Pictures on targets, what do you think?

[TXAZ]

I'm having a little bit of a problem with faces on targets, it's not the message I want to be associate with as a responsible gun owner. But maybe I'm way off base?

After 9/11, there were many pictures of Osama with crosshairs in magazines, papers and online, and that seemed to be acceptable based on the horrific crime committed.

Recently in the UK, a teenage girl decided to leave the country and join ISIS, wants to come back but the British government said no and revoked her citizenship. Now an Airsoft range over there is offering targets with her picture on it.

Airsoft range adds picture of ISIS teenager on a target


What do you think if that was in the US?

1) Traitor = fair game for anything

2) ~OK

3) Inappropriate / politically incorrect but protected by First Amendment

4) Not OK but not illegal

5) Illegal as it could be harassment or a threat

They also offer caricature targets of various world leaders. Regardless of politics, that seems like a poor message in particular for kids to see growing up.

I'm not going to post the caricature picture here, but you can find it at

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0aNGDLWwAEt863.jpg


What do you think?
Mods feel free to edit / remove links if you feel appropriate.

[NoSecondBest]

It's not appropriate in any case. There are other ways to deal with these issues. What message does it send to those who are not in favor of guns to begin with? It certainly doesn't help the image of gun owners being responsible people. But, to each their own. Sometimes we are our own worse enemies. My two cents.

[BarryLee]

I always use silhouette targets for training and see no reason to have actual faces on targets. Now, if you actually shoot the smiley face onto the target I guess it is OK.

[JT-AR-MG42]

Poor form for sure. I vote No. 4

Recently in the UK, a teenage girl decided to leave the country and join ISIS, wants to come back but the British government said no and revoked her citizenship.

Not to worry, she can always come here in a few years (administration change) and run for Congress if she needs a job but doesn't like working too hard.

JT

[SIGSHR]

After the Iranian Hostage Crisis started in 1979 I printed targets with Khomeini's face, we used them in my NG unit.
I vote for No. 3. It's time the anti-RKBA crowd started accommodating OUR sensibilities.
And the people who are anti-2A don't like the 1A either.

[stephen426]

I'd say 3 as well. I blew up plenty of targets with Osama Bin Laden's face after 9/11.

[rural12]

I see no difference in shooting a face and shooting a silhouette.

[Sevens]

I find them hokey and silly and I also think they make folks look silly when they tack 'em up at the range. I'm always on the side of "do what you like", but for me, a paper target is extremely useful when it has a round bullseye where I can attempt to:

1) get shots right there in the middle
2) keep shots clustered in the smallest possible area

I love to see a target when both of those have been accomplished. I love it most when I am the one who did it, but I still enjoy seeing them when others have done it.

All the other goofy targets and especially the ones with zombies and animal zombies pretty much just make the shooter look like a Fudd. I get a secondary laugh when I see what the gun store or the shooting range has charged folks to purchase them. These are, of course, my opinions specifically.

In this day and age where you can do EVERYTHING easier and with less effort than ever, I'm almost surprised they don't sell the zombie targets with holes already in them. And to look authentic, they should spray them evenly across the entire surface area, taking good care to never get two holes anywhere near each other.

[CerberusRagnar]

Silhouette/anatomy or animal targets. I don't need a face to shoot at. I can see the benefit of hostage targets with faces for training though. However, after an event like 9/11 I can totally understand the desire to shoot those particular ones. Honestly I would have too had I not joined Uncle Sam's greatest gun club right after.

[FITASC]

And yet my dad, who was NYPD, shot at these for qualification:

[FITASC]

and the International Association of Law
Enforcement Firearms Instructors use these:

[FITASC]

And Georgia Training Realistic uses:


All of these, and more, are available here:
http://www.americantargetcompany.com...nt_targets.asp

Personally, I order these:

[rickyrick]

Evil dictators... I’m fine with those.
Unidentifiable humanoid shape like the masked fella in the above picture I’m cool with too.
Others not so sure about.

[5whiskey]

Yes it’s quite common for law enforcement to use targets such as those posted by Fitasc. We use them as shoot/no shoot targets. There are many variants of the “human faced” targets, some with unarmed people, pregnant ladies holding a child, older ladies who look like aunt Bee pointing a gun at you, and some even of cops.

Fitasc I’m with you. I like your preferred target as well.

To OPs point, however, I don’t think he had in mind the shoot/no shoot targets used in training. I think it’s much more of “is it ok to basically shoot at a picture of Kim jong un for fun?” I vote 3. I personally wouldn’t as I like a bullseye to shoot at. I think it’s a novelty much more likely to draw newer shooters. That being said, I don’t think it’s the end of the world if the target is of a nearly universally recognized true evil despot. Not PC, but not that big of a deal either.

[FITASC]

I agree 5Whiskey; much akin to the "Zombie" and similar human-type targets some find fun shooting at. I need to focus on something visible (nearsighted and wear corrective lenses) so the targets I prefer (in color they have an orange center) work great for ME.
That said, shoot what you want if it gets you shooting, that is all that matters.

[AzShooter]

I don't think pictures of real people should be allowed as targets. The old qualifying targets still get my vote for some one that want to know where a good shot is or not. But pictures of people with an X on the face just don't make it for me.

[USNRet93]

Well, with all the bad press the people who like guns already get, using a known person's face as a target is an unforced error. Not everybody that goes to the range are of a like mind...scan the 'my wife doesn't like me buying guns' thread. many there for the first time, just 'checking it out'..
I am taking a guy in his 60s to the range this Tuesady,he has NEVER held a firearm..born in Peru..he's curious BUT if somebody had a picture of the ISIS lady next door(or any recognizable person), I'm sure he would walk out.

And the people who are anti-2A don't like the 1A either.

Can ya even lift that paintbrush with both hands??

[littlebikerider]

I just use targets with bullseyes or animal silhouettes. I don't have a fight with folks who use silhouettes for training, I just like shooting with an aim (no pun intended) toward precision.

So far as the pictures go, my only issue is that there is enough hate going around for everybody, and actual picture targets just foster the animosity.

I have been to a public range, in Missouri I think, where the range rules specifically banned silhouette targets of a person.

[ligonierbill]

Remember the scene from "The Wind and the Lion" where Brian Keith (as TR) had a picture of the Czar up on his range? Good judgement suggests you consider with whom you are shooting. At the time of the embassy hostage situation some years ago, one of the dads showed up at a Boy Scout shoot with a "Put a Hola in the Ayatollah" target. We asked him to put it away.

[HiBC]

None of the targets are live.They are ink and paper.Nothing more.

The target or the poster of the target is not responsible for what goes on in your mind. You are.

Maybe putting the face of a living person, on a target could be perceived as a terrorist threat. I don't know. I'd expect a visit from the Secret Service over the wrong picture.

But I do think putting up a Bin Laden face,for example,would be freedom of expression. I'm saying "Lawful"

Next question,is it MORAL? or is it A GOOD IDEA? Is it GOOD PR?

All quite reasonable questions,all with subjective answers.But I'm not responsible for your emotions,and no one has a right to "not be offended"

I don't put faces on my targets. I don't tell you what targets to use.

I may choose to operate in a politically correct way,out of simple consideration for others,for example. Or choosing to be a positive representative of gun owners.

But I tend to resist being policed by political correctness.If I were to decide I wanted a pic of that guy from England who beheaded people,or Osama,etc,I might staple one up. I choose not to simply because I choose not to.

[Don Fischer]

There should be no picture's of any human on targets. In fact I don't even use target's with animals on them. My feeling is doing so just cast a bad image of shooter's for non shooter's that may be sitting on the line of good or bad. Shooter's are their own worst enemy!

[FITASC]

Since a lot of shooters are also hunters, what's your beef about animals?

The BEST way to prepare for a hunt is to shoot a life-sized animal target at the distances you'll be hunting. Deer don't run around with bright orange bullseyes on them.

[seanc]

My targets are usually just smudges of ink or crayon on paper and I personally don't like to even shoot at silhouette targets, but I have no problem with others doing so, nor with pictures, as long as it's not my picture!

[rickyrick]

Yeah I generally just reuse paper. I just draw a circle, dot or x on a used piece of paper with a sharpie

[jmr40]

A generic target with human shapes, even faces is OK. In the case of Osama Bin Laden targets, or possibly other known terrorists I'd even make an exception.


But targets with the faces of celebrities or politicians, even if I strongly disagree with them, are off limits.