CCW,Flushing Michigan,NRA Club,Flushing Michigan,PISTOL,Junior Flushing Rifle Flushing MichiganHANDGUN Flushing Michigan,HUNTER SAFETY, Flushing Michigan,CCW, Flint Michigan,NRA ClubTown Crier
HOMEABOUT USContact UsClub OfficersMembership App.Members PageClub RulesCPL ClassCPL NewsOther ClassesHunter SafetyLeaguesCalendarTown CrierFor SalePrintable TargetsLinks

Common sense on the Range

Recently the range was repainted for the yearly clean-up. With-in 24 hours of the repainting, the range was used, not a problem. However, when their targets were hung for shooting, no regard was given to where the bullets were going to hit. Shooting was done on the 75 foot range and the targets were hung at the 50 foot line. The targets used were 50 yard targets used for PPC. If one were to look at the targets as they hung it was clear that the bullets would not be contained in the back stop. A lot of the bullets (50 to 100) hit in the white metal in front of the back stop and more were hitting the floor in front of the back stop. This does not show good common sense nor does it go along with the NRA safety rule of knowing your target and what is beyond. While looking at your target down range visualize where your bullet may hit. While I am on the band wagon it brings up another issue. This club does not have a maid so we need to police ourselves. Take care of your shot up targets and cardboard and put them in the dumpster out the back door. Also, always sweep the floor from the firing line towards the backstop for clean-up. If you are unclear of the safety issues or clean-up procedures,feel free to contact any Board Member to clarify any questions you may have (CLUB OFFICERS tab at left).

 

David Maddox

Web Administrator

Board Member

Part of the Painting Crew

***********************************************************************************************************

 

Some words to ponder:

By Marko Kloos

 
 
 
(incorrectly posted as being authored by Maj. L. Caudill USMC Ret.)
 
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100- pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.