Is everyone who uses a weapon for target practice secretly thinking about violence?

[Atypical Liberal]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by krispos42 (a host of the Gun Control & RKBA group).

In another thread a poster continually argues that anyone using a weapon for target practice is secretly thinking about violence while they do it.

I pointed out that there are millions of professional and amateur athletes who compete with weapons with everything from archery, to javelins, to fencing, to biathlons, to throwing knives. As a competitive shooter myself I can say definitively that my sole thought during competition is getting a good score for myself or my team putting holes in the paper. There is no thought to violence whatsoever, in fact I have developed my loads specifically for target shooting which is way underpowered for what anyone would consider for actually shooting animals or people.

What do you think? Is everyone who engages in recreational weapon use secretly thinking about violence while they do it?

[atreides1]

1. Not everyone!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

2. what do think I am? a Jarhead?

Last edited Fri Feb 24, 2012, 06:41 PM - Edit history (1)

I am just trying to improve my skills,establish a pattern and test the accuracy of my gun. Also compare it to how my fellow shooters are doing while discussing the differences in the sounds (always use ear plugs, folks). The different "feel" of various guns. The heft of it. Also, since I am left handed I really practice a lot shooting with either hand. Practicing caution, ettiquette etc....Recoil. all that.

The last thing on my mind is viloence, rather more on my mind is the avoidance of violence.

Good fellowship with friends and family. I pratice a lot with my brother and his pals. It is good because we could to handle a variety of guns depending on who brings what.

The cost and supply of ammo.

blah. blah. blah.

[burf]

3. I do enjoy punching paper,

but the ring of steel is so much more fun!

That said, when shooting as you said requires concentration, something someone who probably has never shot competitively would not understand. When/if such a person decides to compete in shooting, they will quickly find out that reality trumps fantasy.

[saras]

4. A. there isn't an "everyone". B. In many cases, it's not secret, but overt.

It really depends on who you are and who you hang out with. People and groups are NOT the same everywhere. Ever been to a target range where most of the targets are human silhouettes? Pretty hard to pretend you're not thinking about violence THERE.

Anyone who makes statements about "anyone" is wrong already, even before they get to what they're going to say about them.
If the poster had said "in this state" or "at this shooting range" or "on this online forum" it would be a completely different matter.

What I think is that you're an extreme, one of the best of the best, and generalizing from yourself would be rather like a neurosurgeon saying that, of course, everyone has their motor skills and background, and ought to be able to whip together a yacht in their garage in their spare time.

I've lived in counties that had thousands of redneck gun nuts shooting up signs and lights and dogs and cows and cars, and not a single skilled hunter OR skilled competitive shooter in the county. I've also been to at least one competitive event where pretty much everyone had your attitude or something like it.

If I want to find people online who are OBVIOUSLY thinking about killing when they shoot and BRAG about it, it's easy. There's lots of them. How big a proportion I don't know, because the others are probably quieter. People like you don't build huge websites bragging about how responsible they are with guns. I wish they did. But the others are there, and overt, and hard to miss.

[Atypical Liberal]

8. Good post n/t

[spin]

16. When I practice with my carry weapon on a silhouette target...

my objective is not to learn how to kill another human being but to learn how to shoot as rapidly and accurately as possible in order to gain the skill to stop an attacker who intends to seriously injure or kill me or another person.

[murielm99]

5. Not at all.

When I need to take out my aggressions in a physical way, I do that in the gym. I punch, jump, run. Even then, I am not thinking about killing. Maybe I think about punching some asshole, but I would never do it in real life. There are consequences. And I really don't want to punch people. It is juvenile.

[slackmaster]

6. When I go target shooting, of course I'm thinking and speaking openly about violence!

Targets MUST DIE!

[era veteran]

7. When I was shooting tanks I was thinking about chasing women and getting high.

So I guess that makes sense. LOL

[ileus]

9. It's pretty well known baser toters want to kill...

Of this there's no doubt.

[Remmah2]

10. Only when I'm shooting reloaded depleted uranium bullets.

I even cast my own uranium.






THE REAL ANSWER IS NO!

I find it very Zen and relaxing, from the reloading bench, to the range, back to the cleaning bench. It's funny the fantasies some people have.

[burf]

11. All we need is the soundtrack

of the Alice's Restaurant Massacree for background music.

http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/241429/Alice-s-Restaurant-Movie-Clip-Group-W.html

http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/241428/Alice-s-Restaurant-Movie-Clip-Draft-Board.html

[ellisonz]

12. That wasn't exactly my argument...

...my argument was that it conditions them to accept and participate in violence. But distort as you please.

[Atypical Liberal]

14. Wrong.

I'm not going to go dig out the quotes unless you persist in your backpedaling, but you basically said that people who engage in target shooting were "sick" and that it was impossible to derive pleasure from target shooting without deriving pleasure from contemplating violence.

[ellisonz]

17. The mind works in interesting ways...

...but what I find truly telling is how you stated in just the other thread that: "If two armed robbers are shot dead during the commission of their crime or they are hung while caught in the commission of their crime, what, in practical terms, is the difference? Not much." - Please explain to us the philosophical mechanics that would allow you to hang someone "while caught in the commission of their crime" and not have been previously engaged in a violent fantasy life.

Seems to main motive one would have for going to a shooting range is to accustom themselves to the use of firearms, which only have one function, the application of lethal force. If you're not contemplating the application of lethal force, why would you need a gun? This about the nature of motive and how we justify it to ourselves. For a military sniper, the training difference between shooting a target and a human being is negligible. When you go to the range, you are training in the lethal application of force, and that is the only thing you are really actually doing. You may take pleasure in that, but that does not negate the purpose in which the activity has been constructed, your sense of your own identity has changed.

[ileus]

23. Only one function eh?

You believe that don't you.

[Atypical Liberal]

24. You are assuming people cannot have different thoughts at different points in time.

The mind works in interesting ways but what I find truly telling is how you stated in just the other thread that: "If two armed robbers are shot dead during the commission of their crime or they are hung while caught in the commission of their crime, what, in practical terms, is the difference? Not much." - Please explain to us the philosophical mechanics that would allow you to hang someone "while caught in the commission of their crime" and not have been previously engaged in a violent fantasy life.

I assume this goes back to your assertion that people cannot target shoot without having violent fantasies.

You are making the assumption that people cannot think about one thing at one point in time and think about another thing at another point in time.

For example, I frequently have to think about mathematics in my profession. This does not mean that I think about mathematics all the time.

I frequently contemplate violence, particularly violent crime and the violent consequences and intents of the second amendment, which is at its heart an amendment which gives the people the ability to inflict violence.

This does not mean that I think about violence all the time or that every time I use firearms I am thinking about violence.

Seems to main motive one would have for going to a shooting range is to accustom themselves to the use of firearms, which only have one function, the application of lethal force.

But firearms have more than one function. Firearms can also be used to shoot targets. This has absolutely nothing to do with lethal force.

If you're not contemplating the application of lethal force, why would you need a gun?

It is rather hard to smack a clay pigeon out of the air by force of thought. I suppose you could use sling-shots or some other kind of projectile or energy weapon but it would still be a weapon.

This about the nature of motive and how we justify it to ourselves. For a military sniper, the training difference between shooting a target and a human being is negligible. When you go to the range, you are training in the lethal application of force, and that is the only thing you are really actually doing. You may take pleasure in that, but that does not negate the purpose in which the activity has been constructed, your sense of your own identity has changed.

It is entirely possible for someone to train to use a weapon to kill people and also train to use a weapon to shoot targets. This does not mean that when they are shooting targets they are contemplating killing people, or even training to do so.

I will give an example: Some boxers and other martial artists will train in ballet as it improves balance. This does not mean that training for ballet implies you are training for a martial art, even though ballet training might be beneficial in a martial art. Ballet training is training for ballet. It may have other happy consequences.

Target shooting is about shooting targets. It may well also improve one's ability to shoot people or animals, but this does not mean that shooting targets is necessarily about shooting people or animals. Obviously if you are shooting targets simulating people then you are, in fact, training to shoot people.

But people who are training to shoot targets are simply thinking about shooting targets.

People who throw javelins are likewise thinking about how far they can throw a javelin. Even though javelins were historically used as a weapon, this does not mean that everyone who is throwing a javelin is contemplating skewering someone with it.

People who compete in fencing attempt to tag their opponent with their epee. This does not mean that everyone who competes with an epee is contemplating running their opponent through with their weapon.

People who shoot archery are likewise thinking about shooting a target. They might be practicing to improve their ability to shoot a living creature while hunting, but they might just be practicing to improve their ability tho shoot a target.

[ellisonz]

27. I'm assuming it leads to the same end - militarism. n/t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

31. you understand about that word "assume"

as·sume
verb (used with object)
1.
to take for granted or without proof; suppose; postulate; posit
2.
to take upon oneself; undertake
3.
to take over the duties or responsibilities of
4.
to take on (a particular character, quality, mode of life, etc.); adopt
5.
to take on; be invested or endowed with

you understand how when you employ that word a person could infer that you are taking a lot of things for granted when you presume to assume.

[Atypical Liberal]

33. So are the Olympic games in shooting and archery and fencing leading to militarism?

[rl6214]

35. Ah, you assume

[ellisonz]

42. Based on a tremendous amount of evidence.

But as you indicate below, you believe that you can pick up a weapon and use it without thinking about violence. Do you realize how absurd that sounds?

[CokeMachine]

59. When I pick up a weapon --

other than at the range or getting ready for the range I think -- God I hope that alarm (house, car, dog) is false. I hate to have to use this thing. Maybe that is thinking about violence or is that non-violence. Just can't seem to tell the difference. My bad.

[spin]

34. Firearms can be lethal...

but often they are not.

Instant Death Bullet

In real life, being fatally shot almost always leaves the victim the option of 1-2 minutes of essentially normal activity before they finally fall unconscious. In fact, it is not uncommon for the victim to fail to realize they have been shot. Police trainers report that many officers are hurt or killed when their target fails to instantly fall down when shot, "like they do on television," but instead retaliates. (Heck, this is one of the underlying reasons behind the "stopping power" debate in firearms/ballistics circles.)

It can be Truth in Television, as given by this statistical website. Instant incapacitation can result from damage to the nervous system, such as a brain or spinal cord injury, destruction of bodily extremities, or from psychological collapse; physicians specializing in bullet wounds generally agree that, when shot (or even merely shot at, even with a blank cartridge), there's about a 40-60% chance of someone fainting or otherwise psychologically incapacitating themself, regardless of the actual severity of the wound (if any), possibly due to (medical) shock. Also, anything involving the Chunky Salsa Rule can be considered an Instant Death Bullet.

However, it is rarely possible to aim at and hit relatively small areas of the human body with any degree of accuracy, especially when they're moving around or hiding behind obstacles. Police marksmen are capable of dealing headshots if required, but doing so requires skill, opportunity, and an extremely accurate rifle.

***snip***

The only reliable way to hit a moving human target at all is to aim for the center of the body. Getting shot causes severe tissue and nerve damage which will usually incapacitate quickly, but not immediately kill. Again, incapacitation is not always the case, as various factors ranging from the physiology of the person shot to the type of ammunition used can have varying results. The amount of hydrostatic shock a bullet causes, essentially a punch to other areas of the body from the shock of impact traveling through the bloodstream, makes a difference. So does how the bullet acts on impact; if it expands (also known as mushrooming), or, as some bullets are prone to do, fragments or splinters, it will cause additional damage to the surrounding tissue. Some bullets are known to bounce around the inside of body as they strike bones (causing additional damage) until they use up their kinetic energy. The combination of shock, blood loss, and immediate trauma can but not always lead to a one-shot death. Too many factors of ballistics play a situational role in determining the effect a bullet will have on the target.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InstantDeathBullet

[Glassunion]

19. "...my argument was that it conditions them to accept and participate in violence."

From what I read, your argument came across more along the lines that; when a weapon is being used for target practice/competition; the intent of the user of said weapon while engaging in that activity was to actually train for hunting or violence.

My apologies if I misunderstood the argument you were trying to convey.

[ellisonz]

21. I suppose the question is then...

...if you think there is a use of for guns that is not the conditioning thereof. It's about the militarization of society - and this is hardly a new theme in the writings and thoughts of philosophers. Most people would agree that we still live yet, in a society, where the use of violence is promoted both in practice and in thought. The OP has actually done an incredible job of contradicting himself in regards to this argument, but really it is quite simple.

And the shoemaker was not allowed by us to be husbandman, or a weaver, a builder — in order that we might have our shoes well made; but to him and to every other worker was assigned one work for which he was by nature fitted, and at that he was to continue working all his life long and at no other; he was not to let opportunities slip, and then he would become a good workman.

Now nothing can be more important than that the work of a soldier should be well done. But is war an art so easily acquired that a man may be a warrior who is also a husbandman, or shoemaker, or other artisan; although no one in the world would be a good dice or draught player who merely took up the game as a recreation, and had not from his earliest years devoted himself to this and nothing else?

No tools will make a man a skilled workman, or master of defence, nor be of any use to him who has not learned how to handle them, and has never bestowed any attention upon them. How then will he who takes up a shield or other implement of war become a good fighter all in a day, whether with heavy-armed or any other kind of troops?
Yes, he [Glaucon] said, the tools which would teach men their own use would be beyond price.

Plato, The Republic, Book II.

I find the argument that denies that such training occurs to be rather narrow-sighted in its consideration. It's all about the metaphysics.

[Glassunion]

25. Sometimes metaphysics has nothing to do with anything. Sometimes it is just physics...

I met a fellow at the range last year. He was is a math major at a college no one has really heard of. He and I were talking during a cease fire, when I asked him how long he has been shooting for, as he was shooting at a dime sized target at 100 yards and doing quite well. He replied about 3 months. I'm not going to bore you with the specifics of what he was shooting, but I will say that it was quite customized for his task.

Since he was a new shooter, and shooting with a rather unique setup I asked him what got him interested into taking up the sport. He replied, "Trigonometry and physics." This intrigued me, so he and I continued to talk for the next half hour clean through 2 more cease fires. To keep a long story short, he was in the process of studying classical mechanics and the thought being able to accurately path a projectile over great distances fascinated him. He was at the range to work on an assignment, to accurately calculate the flight path of a body by using all of the known variables.

There are an incredible amount of variables that can effect the flight of a projectile and at its core, conquering these variables is what interested this young man in shooting... nothing more.

[ellisonz]

30. "accurately path a projectile over great distances fascinated him"

Then there are many other ways to make such calculations that don't involve the bearing of arms. I think that young man was incredibly mixed up about the use of weapons in society. He could take up amateur radio or airplane flying and get the same result. What you're arguing is that there is an "absent mind" - there is no such thing. We are all mindful.

[Atypical Liberal]

36. Assuming that everyone who shoots projectiles is thinking about violence...

Assuming that everyone who shoots projectiles is thinking about violence is like assuming everyone who thinks about sex is thinking about rape.

[spin]

39. Very accurate comparison. (n/t)

[spin]

38. You obviously would never appreciate how difficult accurate shooting at long range is...

others find the subject fascinating and spend many hours learning how to shoot and load extremely accurate ammo.

Benchrest shooting is a sport that is often popular with such people.

Benchrest shooting

Benchrest shooting is a sport in which very accurate and precise rifles are shot at paper targets from a rest or bench from a sitting position. Benchrest shooters are notoriously detail-oriented and constantly trying to further the accuracy potential of the rifle through experimentation. Nearly all benchrest rifles are custom made, and many shooters do their own gunsmithing.[1] Nearly all shooters handload their ammunition in order to tune it to their rifle.[2]


A Jay Young built unlimited class "railgun" using a 2 inch (51 mm) diameter Lilja Precision barrel.

Your intense dislike of all firearm related sports appears to be clouding your judgement. The math major described might well find benchrest shooting a fascinating hobby and he might well excel at it. I fail to see any harm.

[ellisonz]

41. What can I say...

...I'm just not that into the death cult.

[spin]

43. I can see that...

You have every right to that opinion but to say that the owner of the rifle in the picture is part of a "death cult" is hyperbole at the best.

[ellisonz]

51. Yes I do...

What can I say: I am categorically against militarism.

[Atypical Liberal]

54. Are you against these sports?

Are you against the following sports?

Archery
Fencing
Shot Put
Javelin Throwing
Knife Throwing
Axe Throwing
Jousting

All of these sports use weapons that were once used by military forces. Are you against them?

What about martial arts that involve hand-to-hand combat? All of these involve militaristic efforts and are far more personal than killing from a distance with a weapon.

[Atypical Liberal]

63. Of course you realize our Constitution explicitly endorses militarism.

The second amendment is about putting military-grade small arms in the hands of the people specifically so that they can engage in military operations.

The Constitution itself endorses militarism.

[PavePusher]

44. Give it up. You are talking out your ass. n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

47. To say using weapons is to be into a "death cult" is like saying being into sex is being into rape.

[Glassunion]

46. I am not arguing that there is an absent mind.

What you are doing is projecting your view into others. You see guns as a big evil, but when someone disagrees with that view, you assume that they see the big evil and are choosing to ignore it. So you project that they are simulating killing and destruction when indeed they are not.

You are correct, there are many ways to make such calculations. Model rockets, catapults, crossbows, ballistas, slingshots, potato cannons, trebuchets, torsions, mangonels... shit, you could just drop cannon balls off of the tower of Pisa, but that is just so 1600's.
By the way, amateur radio and airplane flying would not get him the same result. Radio is the transmission of signals through a space by modulating electromagnetic waves and has nothing to do with projecting the flight path of a projectile. Airplanes are an entirely different equation involving flight dynamics and keeping a craft aloft and therefore would not give him anywhere near the results he was trying to predict.

I don't think he was mixed up at all. He looked at the firearm for what it was, understands the gravity of the dangers involved and treated it as such.

In some of our greatest universities we have some very, very big guns. They are used to apply some of the very same theories this young man was. Would you also say that these professors, scientists and students are also mixed up about the use of weapons in society?

[ellisonz]

53. If they are not simulating that...

...what are the possibly doing then. I would of course accept that some people are incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions.

In some of our greatest universities we have some very, very big guns. They are used to apply some of the very same theories this young man was. Would you also say that these professors, scientists and students are also mixed up about the use of weapons in society?

Yes. Who made the atomic bomb? No one makes and bears arms that is not preparing/prepared to use them for their purpose, which is violence, when given the opportunity to be employed.

[Glassunion]

58. They are not simulating violence.

No, they are not mixed up about the use of weapons in society. They are simulating meteor strikes. They are just doing it with a really big friggin' gun because it is the simplest way to simulate such an event.

The consequences of their actions is that the scientific community is enriched with new data and a better understanding of our universe.

"Who made the atomic bomb?" - Physicists, mathematicians, and engineers.
Who made the nuclear power plant? - Physicists, mathematicians, and engineers.
Who put man on the moon? - Physicists, mathematicians, and engineers.
Who made space ice cream? - Physicists, mathematicians, and engineers.
Who made a pen you could write upside down with? - Physicists, mathematicians, and engineers. The Russians just used pencils.
Who came up with more nutritious infant formula? - Physicists, mathematicians, and engineers.
Who made sunglasses that block harmful ultraviolet light? - Physicists, mathematicians, and engineers.
Who made Memory Foam? - Physicists, mathematicians, and engineers.
Who gave us better cellphone cameras? - Physicists, mathematicians, and engineers.
Etc....

"No one makes and bears arms that is not preparing/prepared to use them for their purpose, which is violence, when given the opportunity to be employed." - You are projecting again.

[ellisonz]

61. You don't need a gun...

...to construct mathematical simulations.

Actually, you do realize the exact argument that many make about the use of the atomic bomb was that they could not justify the expense of its construction without its use. Ignore the military-industrial complex at your peril!

[Glassunion]

62. I don't need paper to write.

So what if I do?

If not for the tractor we wouldn't have tanks. If not for the space program we wouldn't have missiles. If not for the radio we wouldn't have military guidance systems.

If not for the military you would not have a GPS in your car.

Many may have made that argument about the atomic bomb. But not me.

[Atypical Liberal]

32. This "militarization" has been going on since man first picked up a rock.

The simple fact is, as I have pointed out to you before, man has been playing games with weapons and/or derived from warfare or hunting since the first man picked up a rock.

This does not mean that every time someone plays a game using a weapon or that was derived from warfare or hunting that they are contemplating violence.

There are millions of people around the world that play games involving weapons. While some of those people may be playing those games with an eye towards violence, many people play them just for the enjoyment of the game.

There are Olympic games that revolve around weaponry, and you admit that they are not thinking about violence when they compete in their sport. There are millions of people who endeavor to do the exact same thing.

[aikoaiko]

13. ragged holes.

[spin]

15. I think about score while target shooting...

A bullseye target has a 10 ring, a 9 ring, an 8 ring etc.

If I fire 30 rounds at 25 yards using a rapid rife pistol target with a possible of 300 (30X10) and I score 270 or less, I am disappointed. I feel I did good if I score 285 and I'm happy as hell if I get over 290. Usually I manage to score around 270 to 282. The X ring is considered a tie breaker for completion. The diameter of the black center of the target is 5.32 inches which includes the X, 10 and 9 rings.

I should note that I am not a competitive shooter and I shoot with both hands rather than one. I also do not consider myself a truly good shooter.

Of course much depends of the target quality of the revolver or pistol that I am using and the accuracy of the ammo used in the individual firearm. Much of the fun I enjoyed when I was reloading was to develop or tailor the most accurate loads for my firearms.



Thoughts of violence and killing never enters into my enjoyment of target shooting.

However I do have a concealed carry permit and I practice differently with my carry weapon. I use a reduced sized silhouette target, much smaller than the target police qualify on, and my object is to place all my shots as fast as I can into the center of the target at ranges from 10 to 45 feet. (As long as I stay inside the black of this smaller target, I would be within the highest scoring zone of he larger standard target.) I am very disappointed if any of my rounds end up in the white area of this reduced target.

I don't consider that I am practicing to kill. My entire object is to be able to stop an attacker without endangering other people.

[ellisonz]

18. Umm...

"I don't consider that I am practicing to kill. My entire object is to be able to stop an attacker without endangering other people. " = Contradiction

[Clames]

20. Wrong.

It's not a contradiction at all. Anyone with even the slightest understanding of human physiology knows that a wound that would stop an attacker is seldom fatal. GSW's to the chest, stomach, and extremities are very survivable given the quality of medical care in this country.

[ellisonz]

22. "knows that a wound that would stop an attacker is seldom fatal."

Good - then we can just judge Bandar Abu-Karsh to have been a murderer since his first shots couldn't possibly have been fatal



GUNS ARE NOT TOYS!!!

[spin]

28. I agree, "GUNS ARE NOT TOYS!!!...

A wise man does not defend himself with a toy.

[Atypical Liberal]

37. But people play games with weapons all the time.

People play games with weapons all the time. Swords, bows, spears, lances, slingshots, air guns, knives, axes, clubs, and more.

Man has done this for all of recorded history.

To say that everyone who plays a game with a weapon is contemplating violence is like saying everyone who has sex is contemplating rape.

[ellisonz]

40. Proving my point...

...that in the human mind weapons and violence are inextricably linked. This does not mean that everyone who picks up a rock to cast is contemplating violence at the moment, but it does condition them to commit it and the likelihood that they will increases substantially.

"To say that everyone who plays a game with a weapon is contemplating violence is like saying everyone who has sex is contemplating rape."

But that is not what I'm saying, but I imagine you would have to agree that everyone who rapes was contemplating sex beforehand.

[Atypical Liberal]

45. This is like saying sex conditions people to rape.

...that in the human mind weapons and violence are inextricably linked. This does not mean that everyone who picks up a rock to cast is contemplating violence at the moment, but it does condition them to commit it and the likelihood that they will increases substantially.

No. Throwing a rock at a target only conditions throwing rocks at a target. Shooting pieces of paper does not condition you to do anything except shoot pieces of paper. Just like having sex doesn't condition you to do anything except have sex. Having sex does not condition you to rape.

But that is not what I'm saying, but I imagine you would have to agree that everyone who rapes was contemplating sex beforehand.

Ignoring the fact that rape is about violent control, not sex, it is not a bi-directional situation.

Yes, contemplating rape implies contemplating sex. But the reverse is not true - contemplating sex does not imply contemplating rape.

Likewise using weapons for games.

Contemplating harming someone with a weapon implies contemplating weapons. But this does not mean that contemplating weapons implies contemplating harming someone with them.

People can also contemplate weapons while contemplating using them for non-violent activities. Just like people can contemplate sex without contemplating rape.

[ellisonz]

48. You do realize that rape...

...is often used as a weapon of war, no? I would say that a person can be desensitized the value of sex and for that person sex does become about violent control. This conditioning has been observed as taking place in cults. I think you need to consider this basic truth, hate begets hate. The difference between rape, and a willingness to execute a human being, is negligible. I have no respect for anyone who wishes to make excuses for either behavior.

[Atypical Liberal]

50. Now perhaps there is a crack of understanding in your mindset.

You do realize that rape is often used as a weapon of war, no? I would say that a person can be desensitized the value of sex and for that person sex does become about violent control. This conditioning has been observed as taking place in cults.

Sorry, but no amount of sex conditions a person for rape. Rape is an act of violence, and only violence conditions a person for violence.

I think you need to consider this basic truth, hate begets hate.

Very good! Hopefully here you are understanding the primary difference between using sex for love and using sex for hate. It's not the sex that makes the difference, it is the mindset. There are two entirely different, unrelated mindsets at work.

Likewise when using a gun for violence and when using a gun for recreation. It's not the firearm that makes the difference, it is the mindset. There are two entirely different, unrelated mindsets at work.

[ellisonz]

55. And you've actually made your mindset quite clear in the other thread...

...so I'm certainly right about your mindset regarding violence, which is not what you at first supposed.

Basically if you die in the commission of a violent crime, it should be a free pass for whoever did the killing, regardless of the circumstances.

So if someone runs up to a victim and points a knife at them and says, "Give me your wallet!", and the victim pulls out a gun and the criminal turns and runs away and the victim shoots him in the back and kills him, that ought to be a free pass for the victim.

If someone runs up to a victim with a gun and says, "Give me your money!" and the victim draws and shoots and wounds them and they fall down and the victim then puts another bullet in him on the ground, that ought to be a free pass for the victim.

[Atypical Liberal]

56. As I said, I often contemplate violence and the implications of firearms and violence.

As I said before, I often contemplate violence, violent crime, violence in protest here at home and around the world, and the implications of violence and the second amendment.

The second amendment, after all, is about violence. It's about making sure the citizens have the minimum means to conduct war.

So yes, I contemplate violence quite often. Every time I'm in this forum, for sure.

But this does not mean that every time I shoot a gun I am contemplating violence.

For example, I contemplated rape in this discussion with you. This does not mean that when I have sex with my wife I will be contemplating rape.

[Glassunion]

49. "in the human mind weapons and violence are inextricably linked"

"This does not mean that everyone who picks up a rock to cast is contemplating violence at the moment, but it does condition them to commit it and the likelihood that they will increases substantially."

So... What this gentleman is doing has nothing to do with dance, art, physique or talent.

He is conditioning himself to commit an act of violence and is increasing the likelihood that he will commit such an act?

P.S. Congrats on Mikaele Oloa bringing the title back from Florida a few years back.

[Atypical Liberal]

52. Oh, but he's a "professional"

See, people like Olympic athletes are somehow exempt.

It's OK for Olympic athletes to use guns, swords, or spears without the taint of contemplating violence or being more likely to be violent.

Only amateurs fall victim to that.

[Atypical Liberal]

57. Weapons and Violence according to Ellison

[spin]

26. Why do you consider that a contradiction? ...

A handgun such as I carry is not extremely lethal unlike a high powered rifle or a shotgun. However it may stop an attack and disable the attacker without killing him. It is quite possible that the attacker may survive especially if he gets emergency medical attention. Of course, it is also possible that the attacker might die. That is not my prime objective.

As I stated, my object is to stop his attack and consequently prevent serious injury or death to me or to another individual without endangering any innocent bystanders.

That would be considered lawful self defense in the state where I live.

Use of Deadly Force for Lawful Self-Defense

***snip***

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

***snip***

Q. When can I use deadly force in the defense of another person?

A. If you see someone who is being attacked, you can use deadly force to defend him/her if the circumstances would justify that person's use of deadly force in his/her own defense. In other words, you "stand in the shoes" of the person being attacked.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

[rl6214]

29. Absolutely not!

When I go out shooting it is all about putting that perfect shot in the perfect spot. I don't think the thought of violence ever has crossed my mind while out shooting.

[SeattleVet]

60. When I'm shooting I'm mostly thinking about breath control,

keeping the sights on the target, the slow squeeze of the trigger... It's a personal challenge to em, to improve and continue to do advance my skills. I've never cared much for 'team' sports, but have always like the sports where the individual is challenging themselves to greater achievement. If a skier can shave a small amount of time from the last run, or a shooter can improve their score on the target - that's what I like.

Keep your baseball and basketball and football, and give me a good biathlon or gold-medal round of skeet or trap and I can watch all day. When I go out to the local range and set up my targets at 50 and 100 yards to shoot with a .22, it can be a real challenge to even hit the paper on the longer range sometimes if there is any wind at all, rain, or if I'm shooting different ammunition. I know that with one type of ammo I have to aim 4" higher to hit the same point at 100 yds, but if I use a slightly 'hotter' ammo then the change is only 2". And if I'm using the really cheap stuff the variation from one round to the next can be surprising.

When I'm target shooting, violence has nothing to do with it. Self-control and personal achievement have everything to do with it.

[krispos42]

64. I'm going to lock this

This does not seem to be covered by the SoP of the Group.

Maybe GD would be a better choice for this.

Regards,
Krispos42, Gungeon Host