Gun Range Shooters portrayed as lunatics

[nosmr2]

I have been visiting deadspin and gizmodo for a few years now. Their other site gawker is pretty left leaning, but never goes overboard, until today.

http://gawker.com/5853464/dead-malls-reborn-as-anything-but-malls

The story started out about dead malls and other large stores being used for something totally different, go cart tracks, laser tag, etc. Then the article makes reference to The Arms Room here south of Houston. A nice place I have visited it and it was a Circuit City until they went belly up.

What really disturbed me was ....."You need a good 20-30 minutes of tugging that Glock trigger, over and over again, knowing that if only your high velocity rounds could penetrate the back wall of the Arms Room they would go flying amongst the sheeplike Target patrons, slaughtering them wholesale as you cackled and cackled and felt the stress finally slip away from you..."

Seriously? Is that how gun range visitors are seen? We aren't talking about awful (sarcasm) deer killers, but range patrons. It just blows be away that someone could be so close-minded.

If this thread does not belong here, my apologies in advance.

 

[BADUNAME37]

I agree, it does not sound like responsible shooting to me, it also does not sound like responsible reporting!

Too bad, articles like this give gun owners a bad name.

 

[SG1]

This is just typical of someone who hates something else - for whatever reason - speaking his or her opinion. Doesn't matter what it is, if you like it chances are someone somewhere else hates it.

I think the language used in that article just proves the author is an amateur hack.

 

[nosmr2]

Opinions are like belly buttons and he is entitled to his. But we all don't express them with crazy scenarios about shooting Target customers.

Off the subject, Circuit City's death was a long time coming, having spent 10 years in the electronics business trust me on this one. This location is in a huge, new, thriving shopping area. It just happened to lose a tenant due to bankruptcy, not the fact that it was in a mall or people don't go to malls anymore, the gist of the article. I'm pretty sure The Arms Room sees a lot more customers than the Circuit City did.

Awesome writing as usual.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

....."You need a good 20-30 minutes of tugging that Glock trigger, over and over again, knowing that if only your high velocity rounds could penetrate the back wall of the Arms Room they would go flying amongst the sheeplike Target patrons, slaughtering them wholesale as you cackled and cackled and felt the stress finally slip away from you..."

This doesn't prove a thing about gun owners or shooters. All it proves is that the writer has some serious mental issues.

 

[nosmr2]

Not that it matters, but I posted the following comment. After my not so High Road comment this morning:

Now that I've had a chance to cool off; thanks for portraying responsible gun owners in such a negative light. We are all entitled to our opinions. I generally regard opinions like the following: gun owners suck, gun owners are dumb, gun owners all drive trucks and live in suburbia, Circuit City sucks, stores inside abandoned Circuit Cities are a waste of space, etc. You see where I'm going with this. An opinion is an opinion. Made up <removed>, is, well, made up <removed>. A fine line to walk, but...
Us gun owners that like to shoot go to the range, pay our money and shoot at paper targets. We do not dream of opening up fire on Target customers just beyond the walls to blow off steam and laugh at the carnage. We are there to improve our shooting skills. Its a hobby for us and we take it very seriously. We are the people that legally buy guns, take training classes and legally carry on a daily basis. We pass criminal background tests and shooting skills tests (in some states) for that privilege. We don't rob stores and participate in drive-by shootings. Those with carry permits have lower arrest rates than those without. We don't commit many crimes.
I understand you don't care for gun owners or shooters, so be it. But creating crazy shooting scenarios of innocent shoppers in target does nothing productive for any of us. We are NOT the bad guy.

 

[Cosmoline]

I doubt very much the writer is a shooter. You can see similar attitudes in many films written by screenwriters--99.9% of whom are non-shooters and hostile to firearms. One which springs to mind is "American Beauty," where going shooting is portrayed as some kind of violent sex substitute. In real life of course it has a lot more in common with meditation and formal martial arts. But to the anti, it's all about murder, sex and darker instincts.

 

[JustinJ]

Fellas, the article is written tongue in cheeck about the stresses of shopping. Let's stop looking for opportunities to play the victimized under dog.

 

[nosmr2]

If it was written tongue in cheek I certainly missed it and I doubt I'm the only one. It can be difficult to convey that through words on a page instead of verbally. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, nor am I the dullest.

I wasn't looking for an opportunity to play victim. I just thought the whole shooting Target customers up was a bit absurd and portrayed us in a negative light and wanted to share.

 

[jagter82]

Some people are like that. Guns cause death but I still have not found a gun responsible for any massacre.

Maybe I need to lean more to the left to find it??

Sad how someone who tries to do some news reporting keep making it about more than the facts but it will always be like that since fair and balanced is nearly extinct.

 

[JustinJ]

Clues the article was tongue in cheek:

And what are we to do with all of these empty mall building carcasses? Ah, glad you asked!

We (the USA) are going to fill our ghost mall carcasses with go-kart tracks. And trampoline warehouses. And laser tag arenas and grocery stores and private schools and anything, really, except for mall stores—because, as the WSJ points out, nobody goes to the stupid mall to go shopping any more. We go to the mall to shoot things now.

That twitch. Not even Cinnabon can soothe it.

The article does lightly poke fun at the America's love of guns but is quite obviously done in humor and is not meant to portray range patrons as crazy or blood thirsty.

 

[RNB65]

I thought it was an amusing article. Especially since malls around here are crumbling like Middle East dictators and an old furniture store on the west side of town is currently being renovated into a 50 lane upscale indoor range.
-

 

[Panzercat]

Clues the article was tongue in cheek:

"...before you climbed in your F-150 and fled back to the subdivision."

Sorry, I get the distinctly opposite impression; that the article was trying too hard to be witty in its derisive satire and stereotyping. I'm hardly going to get bent out of shape, however, since I learned a while ago they'll let pretty much any hack write on the gawker ring.

 

[The Sarge]

I take comfort in knowing the average American thinks journalist are lunatics.
So I really do not care what the real lunatics write nor say.

 

[1911fan]

If the guy who wrote the article seriously has thoughts like that, i.e. rounds going through the wall and taking out innocent civillians then he needs to have a visit with his nearest mental health professional, ASAP.

We "gunnies" have the knowledge of just what these deadly weapons can actually do. We talk of zombies because that is our fantasy outlet. We REALLY don't espouse wholesale slaughter, no matter what the ANTI's may say.

Another atricle written by a know-it (nothing)-all.

My two cents...

ed

 

[Carl N. Brown]

... it does not sound like responsible shooting to me...

It strikes me this is not a story by a shooter, but by an anti-shooter showing contempt for people who shoot guns, drive pickup trucks and live in subdivisions.

Dead Malls Reborn as Anything But Malls
By Hamilton Nolan
Gawker, Oct 26, 2011 10:34 AM
http://gawker.com/5853464/dead-malls-reborn-as-anything-but-malls

"Dead Malls..." links to the original WSJ story about a target range and gun shop in a mall, but adds the spew about "you" slaughtering Target shoppers as stress relief "before you climbed in your F-150 and fled back to the subdivision."

The original story cited in the story in the link above did not contain the typical antigun phantasies about gun owners in the linked story.

New Tricks for Old Malls
By KRIS HUDSON And MIGUEL BUSTILLO
Wall Street Journal, 26 Oct 2011.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204644504576653393614129726.html

 

[HGUNHNTR]

Driving a pickup truck and living in a subdivision is reason for contempt!

It was just a humorous article, written by someone with little firearms experience...it happens all the time, no big deal.

 

[Justin]

Gawker is a website written by and for cretins.

 

[chhodge69]

It reads like bad satire more than an anti-2a propaganda piece.

 

[hermannr]

I thought that the last paragraph in the WSJ article was particularly good. It is also interesting that Home Depot (expected) did not object to the gun range, but Target did (kind of expected also).

At least you know your carry is welcome in that mall.

 

[GrammatonCleric]

I googled a picture of the author, and he looks as if he consumed a steady diet of paint chips as a child. He is certainly nobody to be taken seriously. The guy looks like he has an aunt-mom, and uncle-dad.

 

[mortablunt]

I officially couldn't take the article seriously. It was just taking so much refuge in audacity that I laughed, and laughed, and laughed. The kid needs to practice his satire.

 

[hso]

Mr. James spent nearly $5 million to buy the 20,000-square-foot space and convert it into a shooting range

Sooooo, Mr. James bought the property, installed a range that was compliant with local, state and NRA safety standards to ensure that no rounds would escape the range and that the air was properly treated to prevent lead exposure to the patrons and the environment and provides a business that supports the local tax base and provides employment to the community. What am I missing that's not completely positive?