Shooting for success
While the Trib might have added “self-control,” the headline of the news story “High school rifle programs foster maturity, teach discipline, responsibility” (Feb. 17 and TribLIVE.com) is exactly on point, which will likely surprise the anti-gun set, as is usually the case with facts.
I speak as a former high-power rifle competitor (30-06 & 7.62 mm NATO/.308 Winchester), who shot in both National Match Course (200-, 300- and 500-/600-yard matches) and long-range (1,000-yard) competition. A couple of points:
• When I gave up active competition (eye problems), I held an NRA “Expert” classification. I never made “Master,” likely due to lack of skill, along with insufficient self-discipline.
• Insofar as I know, nobody has ever suffered serious injury in competitive shooting, especially rifle competition — slightly bruised shoulders and possibly some sunburn not being “serious injuries” — which is a lot more than can be said of some other “sports.”
• Finally, as to the story's comment from Talyn Boden concerning “automatic weapons, or other guns,” automatic weapons are seldom used in competitive shooting events, Knob Creek being one exception I'm aware of. They are extremely expensive, in part due to really dumb legislation, and very closely regulated in federal law (National Firearms Act of 1934). As to “other guns,” specifics would have been appreciated and helpful.
It appears that people who engage in the competitive shooting game usually do not end up involved with or in legal difficulties — more than can be said for some who partake of other “sports.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Getting bad advice
- UAW won in Tennessee
- Out of ‘other people’s money’
- HUD & Larimer
- Biased? Guilty as charged
- ‘Food fight’ lamentable
- It’s not personal