It's the NRA's wet dream.... when Public Schools ARE Shooting Ranges.

totally excellent report. totally agree. totally know of bad examples too.*

it's insanity, promoted by insanity, to cause more insanity.

hate to think where some of 'us' would be if SROs were stationed at our local Public School & Shooting Range.


*along the total spectrum too

Your video, The shooting range where you fire over a busy road..., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

@MilkmanDan, excellent points all round.

I'm not a gun owner, and I have no interest in buying one for self-defence, but I have fired guns a few times (at shooting ranges or clay pigeon shoots) and it's an undeniably fun activity. I could also see myself going hunting for food at some point.

Jim Jeffries makes an excellent point in his gun control rant.
"fuck off, I like guns" is actually a reasonable argument. If you like something and you're not harming anyone with it, why should it be taken from you? After all, many "anti-gun" (or more accurately "pro-gun control") people will make the same argument FOR drugs. "I'm just smoking some weed/having a beer in my house. I'm not hurting anyone, just leave me alone".

But the thing is unless you're a hardcore libertarian, almost everyone agrees that there should be some sensible limits on drugs. Even for legal drugs like alcohol, we mandate that you must be a certain age (older than you have to be to buy a gun, which is lunacy to me) and that you can't drive drunk, etc.

The sad thing is, there's near universal agreement on this, even in the US. The vast majority of people are in favour of the kind of simple, common-sense regulations you mention.

It's just that the politicians are in the pocket of the NRA. As one of shooting survivors pointed out "We should change the names of AR-15s to “Marco Rubio” because they are so easy to buy", and I cannot say how much I want to stand up and applaud that epic burn.

The intent of the 2nd amendment was so that The People could rise up against a tyrannical government and overthrow it, should the need arise. That was practical back then, when both sides were just a bunch of dudes with muskets.
Nowadays, it would be impossible to rise up and overthrow the military (and militarized police), even with the best assault rifles. So an overthrow-by-violence just isn't practical.

I think it would be OK for active military or SWAT police to own and practice with AR-15, but I support a ban for everyone else (similar to what was in place 1994-2004). I like your idea about allowing them at shooting ranges too, where they are rented, not owned.

Some AR-15 owners say they use them to hunt coyotes, but give me a break- you can use any rifle for that.

Respect. I live in Canada. So my perspective is probably warped or highly misinformed and ignorant of the USA's gun control, 2nd amendment argument. But my thought is, what's wrong with not being able to own anything that exists? Assault weapons shouldn't be made available to the public, it should be restricted to the military. Period. It's just incredible how these mass murdering weapons were even allowed to be owned in the first place. Even if the argument is that it's enshrined in the 2nd amendment, then the political discussion should be about changing/more narrowly define the amendment. How old is the 2nd amendment? How applicable is it to modern needs?

Even only allowing regulated shooting ranges to have these assault weapons just for on-site shooting is good thing. It allows gun lovers to hold them in hand, try them for target practice, have some fun but not allow anyone to take them out of the shooting range. Take the private ownership part out of the equation.

I love fighter jets, tanks, rockets & lots of high tech military stuff. Not crazy about guns, but I do appreciate their beauty. Still, I don't need to own them to appreciates them.

Society (not just the USA) really need to away from the assault weapon-ownership mentality... yes, that means asking gun owners to give up that particular rights. But there's virtue in doing it for the society...

Just can't believe the cowardice of those "nothing we can do about it" Republicans like Rubio. It's part of a big, sick symptom of government under the choke-hold of the NRA, Big Business, Big Banks, lobbyists instead of the constituents. Just feel sad for the People.

I just now saw this. My yahoo email account sometimes disappears things on me. I lost another email about the same time.

I absolutely agree with everything you say. Biology is biology. There are differences. Sex is in the workplace, of course, and women bring it there.

I can agree with all these things, and still be creeped out by the indulgence, the wallowing, of only hiring very attractive women.

There is a long history of that in America, and it was creepy then, too. Stewardesses and what they were subjected to in the workplace is a great example. They would lose their -- THEIR WORK -- if they gained five pounds, is an example of really inappropriate use of a woman's appearance as a job qualification. These people are responsible for the safety of the passengers if a tragedy strikes. I love reading stories about how women are heroes and professional when an accident happens.

A shooting range is not a strip club. Wanting to be surrounded by women in your business who COULD work in a strip club is creepy.

Creepy really isn't the right word. It is shorthand for a complex interplay of gender roles and abuses and complicity that is endemic in our culture. I just like the way it feels in my mouth -- I found that Japanese word for it that perfectly explains my pleasure in using it. I am still pleased to know that word exists.

Gitaigo: Onomatopoeia that describes states of being, not sounds.

Creepy perfectly feels like my state of being around this video.

We are all biological beings who like to look at pretty people. Tall men make more money. Attractive people of both genders make more money. We will never be free from those responses.

But lets keep it unconscious, shall we? Let us work to be better human beings than people who reduce ourselves to walking genitalia looking for constant stimulation.

The rest of your points... yeah. I'm right with you. I am not someone who criticizes men for "looking." I find myself looking and I'm pretty firmly on the hetero side of things.

It came up the other day on a hike through the woods. A woman passed me wearing some sort of body hugging stretch pants. There was natural jiggling from her movements, which caught my eye. I found myself staring, I became aware of how perfectly proportioned she was, and how the rest of her was lovely in every aspect (I had seen her a few moments before, walking in a different direction.) I almost called out to my friends -- my god, that is the most beautiful woman. All triggered by a chance glance at an objectively beautiful rear-end.

Biology. It happens. I have no problem with it.

And those shooting range owners want to stimulate that reaction in the workplace, 100% of the time. And that, my friend, is creepy.

I didn't express disapproval of the demand for sex work.

I am creeped out by men who bring sex into the workplace.

I am a huge fan of Dan Savage. He is a deeply moral man who is helping people become more fully themselves. That includes sexual expression in the privacy of the home or other agreed upon public spaces, while respecting the agreements made consensually between adults.

I also didn't say anything about the women being forced to look the way they do. It is their free choice to sell barter themselves on their sexual attributes in an arena that has nothing to do with sex -- a shooting range.

And I think it is creepy that men want this. To bring sex out of the dating world. Out of strip clubs. Out of sex clubs. And into a mundane world of a shooting range. It has implications about the treatment of women, the objectification of women, that creep me out. The blindness of it creeps me out.

Anyway.

Glad to know you weren't talking about me. Because I don't recognize myself in the way you talk about the conversation I have been engaged in. Sooo many times I say -- I didn't say this. I didn't say that.

It does get frustrating having a conversation on the Sift (not just you) where my words get twisted and embroidered.

And I love it when someone says something that shows I am incorrect or have stated something that doesn't clearly communicate my point of view. It helps me understand the world a little bit more, helps me see my own bias, and teaches me to communicate better. (Like blaming Keanu -- that was a huge mistake.)

Thanks for engaging with me. I appreciate you taking the time.

As Chaos said, apparently they aren't his groupies. They work for the shooting range.

Come to where Keanu plays and where the beautiful women are. This video will bring them business.

If it was sound only I might have thought it was a shooting range.

Oh, "mobility that's within shooting range of mine" you say?

Just read the rest of this conversation and totally agree with @Tusker.

The pickpocket analogy is no analogy for this situation. For it to be even relatable, the criminal would have to attempt and fail to pick the pocket of a police officer in uniform, then run out onto a shooting range where the officer then mistakenly shoots him without being aware the guy tried to pick his pocket.

But climb into an alligator pit? You don't *deserve* to be eaten, but if you are, how can I feel sorry for you when you made a conscious, concerted effort to put yourself into the position where that could happen to you and there's no possible way it would have ever happened to you otherwise.

2. I'm fairly certain there was drug dealing going on in at least one of those crowds harassing the cops. If not, it would be out of character for these groups.
3. Well, you said crime on private property is no one's business but the owner...that's Bullshit, which you admit now.
Shooting a gun violates public discharge laws, sends a projectile on a random arch to impact somewhere, and creates noise violations (especially in the middle of the night like these)...or can I come to your neighbors property and start my shooting range.
4. My point exactly
5. Use of taxpayer services while shirking your duty to pay taxes is theft and treasonous.
6. once gain, business regulation didn't cause the crime problem.
7. Are you suggesting giving the public property to private industries for them to 'take over' the entire city? First, can't happen. Second, shouldn't happen. Living in Disney is terrible, oppressive, expensive, and draconian. I don't see a difference between paying taxes for services and paying 'homeowner fees' for services, except homeowner fees are usually far more expensive for fewer services and more regulation. Not the direction I think most want to go, or a place where most Oaklandites could afford.
So, you aren't anti regulation, only if a Kenyan is doing it to you? That's just dumb.
8. Yes, but those reasons are not capped and/or solely created by having a democrat in power, as you and others suggest.
Most property owners in Oakland are absentee landlords that don't inspect their property regularly, because private ownership does NOT mean better management.
I get mob justice because you keep pushing for it, it's what the Mexicans did that you keep referencing, and it's what you get with a private, unregulated, armed 'group'.
9. Send me the URL to a company that gives actual security for $35 a month that isn't simply a guy you call on the phone who then calls the police. Never heard of any such thing, and if it exists, you are paying your on-post 24/7 security guard $1 a day, I don't think they'll care so much when you get knifed in the throat for that money.

So, you don't drive, you don't US dollars, food products, electricity, mail, internet, phones, water, sewers, public property, items that are imported, items that traveled inter-state, television, or any other service provided by the feds? Impressive. So many of your fellow Americans do that it makes semse for everyone to pay for part of these things so they are available to EVERYONE. Private institutions taking over make all of these for profit, removing their usage from many if not most people.
Yes, really, many people in the bay are having trouble paying their bills and feeding themselves, it's insanely expensive there.
I don't pay much in taxes, only my fair share. That's not enough to support one indigent. If you pay enough to support Oakland by yourself, you are either Bill Gates or a liar.
Most law abiding citizens have no inclination to grab their gun and go on the streets to patrol.
This didn't seem like you ignored me, neither did the 2 other posts that followed.
Sorry, mixed up the insanity.
You always have terrible governing from any governing body, from some point of view. It's a fallacy to conclude otherwise.
If you got your 'lack of governing' you would quickly get foreign governing.
So, there is no utopian free market, just the real, regulated one you're complaining about.
I don't think most libertarians agree with you that libertarian government is anarchy. I don't.
Well, I'm confused. You've spent a bunch of time and effort trying to convince me of your points, but you claim you know it's futile to even try...so what are you doing then?
To me, good government means doing the minimum it can to do what the populace wants, with safeguards to keep one group from taking unfair advantage of another. Better safeguards could make better politicians (yes, that's regulation, of politicians).
I know very little of 'praxology' that I didn't read in Foundation. Not in my science publications that I read regularly.
The tea party took over the libertarian party, and the republican party.
I do, I vote, and I pay my taxes. I don't have these problems, or over-regulation problems where I live. WOW! It worked!

And I paid for my excessive education, I only did 2 years in public school which was daycare. You don't seem to have any information I'm looking for.
If you think a mob of only your friends and family should roam the streets armed to 'protect your interests' then you support gangs. That's exactly what they are. To get enough to regulate activities in a place like Oakland would take a HUGE mob, far more than you have friends and family I'm certain.
I might hope you DO need the police to help you (with something minor, but enough to create your 'need'), then you might realize they are not all your enemy or useless and not far worse than anarchy. It's sad to think that it would take a personal need for you to realize that, but apparently it would.
The police are not a 'foreign' army, like the red coats.