Exclusive use of classic target

[sperman]

The rules already don't allow competators to dress in military type clothing,

I researched this quite a bit recently. A new youngish shooter was showing up in BDU pants and I pointed out to him that it is frowned upon. But I had it clarified to me that the rules do not prohibit military clothing per say. I don't have the rule book with me here at work but I remember words being vague about not bringing discredit to the sport. The RM's and other NROI types I spoke with really could not clearly say that means military clothing is illegal. Again, it is just frowned upon.

5.3 Appropriate Dress

5.3.1 The use of offensive or objectionable garments is not allowed. The Match Director will have final authority in respect of what garments competitors are allowed to wear.

[ChuckS]

Some years back, Dan Rather came out to Norco to see USPSA and KC who was ~12 at the time. JoJo set up a stage with classic targets. Dan referred to them as "Torso-shaped targets". Let's face it, if they want to demonize our sport, they will do so and there is little that we can do to stop it.

Later,

Chuck

[diehli]

...the amoebas are the Metric ones, the humanoid are the Classics...

You've got that backwards. I know it doesn't make any sense, but the targets used in the US are metric, the turtle targets are classic. See appendix B.

Uh huh. Did you not read the clause immediately following those you quoted?

[J-Ho]

I agree, let us all refrain from calling it head.

How 'bout we call it "A/B zone" for political correctness?

Brain bucket?

Noggin?

Noodle?

Coconut?

Zona de la cabeza ?

[Charles Bond]

The "what would it hurt" to use classic targets exclusively is only half the thought. What would it help is the other.

In the great debate about potential sponsors, when they tell us it is because we have heads on our targets has been proven repeatedly to be the crutch they want to lean on to show us the door. What are we going to say when they tell us it is because we use firearms - are we going to go exclusively to airsoft since after all you could say what would it hurt to do that as well.

To directly address the situation, to move exclusively to the classic target, especially immediately, would undo all of our classification data. It would remove flexiblity in stage design. It would likely require to keep the sport challenging that we develop yet another target that might be smaller more like a 8 inch pie plate to allow for more challenging chots especailly in indoor ranges where you can not use steel. And speaking of steel are we going to avoid the pepper popper on outdoor ranges because of its shape and the mini because it has been likened by some of the anti gunners to being child like?

I support the concept of having additional targets to use on stages. I do not support the idea of us making choices of targets based on what those who do not support this sport believes to be politically correct.

[JThompson]

I designed a lot of the A5 courses this year and Dale and I chose which ones to use. There isn't a turtle target in the lot. I did make a concession and cut the heads off 7 targets though. Oh wait, I put a round piece of steel over it to make it a two to the body and one to the umm AB? Nah, one to the HEAD!

I made this analogy some time back, but I'll make it again. You throw a frog in a pot of boiling water he'll just jump out, but if you turn the temp up slowly he'll just sit there and cook. I feel that all the "little" changes... we capitulate too, for one reason or another, are to me, like we're the frog and the water is slowing warming. I see this like rust on our infrastructure, the bridge still "looks" like a bridge until it collapses. When the collapse comes you will be shooting airsoft because it more environmentally, it's less noisy for the neighbors and you don't have to take the chance that someone could get hurt and and and

That's how your rights are taken from you, it's never all at once, it's death by a thousand little cuts, but in the end, it's the same, you are dead.

JT

Edited June 4, 2010 by JThompson

[Sean Gaines]

The "what would it hurt" to use classic targets exclusively is only half the thought. What would it help is the other.

In the great debate about potential sponsors, when they tell us it is because we have heads on our targets has been proven repeatedly to be the crutch they want to lean on to show us the door. What are we going to say when they tell us it is because we use firearms - are we going to go exclusively to airsoft since after all you could say what would it hurt to do that as well.

To directly address the situation, to move exclusively to the classic target, especially immediately, would undo all of our classification data. It would remove flexiblity in stage design. It would likely require to keep the sport challenging that we develop yet another target that might be smaller more like a 8 inch pie plate to allow for more challenging chots especailly in indoor ranges where you can not use steel. And speaking of steel are we going to avoid the pepper popper on outdoor ranges because of its shape and the mini because it has been likened by some of the anti gunners to being child like?

I support the concept of having additional targets to use on stages. I do not support the idea of us making choices of targets based on what those who do not support this sport believes to be politically correct.

From the initial post, we have an area director proposing this change. A fellow shooter. If we we made the change on our own accord as oppossed to political forces pushing us to change. we can claim that we did it ourselves, not because we were pushed or bullied into it. But it was a move that we did to better the game. We have human targets, no question, with more points given to shots in the vital zones.

Look at it from an outsiders prospective, someone who comes to watch a match for the first time. A guy places a shot in the upper A zone, what is the outsider going to say "good shot you hit em right in the head". I shoot this sport because it is fun, changing the targets would not take the fun out of it for me. I have never liked the human targets. it portrays a bad image. Not only to anti gun people, but for our kids, and society. I can see outsiders looking at our sport and saying were a bunch of guys trying to kill as many people as we can as fast as we can, and were training to do such actions. thats not what I want our sport to be protrayed as. And I do not want the guys that are against us to have any ammunition to be used against us. So that is the half that i don't want to see.

As far as what good could come from changing the targets. Maybe some channels would televize more shooting matches. Maybe major sponsorship would increase for fellow shooters. with the TV exposure, maybe we could get more shooters into the sport from the tv exposure. Maybe it would lead to more lucrative prize tables, with many more sponsors participating because they will not be afraid to put there advertising dollars into something that doesn't look bad to the audience that is watching. helping the gun industry as a whole, because people need to buy the proper gear to play the game. it would help the small businesses that cater to this niche. we could see and increase in particapation that would lead to more competition to shoot against. I see more positives than negatives by changing the targets.

In my opinion nothing good can come out of us shooting at a human target, call the target what you will, but to the outside audience its a human target. Let the self defense trainers use those type of targets. There is no political pressure to change the targets, its a fellow shooter who is advocating it, I think he is looking at the future of our sport, and how he can make it grow. And I am all for growth, especially with as many hours, blood, sweat and tears that I have put into this game.

[BritinUSA]

If there is an issue with sponsors then this can be tested. Someone put together an Area match using only the new targets, show the match booklet around to prospective sponsors and see what they think. If they still won't support the sport then we know that it's not the targets.

Edited June 4, 2010 by BritinUSA

[11b20]

In as much as the OP sub-titled this thread "opinions" and Flyin has requested "poll, poll" , I'd like to throw my two cents in for consideration.

I have been shooting at my club for 2 1/2 years and member of USPSA for 2.I am an active member with an RO card that is put into use every match I attend, I set up 9 or 10 months of the year, assist with registration every month, blah, blah, blah. I have lurked this site for that entire time and leaned more than I can ever say but have never been moved to post, until now. This forum, while obviously the largest and arguably the best suited to take the pulse of the membership, is still but a microcosm of the full membership and now I feel compelled to place my vote, as it were.

I can state unequivocally that if this change were to come to pass I would not renew my membership nor would I shoot any more USPSA matches. i have no wish to try and debate this topic, (which obviously requires time and adult beverages to discuss) on the web. I can say, for myself, I stand in horror at the fact that there is even enough interest in the question that it has risen to this level. For those advocating this possibility based on expansion of the sport, please remember, for every one of me posting on this forum, there are probably many more out there that will do the same, they just don't participate in forums much.

[Schutzenmeister]

If there is an issue with sponsors then this can be tested. Someone put together an Area match using only the new targets, show the match booklet around to prospective sponsors and see what they think. If they still won't support the sport then we know that it's not the targets.

In a manner of speaking, we actually HAVE that test bed now ... It's called the US IPSC National Championship Match. It's shot under International rules and uses ONLY the classic targets. It's too soon to tell if it's having any PC effect just yet, but time will tell.

Additionally, I think (but I'm not certain) Frank Garcia runs some of his Level III matches in Florida with only classic targets, too.

[Sean Gaines]

can you imagine our sport where winners would come home with a big fat check. A sport were we were sponsored by every company out there that is not antigun that has nothing to do with guns. Instead of going to a match, and catching hell from the significant other. she is telling you to go there and win, so you can buy me a diamond ring. . can you in vision making a living shooting, how fun would that be. Theres people out there fishing making a living at it. While they probably get resistance from someone, I am sure, but it doesn't stop them. a match that has big attendance of spectators watching(It happens in Europe) rooting for their favirote shooter. We already are seeing sports agents in this sport. we had an agent call us wanting money from us to sponsor them. Its already starting to happen. lets, let it go in that direction. like some people have said lets shoot soda cans tied to a string, I would have fun with that to. as long as I am pulling the trigger I don't care. I would love to see a bunch of youth shooting this sport and learning marksmanship and gun safety at an early age. And that is the direction we should be pushing for, if the targets were "politically correct" than you may see more kids/juniors out there competing.

I have a 4 year old daughter. I don't want to teach her to take shots at the head. As big as we are into helping the junior shooters get involved. Can you blame responsible parents for not allowing thier children to participate and shoot at human targets? I don't let my child watch violent movies with shooting and people getting killed, she strictly watches cartoons. So why should shooting be any different. I would love to see images of lots of families getting envolved in shooting, on TV. it would be awsome if large corporations gave out scholarships for shooting. Maybe this sport could get big enough were these youngsters who win, get a check that goes towards thier college fund.

What I am basically seeing is a vision of what could happen. there are always going to be people against what you do, in anything that you do. Thats just life. but the way we win is with numbers and corporate money, and more participation from shooters. We must protray the image that what we do is not bad, that kids are getting thier college paid for. People are making a living doing it. The only way that this will happen. Is if big corporations are willing to stick their neck out and take a chance. If you were the Pres/CEO of a big corporation would you be willing to spend advertising dollars towards something that may be construed as politically incorrect? I sure as hell would not. You would be taking a gamble of wasting your advertising dollars, as well as your customers that buy your product. But if the sport was viewed as a family event, and marksmanship, and proceeds going to individual merrits and good causes, it could possibly work! The people who are against us can spin things any which way they want, but so can we! and if it means cutting the heads off a target, give me an axe.

I would be interesting to know the the growth of this sport in the last 10years. I bet it is pretty slim if not stagnet. It would be nice to see some more competition out there with ties to big corporations. that could make this possible, all we need is one, and the rest may follow, then next thing you know, the vision that I am portraying here could become a reality.....

[rvb]

can you imagine our sport where winners would come home with a big fat check. ... can you in vision making a living shooting,... youngsters who win, get a check that goes towards thier college fund.

Why isn't that happening in Steel Challenge then? It's about as PC as speed shooting can get, even has .22. It's much more TV and spectator friendly, too. Now that it's owned by USPSA, it seems that would be the venue to test these sponsorship theories. If it's not happening there, it won't happen in USPSA.

I just looked at the SC sponsors list (sponsors). Didn't see any non-gun-related sponsors*, except maybe Outdoor Channel, that's border-line.

I'd love to see all those things you mention, too. But it's going to take a culture change. Us changing targets won't do it, I'm afraid. All we do is compromise our sport, and risk alienating those members who participate specifically because of it's defensive roots.

When SC adds a new stage, "Cell Hop," sponsored by Verizon Wireless (stage winner getting a 4-5 digit cash prize), THEN we can talk about it in uspsa...

-rvb

* edit: did find a couple of "contributors." Was just looking at the pictures before (how I'm used to reading). Certainly not major sponsorship, though.

-rvb

Edited June 4, 2010 by rvb

[LPatterson]

From the initial post, we have an area director proposing this change. A fellow shooter. If we we made the change on our own accord as oppossed to political forces pushing us to change. we can claim that we did it ourselves, not because we were pushed or bullied into it. But it was a move that we did to better the game. We have human targets, no question, with more points given to shots in the vital zones.

Look at it from an outsiders prospective, someone who comes to watch a match for the first time. A guy places a shot in the upper A zone, what is the outsider going to say "good shot you hit em right in the head". I shoot this sport because it is fun, changing the targets would not take the fun out of it for me. I have never liked the human targets. it portrays a bad image. Not only to anti gun people, but for our kids, and society. I can see outsiders looking at our sport and saying were a bunch of guys trying to kill as many people as we can as fast as we can, and were training to do such actions. thats not what I want our sport to be protrayed as. And I do not want the guys that are against us to have any ammunition to be used against us. So that is the half that i don't want to see.

As far as what good could come from changing the targets. Maybe some channels would televize more shooting matches. Maybe major sponsorship would increase for fellow shooters. with the TV exposure, maybe we could get more shooters into the sport from the tv exposure. Maybe it would lead to more lucrative prize tables, with many more sponsors participating because they will not be afraid to put there advertising dollars into something that doesn't look bad to the audience that is watching. helping the gun industry as a whole, because people need to buy the proper gear to play the game. it would help the small businesses that cater to this niche. we could see and increase in particapation that would lead to more competition to shoot against. I see more positives than negatives by changing the targets.

In my opinion nothing good can come out of us shooting at a human target, call the target what you will, but to the outside audience its a human target. Let the self defense trainers use those type of targets. There is no political pressure to change the targets, its a fellow shooter who is advocating it, I think he is looking at the future of our sport, and how he can make it grow. And I am all for growth, especially with as many hours, blood, sweat and tears that I have put into this game.

I spent 23 years defending your right to have the opinions you have and if you don't like shooting at the targets we use then let me suggest you stop shooting at them and only shoot in countries that use the type of target you like. It may suprise you to know that all members of Congress take an oath where they swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States as does the President but that isn't stopping them from trying to take our guns away. Look at history, England banned handguns to reduce crime, then shotguns and now is working at outlawing folding knives. The last Assault Weapons ban was a farce but 10 round magazines were retained by 4 states and Massachusetts and California have state tests that eliminate guns for unknown reasons. Elimination of rights (except for Prohibition) have always been little by little. Ask a smoker who was forced outside the workplace to smoke only to be moved another 25' further away. Or who can no longer smoke in the favorite bar whiole having a drink. The way government controls its subjects is by erroding personal rights and imposing increasing level of control. The war for Independence was over increased taxes without representation, now we have 535 people who have decided they know best how to force you to live and I am tired of it. So it is simple if you don't like things the way they are, I am sure there are other countries willing to give you asylum.

[Bryan 45]

I don't disagree with everything Sean says, but his post makes this issue pretty clear. For most of us, me included, this is about why a particular individual shoots the sport.

Mainstream, media coverage, fat checks to winners, greater sponsor participation, public acceptance, free trucks- none of this matters to ME. I've won some fantastic prizes in 3 gun, but I'd shoot it if we didn't even have final results.

For me, it's not about any of this, it's about getting out and shooting, having a good time, and practicing some PRACTICAL skills.

Our sport has great participation, growing membership, more clubs every year- why should we make any concessions?

[BritinUSA]

Is it just me or is everything showing in BOLD type on this thread.

I suspect that we are crossing the line into politics...

[Flexmoney]

I guess it's pretty easy. If you want mainstream and think turtle targets are the answer, then run the match with turtle targets...or, run it under IPSC rules.

We can change all anybody wants, and the press would just throw up a picture of an IDPA target.

Don't buy into the hype. Don't change to make THEM happy. Champion our perspective and bring them around to our way of thinking.

[ChuckS]

Is it just me or is everything showing in BOLD type on this thread.

I suspect that we are crossing the line into politics...

Damn, I though my vision had improved...[/b]

Edited June 4, 2010 by ChuckS

[sfchorn]

There seem to be some passionate feelings on this issue. This is NOT intended to show disrespect to anyone who has (or might) post, but my opinion remains unchanged, and I will just as passionately state my feelings. I believe we should use the classic target exclusively. Here's why:

The bottom line is that USPSA IS a game, regardless of its roots. Yes, I know it is a practical shooting sport, but any time you apply a rulebook, a timer, and an official, it is a game. I recognize that there are practical applications of the acquired skills, but I don’t envision the targets as muggers, burglars, sociopaths, or any other type of miscreant. They are targets. Nothing more, nothing less. You can say that the drop turner, swinger, or Max Trap evolved from such-and-such scenario. Yep, I get it. Football also evolved from gladiatorial/martial events, but we don’t feed the losers to the lions or eviscerate them to grease the axles of our wagons. We’ve moved on.

Some posters have argued that the classic target doesn't present the same shooting challenge as the metric target. Hogwash. With a little imagination and ingenuity, you can create the same types of difficult shots with no more effort than it takes with the metric target. Black spray paint is cheap, and no shoot targets won't go away. I don’t hear anyone bashing the Steel Challenge for shooting at rectangles and circles, and I don’t think anyone on the forum would say the Steel Challenge isn’t difficult.

And as to the slippery slope of political correctness, I am not advocating switching to paintball guns or airsoft. I am not advocating giving up our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I am advocating an attempt at making this sport less antagonistic to the average person. We have to start treating our sport like a business, and that means a bit of marketing and packaging. Several posters have indicated that we will NEVER be mainstream, and that we will always be viewed with suspicion. You may be right. Some people will NEVER like any sport having to do with firearms.

Having said that, I do believe we have an inherent responsibility to be good ambassadors (or good neighbors, if you will) for our sport. USPSA/IPSC Shooters are good people. We know that. We’ve all benefited from someone giving us advice, loaning us ammo, helping diagnose a gun problem, giving us a ride, etc. For our sport to grow we must be able to show others what we already know – shooters are law-abiding, honest, hard-working citizens who enjoy an exciting and challenging hobby. We will have a devil of a time if we remain steadfast in our refusal to accept change and evolution. Changing targets will not put us on a slippery slope to extinction. I sometimes wish the world was more black-and-white, but there are simply so few absolutes on earth. This isn’t one of them. We can climb the ladder of inference and believe that such a simple change will lead to the downfall of our sport, our rights, and our way of life, but it just isn’t so.

Okay – I’m going to get in trouble here, but I feel I must say this. I do have a significant disagreement with those that would not welcome newcomers into our sport unless the newcomers agreed to shoot at humanoid targets. I consider that incredibly short-sighted and arrogant. I cannot imagine the hubris it must take to have such a “my way or the highway” attitude. One of the things I found appealing about this sport was that it was open to everyone, regardless of skill level, occupation, background or economic means, as long as they were safe. Divisions were created to level the playing field and classes were created to allow competitors to gauge their progress and improvement. Did that limit the sport? Cammo/military clothing is considered inappropriate for a match (exception for Active Duty Military). Does that limit us? I just can’t see how it does.

If we can take small steps to get the average soccer mom to stop thinking of us as bloodthirsty militia vigilantes or mall ninjas and start seeing us as normal, reasonable people that enjoy the shooting sports, then we have made progress. If we sneer at the soccer mom as not “tough” enough, or not “our kind of people”, then we have committed professional suicide. I’m not trying to convince Rosie O’Donnell to become a life member of the NRA. She’s a crackpot, and will never listen to reason. I just don’t want us painted with the same brush.

We (as firearms enthusiasts) have made great strides in showing the mainstream public that the passage of shall-issue laws did not create the “wild west” mentality that the liberal media predicted. Crime rates did not go up, murders did not skyrocket, and there was no anarchy. Why? Because we behaved responsibly. We did not display a trigger-happy readiness to draw on anyone for the slightest perceived slight. It didn’t diminish us in the least.

If we want USPSA to grow, we have to market it to a wider audience, including sponsors. Previous posts suggest that IPSC has gone "PC" for using that classic target, but the fact is, IPSC in Europe has grown substantially. USPSA has not grown at the same level. Why? The answer is exposure and sponsorship. I have seen pictures in Front Sight Magazine with Hewlett Packard as a sponsor for IPSC stages in Europe. We will have a hard time convincing Tide, Marlboro or Bank of America to sink sponsorship dollars into our sport if we continue with the stale old “flat-earth” mentality. If we can help our sport grow by making a simple change to a different shaped target, I say go for it. STI and Dawson Precision can only afford to give away so many products for prize tables, and new sponsorship would possibly generate a little more SWAG in return for our hard-earned match fees.

I’m going to send this post to Phil. No, I don’t think it will make up his mind one way or the other. In fact, it will probably get buried among the letters that have the exact opposite opinion as mine. But, this is my sport, too. And I want my voice to be heard as well.

Before the flaming begins (and yes, by posting this I understand and accept that it will), let me give you a little background. I am retired military (GO ARMY!), pretty conservative in my views, and hold a Texas CHL (yes, I carry everywhere it is legal to do so). I believe in individual rights, AND the individual responsibility that goes along with those rights. I don’t believe anyone owes me anything, and I don’t believe the Government should give away something to others with my money. I’m not posting this information to turn this into a political discussion. I’m including this information to show that I probably hold mostly the same views as many of you. I’m not a rabble-rousing revolutionary. I post this information to show that there are more things that unite us than there are things that divide us. And to show that good people can sometimes honestly disagree.

[The_Vigilante]

Just where is all of this "popular" opinion located that USPSA needs to change targets because the "human target" is unacceptable. This is the first time I have heard of this. For those of you who are in favor of this move, please provide the "evidence" that there is an outcry against the targets we currently use-don't use Europe as an example either. They are so screwed up now with their gun laws, etc that I wouldn't give credence to anything they say.

[Sean Gaines]

From the initial post, we have an area director proposing this change. A fellow shooter. If we we made the change on our own accord as oppossed to political forces pushing us to change. we can claim that we did it ourselves, not because we were pushed or bullied into it. But it was a move that we did to better the game. We have human targets, no question, with more points given to shots in the vital zones.

Look at it from an outsiders prospective, someone who comes to watch a match for the first time. A guy places a shot in the upper A zone, what is the outsider going to say "good shot you hit em right in the head". I shoot this sport because it is fun, changing the targets would not take the fun out of it for me. I have never liked the human targets. it portrays a bad image. Not only to anti gun people, but for our kids, and society. I can see outsiders looking at our sport and saying were a bunch of guys trying to kill as many people as we can as fast as we can, and were training to do such actions. thats not what I want our sport to be protrayed as. And I do not want the guys that are against us to have any ammunition to be used against us. So that is the half that i don't want to see.

As far as what good could come from changing the targets. Maybe some channels would televize more shooting matches. Maybe major sponsorship would increase for fellow shooters. with the TV exposure, maybe we could get more shooters into the sport from the tv exposure. Maybe it would lead to more lucrative prize tables, with many more sponsors participating because they will not be afraid to put there advertising dollars into something that doesn't look bad to the audience that is watching. helping the gun industry as a whole, because people need to buy the proper gear to play the game. it would help the small businesses that cater to this niche. we could see and increase in particapation that would lead to more competition to shoot against. I see more positives than negatives by changing the targets.

In my opinion nothing good can come out of us shooting at a human target, call the target what you will, but to the outside audience its a human target. Let the self defense trainers use those type of targets. There is no political pressure to change the targets, its a fellow shooter who is advocating it, I think he is looking at the future of our sport, and how he can make it grow. And I am all for growth, especially with as many hours, blood, sweat and tears that I have put into this game.

I spent 23 years defending your right to have the opinions you have and if you don't like shooting at the targets we use then let me suggest you stop shooting at them and only shoot in countries that use the type of target you like. It may suprise you to know that all members of Congress take an oath where they swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States as does the President but that isn't stopping them from trying to take our guns away. Look at history, England banned handguns to reduce crime, then shotguns and now is working at outlawing folding knives. The last Assault Weapons ban was a farce but 10 round magazines were retained by 4 states and Massachusetts and California have state tests that eliminate guns for unknown reasons. Elimination of rights (except for Prohibition) have always been little by little. Ask a smoker who was forced outside the workplace to smoke only to be moved another 25' further away. Or who can no longer smoke in the favorite bar whiole having a drink. The way government controls its subjects is by erroding personal rights and imposing increasing level of control. The war for Independence was over increased taxes without representation, now we have 535 people who have decided they know best how to force you to live and I am tired of it. So it is simple if you don't like things the way they are, I am sure there are other countries willing to give you asylum.

I don't disagree with you said at all, I respect the fact that you served for us. My father served, my grandfather served, his brother died, My great grandfather father served. I chose college instead. I have 3 generation military in my family. I am all for shooting, and guns. And I understand the death by a thousand cuts theroy. but what I am saying is that this being proposed by a shooter, not a political party or some anti gun person. what I am saying is that I am willing to cut off that head, if that will allow the sport to grow in popularity. Like I said in my previous post you can't do anything without someone being against it. If you fish, there is some save the whales group, if you drive a car around a track in a sport, they are killing the ozone. If someone plays baseball, Dr's will tell you that you are throwing the ball the way your arm wasn't designed to do, and that you won't be able to tie your shoes when you get older. Hunting shows, you have animal activist. My point is there is always someone that is against what you do, whether it be for a living or for recreation. What I don't want is for anti gun people or politicians, to use our targets as a prime example, of why there should be more gun control. I don't want them to have any ammunition to be used against us. to jeopardize our sport. Also this is for fun, I don't care if I shoot at round targets, triangle targets, I would rather not shoot human targets just because of the bad message it sends out, really for my daughter. She doesn't understand political views or guns for that matter, but if I showed her a uspsa target and said what is this, she would probably say a person. and I dont really want her shooting at that kind of target. If there is a vote, I would vote for changing the targets. In fact thats what it ought to be. instead of a council, aproving it or not. And if thats what we settle on, Keeping the targets the same, oh well I guess I will be ripping a ragged hole in the head. Because I dont plan on moving from the greatest country in the world...........

I know there is people that agree with me on this subject who are not speaking up, but thats ok we live in america, where we do have the freedom of speech and expression of ideas. Don't take my posts as if I am anti gun, or tree hugger. If you ask anyone that knows me they will tell you the same thing.

[Team Amish 1]

I think it is part of being a responsible citizen to see what offends people and then to make sure that we do what we can not to upset one another.

The way I see it, turtles deserve the protection by humans since they cannot fend for themselves. To make a mockery of a living, breathing creature by stapling it to a couple sticks and shooting at it for the sake of entertainment is plain WRONG!!! You should all be a little more understanding.

I want turtles to be off limits. Clamshells, too.

[The_Vigilante]

Sean,

Those who don't learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them-look at England. If you are trying to pacify the gun control crowd by using the classic targets then you don't understand what the gun control crowd wants-they don't want to you to have any guns whatsoever!!! They want control over your life and if you don't have any weapons to oppose them then there is little you can do about it!!!

[Sean Gaines]

Sean,

Those who don't learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them-look at England. If you are trying to pacify the gun control crowd by using the classic targets then you don't understand what the gun control crowd wants-they don't want to you to have any guns whatsoever!!! They want control over your life and if you don't have any weapons to oppose them then there is little you can do about it!!!

All I have to say your to your response is from my cold dead hands.....We are not england, we are not europe we are the United States of America and we have a have a constitution, and I don't buy into the fear tactics of the pro or anti gun people, I have other things to worry about, that are more important. I have heard all the horror stories, this has nothing to do with antigun people, this is about a shooter, one of us, who would like to see the targets changed, thats all...

[spanky]

As Mr Horse would say...

[The_Vigilante]

Sean,

Uh, you were the one who mentioned the anti-gun people in your post!!!