Is anybody else turned off by this? I don’t like it. I mean, I like to shoot guns for the marksmanship challenge and I get what the ultimate goal is but do I really have to shoot at targets that are shaped like people? Maybe it would be different if I were in the military or something but I just find it incredibly distasteful. Also, I was watching a video of one of those speed shooting competitions where you run through a course and there were definitely human shaped targets that were on the ground, so the shooter was simulating shooting people on the ground, again something I find incredibly off-putting.
— Frostellicus in Shooting Human Shaped Targets
[h/t Rob Romano]
This is one reason why I have never taken a liberal gun owner seriously. And I believe they are a serious threat to everyone’s civil rights.
60 years ago they were telling black people surrounded by the kkk they didn’t need guns.
“Is anybody else turned off by this? I don’t like it. I mean, I like to shoot guns for the marksmanship challenge and I get what the ultimate goal is but do I really have to shoot at targets that are shaped like people?”
There is probably no one twisting your arm making you shoot targets “shaped like people”.
You say you understand what the “ultimate goal is” – well, guess what, the bad guy wanting to do you harm also understands what their “ultimate goal is” and that involves doing harm to their target that’s “shaped like people” that just so happens to be you.
You supposedly understand what the “ultimate goal is” but do you really?
If you actually knew anything about or understood what the “ultimate goal is” you would know why people train using targets “shaped like people” (i.e. the ‘silhouette’).
This liberal idiot, an example of their mental illness altered perception. See where he/she/it/they/them/whatever-else says this: “Also, I was watching a video of one of those speed shooting competitions where you run through a course and there were definitely human shaped targets that were on the ground, so the shooter was simulating shooting people on the ground, again something I find incredibly off-putting.”
So … there were some ‘silhouette’ targets on the ground and this means the “shooter was simulating shooting people on the ground”.
But ok, what competitions are there where a goal is to shoot at ‘silhouette’ targets [presumably just laying] on the ground”?
I would like some of those targets from the first “Men in Black” movie.
I want a ‘cricket’.
😁
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
As was the case in Army Basic Training over 50 years ago we would fire our M14s at pop-up targets maybe 25, 150, and 250 meters away. The nearest ones were very short silhouettes just head and shoulders simulating an enemy firing from prone position ‘lying on the ground’.
But those do not appear in any ‘speed shooting’ competition do they?
Only that there is a time limit to hit as many targets that pop up as possible. The level of qualification depends on that count i.e. Marksman, Sharpshooter, Expert.
Yes, those are the kind I used in the Army too. It was all about aiming center mass.
Occasionally a stage designer will put a target on the ground, forcing the contestant to approach close enough to shoot over a barrier
https://youtube.com/shorts/JNlvd2qpUk8
oops wrong link
https://youtube.com/shorts/-4DPZjpTsFo
Or they’ll force the contestant to shoot beneath a barrier – more about agility and flexibility, and ageist discrimination against contestants with weaker knees
https://youtube.com/shorts/JNlvd2qpUk8
maybe ya still got the wrong link, I don’t see that in the video. I see a couple of targets laying on the ground by a barrel on the other side of the lane barrier thing. Is that what you meant in your video? But any rate no one is ‘simulating shooting people on the ground’.
The commonly used target for IPSC / USPSA / IDPA has the profile of torso, shoulders, and head. There’s a large “A” zone in the torso, and a small one in the head.
When the target array is arranged like this, I can see how someone might describe it as simulating a person on the ground.
Yeah i know about the targets and course of fire and competition, but I see what you are saying now. But its way too much to think its for simulating shooting people on the ground. That’s not why the targets are arranged that way.
This liberals perception is adversely warped to jump to conclusions and doesn’t have a clue. Its the typical left wing ignorance of context reality to go ‘I feelz’.
Only an issue for those who cannot discern a good guy from a bad guy.
Off-putting??? My golly gosh!! That sounds serious.
This liberals reluctance and zero-clue logic in not being able to connect the dots as to why those ‘silhouettes’ are used to train for the “ultimate goal” is probably the very thing that’s going to get them seriously injured or killed if they ever encounter an actual defense situation where they would need a firearm.
.40,
Experience is the best teacher.
LifeSavor (and .40cal),
Sure, experience is the best teacher . . . if you survive the freakin’ experience. If the OP gets “put off” by the idea of shooting people-shaped targets, she ain’t likely to survive her experience. Bad guys are ‘people-shaped’, most of the time. Ya still gotta shoot ’em.
I should mention that my friend, Grenade, purchases used mannequins from apparel stores that are going defunct. As you already know, grenade likes explosives.
It is too bad he moved to northeastern Montana. Now, we only see him when we fly up for his winter Fire Festival. You haven’t lived until you’ve been outside grilling sausage and steak at 25 below zero with occasional loud booms and flying debris going off at a safe distance.
“occasional loud booms and flying debris going off”
You mean just about every large blue city?
You are on fire, today, .40!!!
‘Safe distance?’ What a novel concept.
jwm,
Well, it certainly was for Little Cryin’ Adam Kinzinger, wannit??? Personally, my idea of a “safe distance” is a distance at which my bullets can reach the other guy, but his can’t reach me (and that’s why I prefer a .308 or a 6.5 (Creedmore or Swedish) to a 5.56 ‘poodleshooter’).
Never used the Creedmore. But the Swedish Mauser is a winner. Also fond of the 7mm Mauser round. In my milsurp phase I must have owned at least twenty rifles.
But that .308 is all around the best for the conus. It’s available every where.
Used the m16 in my service days. My only praise for it was that it was easy to carry. Back then they weighed about 7 pounds.
jwm,
That’s what you get when you let military contractors, Beltway Bandits, and Pentagon generals design service firearms. None of them have ever carried a weapon in combat, so of course they don’t have a clue. Read a great analysis of the 5.56 poodleshooter cartridge v. the .308/7.62 NATO. Sure, a round of 5.56 NATO is lighter than a round of 7.62 NATO. How many rounds of 5.56 does it take to do the job? How many round of 7.62?
It’s a false ‘weight savings’, and, while the M-16/M-4 is a decent (not great, but decent) CQB weapon, it sucks buttermilk beyond about 400 yards. the 7.62 NATO is reliably deadly (if you have the chops to shoot that well) out to at least 800 yards (I’ve competed against guys who can ‘ring steel’ consistently at 1000 yards with 7.62 NATO).
5.56 is better than nothing – and I’ve said the same thing to my hand, a time or two.
This person must have had to skip ‘Mythbusters’ when they would bring out Buster the humanoid and shoot or blow up or crash the poor defenseless mannequin all
to hell.
They are targets! Nothing more nothing less. This fellow or whatever is the very definition of feeble.
You and your girlfriend both need to see other men.
I don’t plan to ever shoot bunnies or other animals. I practice with B-27 human silhouettes because that is the most likely danger I’ll ever face.
Bad targets unless you are practicing for being attacked at Walmart. Otlherwise much too big. Plus CoM is in the wrong place.
I agree that human silhouettes shouldn’t be used.
If you’re practicing for self defense, targets should be more realistically appear be a human image, especially facial features. And holding a weapon.
Just tell them the figure is “unborn.”
Killing them will ease overpopulation, lower their carbon footprint and save the planet.
Twice I’ve tried to comment to LKP. Both my comments vanished.
So many sites failing these days and apparently this one wants to as well.
jwm.,
I tried to leave TTAG over their insane and inconsistent ‘moderation’ practices . . . and this place is just as bad. Sweet Baby Jeebus, does Everytown ‘moderate’ ALL gun blogs?????
When you are in a firefight you sometimes put a guy down but not out. Best option is to continue shooting him until he stops moving.
I understand his unease. Those unfortunate head & torso targets can’t rush him because they don’t even have legs, and don’t otherwise pose a threat because they don’t hold a gun. No judge would consider shooting them a justifiable defense.
The choice of targets is yours. I prefer to maintain my shooting skills by using a realistic target, as I don’t expect to have to defend myself or my family against a round dot on a paper, or the silhouette of bunny rabbit.
This is exactly how things get started. Then what’s going to be next that offends these snowflakes.
So, you are not interested in self-defense? That’s okay, just use a bull’s eye target. The purpose for the human targets is for those who wish to train and practice self-defense. You can purchase bull’s eye targets at any firearms dealer, or online.
This is the only consideration for owning a firearm for self-defense: shooting at human-shaped targets is icky. A firearm is most effective, and trauma-free when it is used to intimidate and attacker into breaking off the attack. Firing a gun is also just icky. . .and noisy. The best use of a firearm in self-defense is to throw it at the attacker, and run away when the attacker slows to avoid a collision with the thrown firearm.
It is simply unfair, and harmful to my sense of self, that I should be required, or even allowed, to shoot real bullets at an object representing a fellow human being. Can’t we all just get along?