Exclusive use of classic target

[bdpaz]

As an adult I have no problem shooting targets shaped like people, and I refer to the upper A/B zone as "the head". But what happens when you take a pre-teen friend of your son or daughter, or neighbor kid, or any random youngster of your acquaintance to a USPSA match. You can talk all you want about sport and gun safety but is pretty clear that you are shooting at targets the represent people - and guess how they are going to describe it to mom and dad when they get home? If we want to get more people involved at a young age I think changing targets is something to consider. I have nephews age 13 and 10 that are interested in what I do. The 13 year old could probably understand but I don't think that 10 year olds really need to start out learning to shoot at people.

And personally, while I don't expect this to happen, I'd like to have a wider variety of targets with the scoring zones positioned differently so more thought is required. Maybe shade the A-zone as the position won't be consistent and can't be memorized, and introduce some target discrimination into the stages.

[SA Friday]

I think this has already happened, but not in this country. Show me where this switch by the rest of IPSC has done nothing but appease the politicians and anti's in every other country in the world. Are the foreign countries getting major sponsers for their matches? Did they see a substancial statistical increase in members when many of these countries stopped using the orignial target (whoever named it 'metric' should feel shame)? Show me analytical proof from any of the previous countries indicating a difference attributed to target change instead of theory and I might change my stance on this. Canada would be the best place to look at IMO as their physically and culturally the closest to the USA. Until then, this proposed change is nothing less than compromise for a carrot dangling at the end of a stick.

Edited June 4, 2010 by SA Friday

[jar]

Changing the targets won't make USPSA PC. We still run around with loaded handguns shooting things quickly. Steel challenge is as PC as a handgun sport can get, and I don't see the mainstream sponsors lining up.

[Team Amish 1]

Seriously, it's nice to have both options.

Please bear in mind that this is still a "martial arts kinda game" in terms of shooting competition.

If we were to worry about squarish little scoring areas reminiscent of heads, where would one stop?

USPSA IS the polar opposite of bullseye, those things were meant to represent combat-style competition.

Please make sure we keep both!

[WDB]

No target change. This is so crazy! IPSC started here and now other countries seem to dictate. What is curious, is how other countries came to be a part of an organization that was started here and now it is US that is apart of them. We should just let IPSC do there own thing and we USPSA do our's. What do we have to lose, hosting a WS yeah that'll happen. We can't think a year ahead let alone four. Oh yeah, leave the targets alone.

[old506]

I think that we should first ask ourselves what Jeff Cooper would think. I am not a Jeff Cooper "homer" but one thing you can say about the guy is that he was passionate about helping young American men/women learn how to protect our country and themselves.

As far as kids and shooting go. My Great Great Grandfather fought in the Civil War and was no where near a man and was shooting at other men. Both grandfathers fought in WW2 and neither of them were men at the time either, and they will tell you that. I know that from at least one of my grandfathers that he felt that growing up in Indiana running a trap line and hunting assisted him.

I joined because I wanted to hone my pistol skills for what they are needed for, defense, not a game. I know that what we do is a game and not so practical at times but I am a better pistolero for it. I am also a better citizen.

If I see an MD or RO or whoever run a man or women off because they are wearing my country's camo, I am done right then and there, or, I will offer them my britches.

[JThompson]

As an adult I have no problem shooting targets shaped like people, and I refer to the upper A/B zone as "the head". But what happens when you take a pre-teen friend of your son or daughter, or neighbor kid, or any random youngster of your acquaintance to a USPSA match. You can talk all you want about sport and gun safety but is pretty clear that you are shooting at targets the represent people - and guess how they are going to describe it to mom and dad when they get home? If we want to get more people involved at a young age I think changing targets is something to consider. I have nephews age 13 and 10 that are interested in what I do. The 13 year old could probably understand but I don't think that 10 year olds really need to start out learning to shoot at people.

And personally, while I don't expect this to happen, I'd like to have a wider variety of targets with the scoring zones positioned differently so more thought is required. Maybe shade the A-zone as the position won't be consistent and can't be memorized, and introduce some target discrimination into the stages.

You ever see the video games they are playing? It makes cardboard pale. The people look ultra real and the blood and guts splatter in vivid color detail. We play a serious game with "real" guns that can kill. I think it's a good reminder for everyone that if you screw up, you're not just killing a geometric form, but a real human. Let us all keep that in mind...

Again, there are always reason that might "seem" like they are reasonable, but where does it stop?

Check this: Take the same 10yr old analogy you put forth and bring it forward a bit. We don't want them shooting at targets with heads... okay. Then someone says, well, they are 10 yrs old, why would we want them running around shooting a gun, they might get hurt or even killed? Why not just give them airsoft, it's much safer than having them shooting "real" guns. Come to think of it, why not just go with a "less than "lethal" type of round? That way, any age group can play without the fear of a child getting hurt. After all, who is in favor of a child getting hurt? This kind of change always happens in increments. One day you wake up and we are playing laser games.

Maybe an age limit for the sport would be appropriate, maybe not. It's a slippery slope we are on and I'm wearing my spikes.

Edited June 5, 2010 by JThompson

[The_Vigilante]

JThompson,

You made a good point regarding whether 10-yr olds should be handling and shooting real guns in matches! There is no doubt that they can do it. The only thing I would question is their judgement at that age. There is a reason the age on driving a vehicle is 16 (TX). And I think the age limit should even be higher.

Edited June 5, 2010 by The_Vigilante

[Nik Habicht]

Maybe an age limit for the sport would be appropriate, maybe not. It's a slippery slope we are on and I'm wearing my spikes.

An age limit wouldn't be smart. All age limits do is make it easy for bureaucrats to decide if someone's qualified: 17 in Pennsylvania? Check, we may issue a license providing some other criteria are met.....

Not every ten year old is mature enough to be playing this game --- but some 17 year old children aren't either. Ergo, we really need to make that determination on a case by case basis. A safety check -- the same one that adults must pass when they shoot their first match --- followed by careful mentoring/observation through the first few matches works for me.

That safety check's a harder standard to evaluate than someone's age --- but not significantly harder. The safety check also provides more important and relevant information than age....

[Rob Boudrie]

Show me where this switch by the rest of IPSC has done nothing but appease the politicians and anti's in every other country in the world.

I'll give you a couple examples of the amount of help the headless target provides:

Australia - When Australia tightened up their handgun laws, there was a caliber limit of 9mm, with an exemption for guns used for competitive purposes. Guess what? The people in charge made it clear that IPSC would not be granted the authorization, and IPSC competitors must surrender their 40s and 45s.

Ireland - Irish handgunners finally got their handguns back after they were "temporarily" taken into custody decades ago. IPSC Ireland started up and quickly had an active program of dedicated shooters. Ireland's justice minister has been working to have IPSC completely banned.

In neither of these cases did the use of PC targets make the anti gunners play nice, or suddenly accept that it was acceptable for a person not employed in government service to own a handgun.

[Canuck223]

Ireland - Irish handgunners finally got their handguns back after they were "temporarily" taken into custody decades ago. IPSC Ireland started up and quickly had an active program of dedicated shooters. Ireland's justice minister has been working to have IPSC completely banned.

For the most part, all center fire pistol licences are not being renewed. One competitor in Ireland who managed to get his licence for his SP01 Shadow renewed, has as a condition that he can't fire it in the Irish Republic. So he's trusted to keep his gun and ammo at home, but has to leave the country to shoot it.

The Justice Minister, Jerry Ahern feels he needs to save the Irish from the "American gun culture".

[cas]

"And their targets are shaped like tombstones, because... they want to kill people! They think it's some kind of sick joke!"

[Jim Norman]

I will state that I am categorically opposed to the elimination of the USPSA Metric Target. Changing to this target will NOT bring in new shooters. It will NOT open the way to Little League USPSA. There are certainly some people that will not shoot USPSA because of our target; do they or their children have a Nintendo? Do they play any of the combat games? Do they allow their children to play Paintball? Probably yes.

The Classic Target is barely removed from a traditional bullseye target. It is a squashed circle. Hey, here is an idea! Lets just use Bullseye targets, use a large one where the current ACD area is and smaller one where the current Upper A/B is!

IPSC’s President has allegedly stated that he would be happy to remove gunpowder from IPSC. He is well on the way, we have IPSC Airsoft now and several regions that have a vote where the region cannot even host a match!

Give me Head! Ah wait, is that PC? Heck the US does not use the metric system, let’s change the name of the Target we use. IPSC no longer recognizes it so why don’t we call it the Practical Target. After all what we do is shoot Practical Shooting as a sport!

Jim

[rgkeller]

Since the "Metric" target is no longer permitted in IPSC matches and, therefore can only be used in USPSA matches, we should change the name to something less ridiculous and more descriptive.

[Schutzenmeister]

[...] Heck the US does not use the metric system, let’s change the name of the Target we use. IPSC no longer recognizes it so why don’t we call it the Practical Target. After all what we do is shoot Practical Shooting as a sport!

Jim

God help me ... Crazy Jim Norman (I say that with respect, Jim!) has an idea even I can get on board with!!!

"Practical Target" sounds about right to me ... How about some of the rest of you?

[Lawdawg112]

Train as you live, live as you train. Heaven forbid that a practical shooter may have to use his skills to someday protect his family or his partners or himself. Use both, leave it as it is, it's a good target. Firearms are here to stay in America, let the good people learn how to use them and where to aim them.

.25 cents

Lawdawg

[JThompson]

Maybe an age limit for the sport would be appropriate, maybe not. It's a slippery slope we are on and I'm wearing my spikes.

An age limit wouldn't be smart. All age limits do is make it easy for bureaucrats to decide if someone's qualified: 17 in Pennsylvania? Check, we may issue a license providing some other criteria are met.....

Not every ten year old is mature enough to be playing this game --- but some 17 year old children aren't either. Ergo, we really need to make that determination on a case by case basis. A safety check -- the same one that adults must pass when they shoot their first match --- followed by careful mentoring/observation through the first few matches works for me.

That safety check's a harder standard to evaluate than someone's age --- but not significantly harder. The safety check also provides more important and relevant information than age....

I wasn't advocating a mandate, but before we start making changes based, partially, on what's best for the children, we have to think if an age limit is appropriate. I haven't given the avenue much consideration, but it's possible it might have merit. This doesn't have anything to do with bureaucrats, but from within our sport. I tell you this, if one young person gets hurt in our sport, then we will have politicos crawling up our asses.That's when the outside regulation will step in. Reasonable steps taken from within are preferable to unreasonable from without. I'm not going to get into a esoteric conversation on what "reasonable" means, but suffice it to mean that which a majority of the active members see as appropriate.

There are always strong feelings on this forum, for we have sought it out to express our opinions, and by it's nature breeds passionate individuals... We must remember, the majority of the membership, of the USPSA, are not posting on this forum.

Food for thought.....

Now it's 6AM having slept 3.5 hours it's time to get back to the ranges for another 12 hrs build more stages. I don't know where it's written a MD is also a QM, but so be it.

I look forward to seeing you all at Area 5. Please take a moment to say hello when you see me on the range. I'll be the 6' 250lb dude in the MD shirt looking like he needs a week of sleep. I doubt I'll have the strength to shoot it, so be it II.

JT

Edited June 6, 2010 by JThompson

[wgnoyes]

... Heck the US does not use the metric system, let’s change the name of the Target we use. IPSC no longer recognizes it so why don’t we call it the Practical Target. After all what we do is shoot Practical Shooting as a sport!

Funny, I was thinking about a target name change too. Since IPSC got it backwards and called the newer turtle target "Classic", we could right this wrong and rename it the USPSA Classic Target, and call the turtle target the IPSC Modern Target, or some such.

[rgkeller]

Maybe the upper A zone target the "USA Target" and the amoeba the "Pinto."

[Jadeslade]

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 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.

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.

I finally read this thread today . I thought it was about using all Classic targets at a match! That's ok.It's not ok to make it a rule. I do not want to change targets. I want to educate so that everyone can get beyond the anti-gun sentiment that has been raging in government for some time. Guns are for shooting-all kinds: Bullseye, Trap, USPSA, Silhouette, ITRC,IPSC. They have evolved from hunting and defensive purposes (I include maintenance of order in defense). Targets have evolved as well. They are paper representations of imagined targets. For a lot of us, including the hunters and professional shooters (LEO,Military, etc), the paper target has become an abstraction-we see it as the "A" zone-because we are obsessed with getting 2 alphas real fast on every target. That's when we are playing IPSC. It is not an abstraction when we training for other things-it then represents whatever we want it to be. I have no problem teaching my daughters to put two to the body and one to the head when practicing with them. That has been the case since they were 10. I teach sometimes at our local NRA Youth days and I say just put them in the middle of the bullseye -if I am asked if it is a head or represents a head, I tell them it could be but the goal is good trigger pull and get your sights on the target. It is bad to pretend that guns are not used for killing people or animals-that is bad information and will lead to formulation of bad ideas about guns and gun safety. These members have put into words most of everything else I wanted say, better than I could. Teaching is paramount to the progress of our sport. DVC

[Nik Habicht]

Maybe an age limit for the sport would be appropriate, maybe not. It's a slippery slope we are on and I'm wearing my spikes.

An age limit wouldn't be smart. All age limits do is make it easy for bureaucrats to decide if someone's qualified: 17 in Pennsylvania? Check, we may issue a license providing some other criteria are met.....

Not every ten year old is mature enough to be playing this game --- but some 17 year old children aren't either. Ergo, we really need to make that determination on a case by case basis. A safety check -- the same one that adults must pass when they shoot their first match --- followed by careful mentoring/observation through the first few matches works for me.

That safety check's a harder standard to evaluate than someone's age --- but not significantly harder. The safety check also provides more important and relevant information than age....

I wasn't advocating a mandate, but before we start making changes based, partially, on what's best for the children, we have to think if an age limit is appropriate. I haven't given the avenue much consideration, but it's possible it might have merit. This doesn't have anything to do with bureaucrats, but from within our sport. I tell you this, if one young person gets hurt in our sport, then we will have politicos crawling up our asses.That's when the outside regulation will step in. Reasonable steps taken from within are preferable to unreasonable from without. I'm not going to get into a esoteric conversation on what "reasonable" means, but suffice it to mean that which a majority of the active members see as appropriate.

There are always strong feelings on this forum, for we have sought it out to express our opinions, and by it's nature breeds passionate individuals... We must remember, the majority of the membership, of the USPSA, are not posting on this forum.

Food for thought.....

Now it's 6AM having slept 3.5 hours it's time to get back to the ranges for another 12 hrs build more stages. I don't know where it's written a MD is also a QM, but so be it.

I look forward to seeing you all at Area 5. Please take a moment to say hello when you see me on the range. I'll be the 6' 250lb dude in the MD shirt looking like he needs a week of sleep. I doubt I'll have the strength to shoot it, so be it II.

JT

JT,

I agree that would be a nightmare scenario. I don't agree that an age limit would do anything to prevent that; I think that a comprehensive safety check and mentoring/evaluating through matches is the more effective (from an ensuring safety) approach. It also requires more effort to explain --- but that doesn't mean we should take the other path because it's easier....

[Charles Bond]

It is bad to pretend that guns are not used for killing people or animals-that is bad information and will lead to formulation of bad ideas about guns and gun safety.

Amen brother. Is it lost on those that think we might ought to change our targets that if you can hit the center of the bullseye that you can hit the A zone in the head or the body? But slow deliberate fire is not what our sport is about. At the end of the day ours is a "combat" sport and there is much more evidence of that than just the targets we use.

Pistols are used to kill and to protect and for sport. For that I have no regret and for us to pretend otherwise is just unwise.

[ak@ar52]

USPSA has been around since the early 80's and has used some kind of humanoid target and at the time it was a camo target. The early thought on this sport was it simulate an actual defensive pistol usage. It would appear that some people are ashamed of our history. I might suggest that the PC crowd start their own organization so they can reap all the benifits from not offending anyone by the use of the targets that have been used since 1976 when I started to shoot IPSC. After all there was a small crowd that disagreed with the direction of USPSA in the 90's and they started their own sport. That was the other white meat. So go for it start the new pistol shooting sport that will not have any objections from the PC crowd and get all those sponsors that you dream will come and support a pistol shooting sport.

I have more time invested in IPSC/USPSA than most here since it has been a part of my life longer than the 24 years I spent in the USAF. My membership number is A1716 and I am proud of that. But if USPSA went to classic only target for PC reasons thinking that we will receive some support from those that are afraid of firearms especially handguns, I would have to drop my membership and shoot only the white meat sport. BTW I will never vote for an elected offical that feels the turtle targets are the only way our sport will grow. IT FLAT WILL NOT INCREASE PARTICIPATION!!!

Archie Kirchner USPSA A1716

[JThompson]

Maybe an age limit for the sport would be appropriate, maybe not. It's a slippery slope we are on and I'm wearing my spikes.

An age limit wouldn't be smart. All age limits do is make it easy for bureaucrats to decide if someone's qualified: 17 in Pennsylvania? Check, we may issue a license providing some other criteria are met.....

Not every ten year old is mature enough to be playing this game --- but some 17 year old children aren't either. Ergo, we really need to make that determination on a case by case basis. A safety check -- the same one that adults must pass when they shoot their first match --- followed by careful mentoring/observation through the first few matches works for me.

That safety check's a harder standard to evaluate than someone's age --- but not significantly harder. The safety check also provides more important and relevant information than age....

I wasn't advocating a mandate, but before we start making changes based, partially, on what's best for the children, we have to think if an age limit is appropriate. I haven't given the avenue much consideration, but it's possible it might have merit. This doesn't have anything to do with bureaucrats, but from within our sport. I tell you this, if one young person gets hurt in our sport, then we will have politicos crawling up our asses.That's when the outside regulation will step in. Reasonable steps taken from within are preferable to unreasonable from without. I'm not going to get into a esoteric conversation on what "reasonable" means, but suffice it to mean that which a majority of the active members see as appropriate.

There are always strong feelings on this forum, for we have sought it out to express our opinions, and by it's nature breeds passionate individuals... We must remember, the majority of the membership, of the USPSA, are not posting on this forum.

Food for thought.....

Now it's 6AM having slept 3.5 hours it's time to get back to the ranges for another 12 hrs build more stages. I don't know where it's written a MD is also a QM, but so be it.

I look forward to seeing you all at Area 5. Please take a moment to say hello when you see me on the range. I'll be the 6' 250lb dude in the MD shirt looking like he needs a week of sleep. I doubt I'll have the strength to shoot it, so be it II.

JT

JT,

I agree that would be a nightmare scenario. I don't agree that an age limit would do anything to prevent that; I think that a comprehensive safety check and mentoring/evaluating through matches is the more effective (from an ensuring safety) approach. It also requires more effort to explain --- but that doesn't mean we should take the other path because it's easier....

It's funny you should say that, because it's what I wanted to type, but I didn't feel I had enough time to explain it or debate it. Besides, just walking and typing is about all my brain can manage right now. I'm waiting for the pain meds to kick in so I can get some sleep. My ass is dragging buddy.

[Sean Gaines]

I guess maybe I am thinking chess and not checkers. Getting corporations involved would give us some finacial influence. The gun industry is a mere speck, in money terms, than what some of these corporations make. Take some of the largest gun companies, maybe they make 800million a year. whereas some of these non gun corporations make many billions of dollars per year. Alot of people don't know how small the gun industry really is in the scheme of things as a whole compared to big corporations. the NRA only makes up roughly 2% of the population. The only thing keeping guns in peoples hands is the 2nd ammendment, but we are hanging on to that with a piece of string. If big corporations who are against guns said they wanted no more guns, they would just cut that string in a heartbeat. Money talks, I am sure there would be protests, and a bunch of people upset, and that is the major reason they haven't tried to cut the string.

In my opinion I think we should look at getting some big corporations involved, as much as we can. It can only benefit us/gun industry as a whole, and it would also give us corporations with lots of money and political clout, to keep lawmakers at bay. But what I am saying is that coprotations will not come on board if they see targets that represent human beings. because why would they stick thier neck out on something that may keep them from making more money.