Geezers At The Gun Range

Went out to the range today to provide an initial orientation to a new member. The range I belong to has membership on an annually paid basis, with orientation required at the range for new members. We review our policies in detail during the process, and walk the range so new members become familiar with the layout, and are able to ask questions from an experienced member. Besides safety, this process is also intended to make the new member feel welcomed to the club.

That said, what happened today is a fine example of how to give the impression that the membership consists of pissed off old cranks:

Sit in your van and eyeball people for half an hour;

Walk up to two people reviewing the distinctive club SOP books, one of whom is explaining to the other the intent a paragraph, don't introduce yourself, and demand, not ask, "who are you", immediately followed by, "are you a member?" in a pissed off tone, ignoring the club issued name badge on his chest. Turn to the board of directors member giving orientation, and immediately ask the same questions in the same tone;

Maintain accusatory tone while asking if the two people trying to complete the orientation know the membership status of the people on the firing line thirty yards away that he just spent the last half hour glaring at from his van;

Interrupt the next several attempts by board member to continue orientation by interjecting questions about new member's work history, family members, etc;

Ask what they think about those semi-auto military rifles used to kill all those people recently;

When told that the questionee would buy one in a second flat if he had the money, act surprised and ask why you would want one;

Abruptly get up and leave without saying anything like "nice to meet you, glad you joined, hope you enjoy the range", etc.

To that member, I'd like to say: thank you for being a rude, inconsiderate, boorish, unwelcoming, parochial pain in the ass. I also thank you for giving me the opportunity to have a teaching moment for the new member after you left, in which I explained how important it is for different shooting disciplines to cooperate and tolerate each other, as clubs and ranges die due to ignorant boobs who would love to ban guns that they don't own, attempt to keep membership low so that there aren't "too many people using the range", believe their way is the only way, if it's new it's bad, and can't see how minimizing the total number of gun owners impacts their niche in sport.

Lastly, in your honor, I will be on that same range tomorrow with my bastardized FN-FAL, 20 round military surplus magazines, and a lot of 7.62 FMJ. If I'm lucky, you'll be there, gritting your dentures.

Luddites & Fuddites

Luddites smashing looms in a factory during the riots of 1811–16.

Definition of: Luddite

An individual who is against technological change. Luddite comes from Englishman Ned Lud, who rose up against his employer in the late 1700s. Subsequently, "Luddites" emerged in other companies to protest and even destroy new machinery that would put them out of a job. A neo-Luddite is a Luddite in the Internet age. (www.pcmag.com)



Cruising the web, I ran across a blog referencing Jim Zumbo. He's been a well-known outdoors/hunting writer for decades, and currently has a column online at Outdoor Life. Apparently, he's swallowed the Brady line on "assault rifles", and is decrying their use in hunting. Lines such as

I call them "assault" rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are "tackdrivers."

serve to further divide the gun owning community, making us easier prey for the freedom-phobes.

Living in Iowa, the great majority of hunting uses shotguns,followed by .22 rimfire, and a smattering of centerfires used in varmint hunting. Of those varmint rifles, .223 chamberings are probably the most common, as it's widely available and easily customized during handloading for optimal accuracy. There's two reasons why I don't use an AR platform for the varmint hunting I do here. First, I never manage to save up enough money for a quality one before I find some 60 to 100 year old relic that I MUST HAVE when I see it. Secondly, I'm a cheap bastard who can't stand the thought of my hunting rifle throwing perfectly good brass somewhere never to be found again. Other than that, I see absolutely no reason to get pissy about a rifle lacking the requisite amount of walnut and blued steel, or the fact that it has a military heritage, as long as the rifle is safe to operate, and the cartridge of sufficient power to humanely take the pursued game. Keep in mind, these are civilian versions of their military forbears, and DO NOT have the capability to fire more than one shot per pull of the trigger. If the citizens of a particular state don't like the idea of someone using a magazine capable of holding 30 rounds, requiring the use of a limited capacity (10,5,3, hell, one round capacity) magazines are either available or capable of being made when demand is present. A rifle is a rifle, which is basically a high-velocity, high-accuracy sling shot. It's appearance and aesthetic value have no effect on it's function, and should be left out of the argument of what is appropriate to carry in the field.

Some of the problem comes from individuals who have aged, and dislike change. I consider people who prefer to do things the old way, but don't need to disparage someone doing it a new way, traditionalists. These people, to me, have great value as keepers of institutional memory. They provide continuity and an appreciation of historical methods and values. There are also those who prefer to do things the old way, hate it when others do it a newer way, and want to make those others do it their way. In the shooting world, many know these people as Fudds.


It's clear to me that Jim Zumbo is proud to proclaim himself a full-fledged Fuddite.