Bruce in West Oz
New member
.... well, according to this writer.
I know this is old, but I just found it while researching today on the Olympic Games. It is old but not dated, because this sentiment is thriving.
It should be an object lesson for all firearms owners who support "assault gun" bans because they are sure gun ownership for "legitimate sporting use" will then somehow miraculously be preserved.
The anti-gun lobby know not the meaning of their own favourite word, "compromise".
(Bold type is my own emphasis on the bits that really stuck in my throat.)
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Time for shooters to make a sporting sacrifice
By Caroline Overington, THE AGE, 20th May 1996
In the old wooden house where I lived as a child, it was not unusual to find snakes on the back porch, nor to have five or six skins drying on the back fence. Once, we lost an entire litter of kittens to tiger snakes, which bred in the scrub at a nearby creek, then nested in the relative warmth of our outside loo.
Whenever he could, my father shot the snakes but I would be lying if I said he kept guns only to protect his wife and infant children. Put simply, as a young man in an untamed suburb he liked to shoot myxo rabbits mostly, but also foxes.
He called it spotlighting but it was, in fact, {b]hunting and killing[/b]. Then one day, my brother broke into dad's locked gun shed, so my mother had the guns taken away.
As an adult, I have rarely been in contact with guns. In these days of heightened sensitivity and safe neighborhoods, I see no reason to handle a gun except, perhaps, if you are a farmer, or a police officer, or in the Army.
What, though, of people who shoot for sport, as about 35 per cent of licensed shooters do (this is men; women with gun licences are far more likely to be competitive). In the wake of the tragedy at Port Arthur, and on the eve of the Atlanta Olympics, it is necessary to ask: should people shoot for sport?
There are 15 shooting events at the Olympics, 10 for men and five for women, and three in which semi-automatic weapons are either permissable or compulsory. Shooting is also one of five disciplines that make up one of the oldest Olympic sports, the pentathlon.
The Australian public last year provided $600,000 in funding for shooting sports, and will send 16 shooters to the Games in Atlanta, including the former world champion, Russell Mark, a reasonable man, an elite sporting professional who, instead of playing golf on Saturday afternoons, heads to the clay target range.
Mark does not hunt to kill, nor is he impressed by the rush of adrenalin, the feeling of power, which comes from holding and firing a weapon. For Mark, winning is the thing; he loves to control the extraordinary relationship between hand, eye and mind.
In shooting for Australia, Mark does not use a semi-automatic gun, although he owns one, and the rules of his sport allow it.
Mark long ago gave away the idea that staggering marksmanship would bring him recognition outside his shooting peers.
"I'm in it for the personal satisfaction because, let's face it, the public isn't going to be proud or happy for you."
Also, the media is often reluctant to attend shooting events.
"The argument is that they don't want to glorify guns, which is funny, I think, because they happily review movies where people get their heads blown off," says Mark.
In recent weeks, Mark has been besieged by media interested not in his bronze medal at a recent World Cup event but in his attitute to gun control. As a result, his "bad feeling" is that the Australian Sports Commission will soon cut the funding.
For Mark, that day will pass sadly, because shooters have often provided Olympic medals where there otherwise would have been none.
The question then, is this: should there be a gun ownership exception for people who win medals?
Probably not. In days past, shooting was an important skill because, without it, man would not have conquered land and beast.
Today, the right of one person to keep a gun is outweighed by the rights of his or her neighbors not to live surrounded by people who are armed.
Sadly for those who enjoy target practice, the argument that people who shoot for sport are responsible and harmless is really not good enough, because the aim, however naive, should be a nation without guns, including those used in sport.
Perhaps - and this is an old-fashioned concept, I know - individuals who quite simply adore shooting clay targets should make a personal sacrifice and hand in their guns.
There is no doubt that winning Olympic medals makes a nation proud. Is it possible that Australians would be prouder to take a stand, to make a mature and courageous decision not to take part in an activity linked too closely with human misery?[/quote]
There you are: It reminds me of a line I read in Bomber by Len Deighton (and I paraphrase 'cause of the Alzheimer's):
"Beware the clear eye and the firm tread of the self-righteous, for that is the first step towards socialism."
B
I know this is old, but I just found it while researching today on the Olympic Games. It is old but not dated, because this sentiment is thriving.
It should be an object lesson for all firearms owners who support "assault gun" bans because they are sure gun ownership for "legitimate sporting use" will then somehow miraculously be preserved.
The anti-gun lobby know not the meaning of their own favourite word, "compromise".
(Bold type is my own emphasis on the bits that really stuck in my throat.)
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Time for shooters to make a sporting sacrifice
By Caroline Overington, THE AGE, 20th May 1996
In the old wooden house where I lived as a child, it was not unusual to find snakes on the back porch, nor to have five or six skins drying on the back fence. Once, we lost an entire litter of kittens to tiger snakes, which bred in the scrub at a nearby creek, then nested in the relative warmth of our outside loo.
Whenever he could, my father shot the snakes but I would be lying if I said he kept guns only to protect his wife and infant children. Put simply, as a young man in an untamed suburb he liked to shoot myxo rabbits mostly, but also foxes.
He called it spotlighting but it was, in fact, {b]hunting and killing[/b]. Then one day, my brother broke into dad's locked gun shed, so my mother had the guns taken away.
As an adult, I have rarely been in contact with guns. In these days of heightened sensitivity and safe neighborhoods, I see no reason to handle a gun except, perhaps, if you are a farmer, or a police officer, or in the Army.
What, though, of people who shoot for sport, as about 35 per cent of licensed shooters do (this is men; women with gun licences are far more likely to be competitive). In the wake of the tragedy at Port Arthur, and on the eve of the Atlanta Olympics, it is necessary to ask: should people shoot for sport?
There are 15 shooting events at the Olympics, 10 for men and five for women, and three in which semi-automatic weapons are either permissable or compulsory. Shooting is also one of five disciplines that make up one of the oldest Olympic sports, the pentathlon.
The Australian public last year provided $600,000 in funding for shooting sports, and will send 16 shooters to the Games in Atlanta, including the former world champion, Russell Mark, a reasonable man, an elite sporting professional who, instead of playing golf on Saturday afternoons, heads to the clay target range.
Mark does not hunt to kill, nor is he impressed by the rush of adrenalin, the feeling of power, which comes from holding and firing a weapon. For Mark, winning is the thing; he loves to control the extraordinary relationship between hand, eye and mind.
In shooting for Australia, Mark does not use a semi-automatic gun, although he owns one, and the rules of his sport allow it.
Mark long ago gave away the idea that staggering marksmanship would bring him recognition outside his shooting peers.
"I'm in it for the personal satisfaction because, let's face it, the public isn't going to be proud or happy for you."
Also, the media is often reluctant to attend shooting events.
"The argument is that they don't want to glorify guns, which is funny, I think, because they happily review movies where people get their heads blown off," says Mark.
In recent weeks, Mark has been besieged by media interested not in his bronze medal at a recent World Cup event but in his attitute to gun control. As a result, his "bad feeling" is that the Australian Sports Commission will soon cut the funding.
For Mark, that day will pass sadly, because shooters have often provided Olympic medals where there otherwise would have been none.
The question then, is this: should there be a gun ownership exception for people who win medals?
Probably not. In days past, shooting was an important skill because, without it, man would not have conquered land and beast.
Today, the right of one person to keep a gun is outweighed by the rights of his or her neighbors not to live surrounded by people who are armed.
Sadly for those who enjoy target practice, the argument that people who shoot for sport are responsible and harmless is really not good enough, because the aim, however naive, should be a nation without guns, including those used in sport.
Perhaps - and this is an old-fashioned concept, I know - individuals who quite simply adore shooting clay targets should make a personal sacrifice and hand in their guns.
There is no doubt that winning Olympic medals makes a nation proud. Is it possible that Australians would be prouder to take a stand, to make a mature and courageous decision not to take part in an activity linked too closely with human misery?[/quote]
There you are: It reminds me of a line I read in Bomber by Len Deighton (and I paraphrase 'cause of the Alzheimer's):
"Beware the clear eye and the firm tread of the self-righteous, for that is the first step towards socialism."
B
