So, where's the real controversy here?
A good shootist needs to be able to do it all.
Fast and accurate at the closer distances.
A precision shot at long distance.
With handguns, shotguns, rifles, anything and everything.
With right hand, left hand, two hands, standing, sitting, kneeling, prone, from behind cover, around corners, under obstacles, standing on one's head if need-be.
A good shootist practices everything.
Keeps things from getting boring and routine, too.
Perceived (however you like) controversy aside, I agree totally.
A good shooter should be able to pick up pretty much anything they might find, and be able to put it to work, and do so "reasonably" well. You dont get that from "specialization". At the very least, if you only have one gun, and carry it, you should be proficient with it, and in any way it might be possibly needed, dont you think?
Because I think it is a dangerous and irresponsible concept without SRO's around as do many indoor ranges. And I sure as hell would not want to be shooting next to someone doing so.
Its not dangerous or irresponsible, if youre not dangerous or irresponsible.
A lot of that is perception as well too, dont you think? Who is doing the perceiving, and what are they basing what they perceive on? How do people who have never drawn a loaded gun from a holster and shot while moving, or anything else they are unfamiliar with, perceive someone who does? You dont have to answer that, I already know quite well, and heard more of my share of it. One big downfall to our sport and/or passion, is our own selves, and the divisions and animosities in our ranks. Having been a full auto/military/combat type shooter in a number of "sportsmans" clubs, its amazing we have any gun rights left, when you consider what others who dont like what you shoot, have to say about your "need" to have them, or your need to practice like that.
Most indoor (and many outdoor) ranges Ive been to have basically "lawyered up", and pretty much "everything" beyond the old hand in the pocket, one hand shooting darkgael favors, and/or anything other than bulls eye targets and more than one round every two seconds or so is verboten.
Makes you wonder where all the people who carry a gun these days, gain their experience from, and get their practice in. To me, those who carry a gun and believe that basing their gun handling skills on what they do leisurely shooting bulls eyes, and think they are prepared, is dangerous and irresponsible. How do you acquire the necessary skills, if you cant practice at least somewhat realistically?
One thing I really dont miss at all, indoor or out, are overbearing RO's, which many ranges seem to have at least a couple of (along with some of the counter guys at a lot of these places).
I understand the need for some control, but we dont need the nannys who seem to have to constantly hover over you every second and critique your every move, and try to find you breaking any possible infraction (pretty much in "pre crime" fashion), so they can freak out and impress everyone around them with their power.
Personally, I think some of them are more of a danger to the people on the range, than the shooters who some deem irresponsible.
I take exception to the word "needs" (a very dangerous word in the wrong hands) and to some of those skills.....I have no need for at least the last four.
If not "needs", then at least "should be".
As far as the "last four" or so, are we to assume that your skill set and need only apply to your particular shooting discipline, and nothing more?
The reason I ask is, if you do carry a gun and have none of the other skills, how is that not dangerous and irresponsible?