sound crazy. Still haven't figured out why anyone would feel that way.

your actions could result in the death of a human being


That's why it's called "deadly force." It is justified under some unique circumstances and has been since the first laws of man were established--long before gunpowder was invented.

Firearms were designed to do only one thing; kill.

Well, one might opine that the highly destructive weapons carried by post-war American strategic bombers were "designed to do only one thing: destroy cities and other major targets", but in point of fact none of them ever did. It is likely, however, that their mere existence prevented an awful lot of killing.

Similarly, it is often the case that the mere presence of a firearm saves lives.

I'm still not sure why one would rather encounter "an aggressor" than a law abiding citizen. That's beyond my capacity to comprehend. As has been put more succinctly, "good luck with that."

djohn
April 2, 2009, 09:45 AM
Scott,I think your concerns are well taken but of the 32 yrs with firearms and twenty five with a CCW permit.I have yet to point my weapon at anything not even a soda can that I had no intentions to shoot and never a AD.In all my yrs I have found CCW holders very responsable and law bidding.I rather be in the crowd of a hundred arrmed legal CCW holders,then in the company of one armed bad guy.

Housezealot
April 2, 2009, 10:24 AM
+1 pax

Unclenick
April 2, 2009, 10:35 AM
As crazy as it sounds, I would rather face an aggressor in a proverbial dark alley than most people with a CCW permit

I think maybe this is the crux of the whole concept. For the thought to be complete, you would have to suggest why you are facing this CCW permit holder in that alley? Are you assaulting him? Is he assaulting you? Are you both simply strolling by?

The first situation is up to you to choose not to do, and if you make the wrong choice you deserve the consequences. CCW is not about ensuring a safer work environment for muggers.

The second makes him no more dangerous than any other armed mugger without a CCW permit. And even if a mugger somehow has a CCW permit, he is unlikely to show it to you before pulling the gun and asking for your money, so the level of surprise it affords him isn't going to be any greater. Statistically, the vast majority of criminals are people with a history of criminal acts who can't pass the background check to get CCW permits. Even though one may slip through the cracks from time to time, this is highly improbable, and it is not rational to feel threatened by extremely low probability situations. Crazy might not be the right term, but phobia fits.

As to the third situation, passing by is passing by. No harm, no foul.

scottaschultz
April 3, 2009, 04:24 AM
OK, so maybe I was too quick to say that I would rather face an agressor than most CCW holders when that should be some CCW holders. Other than that correction, I still maintain that using a firearm for defensive purposes IS a moral decision. I most certainly agree that there are circumstances when society is best served by saving money on a lengthy trial, but I am still of the opinion that there are some CCW holders who have not given this adequate thought.

And you know what they say about opinions...!

Scott

FNtastic!
April 3, 2009, 05:21 AM
Hmn, you should all count yourselves lucky you all have the privelige to be able to obtain a CCW. Apparently, self defence is not a valid reason to possess a firearm in Australia. And to be caught with one on your person in public is an offence against the law. no second amendment will ever come in to play here and i am seriously considering the American dream as a reality, so eroded are our basic rights. I guess what im trying to say is "Dont look a gift horse in the mouth." so to speak. Because at least you still have the freedom to choose to carry or associate with those who do so. One day, that right may be gone. And i would hate to see my American brothers and sisters go the way of Australia and my native England

Nnobby45
April 3, 2009, 06:30 AM
Other than that correction, I still maintain that using a firearm for defensive purposes IS a moral decision.

For you it's moral, for someone else it may be legal, and for yet another it may be tactical. Some of us may figure it's all of those. That's before anything happens.

If it does, we'll all be standing in front of the same fan, defending our lives or those of our loved ones. No one will be moralizing. We can do that before and afterwards.

I hope that none of us, including you, have to moralize about not having been able to defend someone we care about.

Rather interesting that you'd use firearms for personal recreation you enjoy, but not for defending your own life so you can continue to enjoy it. How moral is it for someone to take that away from you?

I guess it is a moral issue in more ways than one.

PoorSoulInJersey
April 3, 2009, 06:36 AM
He does kind of have a point. Some people may be so morally opposed to taking a life that they won't carry any tool to defend themselves at all.

Nnobby45
April 3, 2009, 06:46 AM
He does kind of have a point. Some people may be so morally opposed to taking a life that they won't carry any tool to defend themselves at all.

I agree, since I've met such people.

Why not just say so, rather than make those who CCW wrong to justify not being one of them--- when the real issue is what you've pointed out. :cool:

taz1
April 3, 2009, 10:05 AM
it all started with muzzle direction. i am assuming :eek: he has been covered once to many times.
i dont like to be covered any more than any one else. :(
does it happen? yes
did i ever do it ? yep and dad kicked my butt all the way to the barn. :mad:
is it useally accidental? yes :o
are there bilssfuly ignorant morons who will do it every time they handle a gun? absolutly.

soooooo what i do is always respond with--hey watch where your pointing that! responce is usaly -- i'm sorry, and they [AREB]so enough said.
most people are thinking -- crap i got careless and disreguarded basic rules and damn i look like a idot, in my case its holy s--t i hope dad didnt see that.
for the morons, it's easy to tell, they always say -- its not loaded.
i say-- well pointing a gun at someone is considered a act of intent of serious harm and is defendable buy leathal force so point it at the wrong, paronid guy and it would be a short gun fight cause his gun probly is loaded. then i keep looking over my sholder with my hand in my pocket.:p
a bit of amusement for me and it might freek them out enough to start thinking about it, and no my cc is not in my pocket.:D

the rest--- wow--- chill dude. if you dwell on all the things that could kill you out there every day your brain is gonna pop.

morals has nothing to do with protecting me or my family its my right and duty plus its pure instinct and a gun makes it much easer and better odds of surviving.
humans are very fallable and make mistakes. bet you have run a stop sign,
if you play the what if game, what if a famly swerved to miss you and crashed, ect. ect

a moral question would be -- you move to the wilderness to live. one day you are taking a bath in the river and mr. grizzley decides you would make a good breakfast.
1. you are a food product for meat eating animals.
2. you put yourself in his habitat.
3. he isnt comiting a crime he is just feeding to survive.
4. is it moraly right to shoot him?
5. while you decide you become bear scat!

Nnobby45
April 3, 2009, 11:44 PM
Maybe what Scottashultz hasn't grasped is that every day he goes about his personal business, he comes in contact with those who are legally armed and has no idea who they are.

The mere fact that this hasn't been an issue tends to disarm his argument that he should have more fear of the legally armed citizen than of an armed criminal. When he runs into one of those, he'll likely have no trouble knowing which one that is.

porrpk
April 4, 2009, 06:42 AM
IMO the original intent of the post was to highlight the importance of a 'look before you leap' attitude. (could be totally way off)

that although we all can probably agree that we understand the 'don't point your weapon at it unless you are prepared to kill it' idea, the part that many of us do not fully grasp is how we are going to feel in the event that we do kill someone, on purpose or accident. something you can never take back and that will change you forever.

and that it may be reckless of us to carry the attitude that we can accept the responsibilities of CCW/gun ownership w/o being fully able to comprehend the consequences of the actions that we are potentially exposing ourselves to.

that being said, I know gun owners who I do not feel would make the 'right' decision, just as I know people who drive, who shouldn't be on the road

be mindful, cautious and shoot straight (safe)

-porrpk

scottaschultz
April 4, 2009, 07:53 AM
Well, porrpk pretty well summed up what I was trying to say, but in a much simpler and straight forward way.

My thoughts on this are not just from reading posts on the Internet, although it was one of factors. I see too many threads that begin with something like, "My wife is afraid of guns. What kind should I buy her for SD/HD?" Even though the 2nd Amendment applies to every US citizen, it is a right, NOT a requirement. It is really OK to not own a gun. If you don't like guns (for whatever reason) or don't think you can mentally or emotionally deal with the consequences of shooting another living creature, animal or human being (and sometimes there is very little difference), then owning a gun is not for you. People should not be made to feel that they are somehow not being "patriotic" if they choose not to own a gun.

The other reason for my views is because of recent experiences at local unmanned ranges. When I go to an outdoor range, I prefer the ones that are supervised. In Missouri, the Dept. of Conservation operates several supervised ranges. I know many people won't go there because they feel it is "too controlled". They call cease fire on the 1/4 hour. You unload your firearm and place it in a rack. You step out of your booth and place a chain across it. You do not go downrange until the range master announces that the line is safe and you do not begin shooting again until the range master calls the range clear. When you are allowed to fire, there is no rapid firing. They do supply targets, but if you supply your own, they can not be of a human or animal silhouette.

On the other hand, I have been to unmanned ranges. The rules are the you are supposed to shoot only at paper targets, but I have seen people shoot at almost anything. Cease fires are by "gentlemen's agreement". I have been there when guys call cease fire after every magazine. That's stupid! While that is just an annoyance, there is nothing that will soil your Dr. Dentons faster than hearing a shot being fired when you are downrange and I simply will not tolerate this! Unfortunately the closest indoor range is about 45 miles away.

There are people I do not trust with a firearm. I apologize for making unfair remarks directed towards CCW holders. And yes, I am sure I run across people all the time who are carrying and I never know about it. Even though our local Wal-Mart does not have a nacho stand, I do go to the sporting goods department almost every time I go since my store is apparently one of the few Wal-Marts in the known universe that does have some ammunition.

I thank those who took the time to "read between the lines" of my posts and make some sense out of it.

Scott

Creature
April 4, 2009, 08:02 AM
Even though the 2nd Amendment applies to every US citizen, it is a right, NOT a requirement. It is really OK to not own a gun.

I think it should be a requirement and it should have been written into the Constitution as such.


There are people I do not trust with a firearm.

Would you trust them with government?

I thank those who took the time to "read between the lines" of my posts and make some sense out of it.
Next time perhaps you should write what you really meant in "a simpler and straight forward" way?

scottaschultz
April 4, 2009, 10:59 AM
Next time perhaps you should write what you really meant in "a simpler and straight forward" way?I am a machinist, not an English major. Sorry if my way of communicating does not meet your standards. No wait, I am not sorry at all and will not apologize for it.

Scott

Brian Pfleuger
April 4, 2009, 11:16 AM
Never mind.

Rich Miranda
April 4, 2009, 11:43 AM
...since my store is apparently one of the few Wal-Marts in the known universe that does have some ammunition.

This alone made this whole thread worthwhile! Scott, English major or not, you're coming along!

And with that, my friends, I think we can shut this one doooooooooowwn.

KLRANGL
April 4, 2009, 03:42 PM
Your nice little analogy of the controlled/uncontrolled firing range is exactly where you and I will disagree. I hold personal responsibly paramount, and will not tolerate anyone else telling me what I can and cannot do. I will take that uncontrolled or laid back range any day of the week, because you simply cannot regulate responsibility. Those people on the controlled range are not responsible, they are doing what they are told. Those people on the uncontrolled range are responsible because they have the option to not be responsible.
I bet you love the government telling you what you can and cannot do as well, because it will make you "safer."

Many people here will probably echo this sentiment...

scottaschultz
April 4, 2009, 04:51 PM
Those people on the uncontrolled range are responsible because they have the option to not be responsible.OK, I know this will probably get deleted by the moderator for being a "personal attack" or I may even be booted off TFL for saying this, but that has got to be about the dumbest thing I have ever seen here!

Given a choice, I would rather come back alive from the supervised range than the alternative. Believe me, I did not feel this way about unsupervised ranges until I heard live fire while I was down range changing targets. These shooters can exercise their rights to be irresponsible all they want, but not while I am being covered by their muzzle! I don't wear OD any more, so one of the things that I absolutely will not tolerate being shot at in what is supposed to be a "safe" environment.

Tell ya what, come to St. Charles County and let me fire one, just one, over your head. I am pretty good so I probably won't miss. You willing to take that chance?

Scott

Edit: And as far as the government telling me what do do, they may have to pry my gun from my cold dead hands, but will probably have to pry me out of my 1999 Jeep Cherokee SUV that gets less than 20 mpg (on a good day) with over 230,000 miles on it in order to do it. If I am not driving that, I will be in my 1991 V8 245hp Corvette. I can snub the government as well as the next guy!

Brian Pfleuger
April 4, 2009, 05:56 PM
Given a choice, I would rather come back alive from the supervised range than the alternative. Believe me, I did not feel this way about unsupervised ranges until I heard live fire while I was down range changing targets. These shooters can exercise their rights to be irresponsible all they want, but not while I am being covered by their muzzle! I don't wear OD any more, so one of the things that I absolutely will not tolerate being shot at in what is supposed to be a "safe" environment.

Scott,

You need to find some different gun owners to hang around with. The hunters/shooters/collectors that I know are far more responsible than the folks you are apparently familiar with. I have, in fact, not know more than 1 or 2 gun owners in my life that was I not completely comfortable being around.

troy_mclure
April 4, 2009, 07:03 PM
i am a member at an unsupervised range, at this range i have never seen the irresponsible/dangerous stuff people mentioned here.

i used to shoot at lots of unsupervised indoor ranges, they were kinda sketchy sometimes.

hogdogs
April 4, 2009, 07:20 PM
And yet for others (me) the use of a firearm is purely a survival decision. Same as the use of a knife, brick, shovel handle or any other improvised survival weapon. Morals, legality ethics or any other such is out the window when the life of my loved ones or myself is truly at risk...
Brent

Nnobby45
April 4, 2009, 07:28 PM
I think your original mistake, Scottashultz, was lumping CCW holders in with the bozos we all run in to, from time to time, at the range.

As a group CCW permitees are among the most responsible gun owners. Even if you don't wish to carry, I think you'd benefit from the class a great deal. Where operation of the firearm and tactics are concerned, extra training from a good instructor would be the way to go.

KLRANGL
April 5, 2009, 07:03 PM
but that has got to be about the dumbest thing I have ever seen here!
Dumb? thats funny... Ive never had a single problem at a range before, because they are all responsible people...


Given a choice, I would rather come back alive from the supervised range than the alternative.
BAAAAAAA *sheep* :barf:

Tell ya what, come to St. Charles County and let me fire one, just one, over your head. I am pretty good so I probably won't miss. You willing to take that chance?
Sure, if you'd like your life expectancy to drop to... zero...

but will probably have to pry me out of my 1999 Jeep Cherokee SUV that gets less than 20 mpg (on a good day) with over 230,000 miles on it in order to do it. If I am not driving that, I will be in my 1991 V8 245hp Corvette. I can snub the government as well as the next guy!
Im supposed to be impressed by this? :confused:

pax
April 5, 2009, 07:07 PM
And that's about enough of that.

Closed ...

pax