Comments on: A High Hurdle For Some Liberal Gun Owners: The Trauma of Shooting Human-Shaped Targets

By: Sam I Am

Sam I Am — Sun, 16 Nov 2025 20:55:52 +0000

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?

By: Ron Willis

Ron Willis — Sat, 08 Nov 2025 16:21:43 +0000

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.

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 07 Nov 2025 19:38:39 +0000

This is exactly how things get started. Then what’s going to be next that offends these snowflakes.

By: Jack C Rookhuyzen

Jack C Rookhuyzen — Fri, 07 Nov 2025 18:28:46 +0000

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.

By: LampOfDiogenes

LampOfDiogenes — Mon, 03 Nov 2025 18:45:00 +0000

In reply to jwm.

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?????

By: LampOfDiogenes

LampOfDiogenes — Mon, 03 Nov 2025 18:41:48 +0000

In reply to jwm.

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.

By: Colorado Wellington

Colorado Wellington — Mon, 03 Nov 2025 02:27:43 +0000

In reply to Dagny. Killing them will ease overpopulation, lower their carbon footprint and save the planet.

By: Colorado Wellington

Colorado Wellington — Mon, 03 Nov 2025 02:19:43 +0000

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.

By: OldParatrooper

OldParatrooper — Mon, 03 Nov 2025 00:21:13 +0000

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.

By: jwm

jwm — Sun, 02 Nov 2025 23:16:08 +0000

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.