Targets Don't Shoot Back

One common criticism of shooting sports such as USPSA is that it isn’t realistic because the “targets don’t shoot back”. The implication here is that it’s much more dangerous and difficult to shoot at something that has the capability to return fire. It’s a fair point.

It’s also fair to say that there wouldn’t be very many matches or competitors if the targets did in fact shoot back. I know for sure that I wouldn’t be going to matches if return fire was guaranteed to make an appearance. Of course, outside of force-on-force training using Simunition or the like, there is no reputable training in which the targets shoot back. Also, no respectable trainer would suggest that only force-on-force training is useful.

But I digress. If we’re going to accept the assumption that return fire makes it harder to score hits on target, and indeed discourages folks from even showing up…then why would we insist that our schools be as defenseless as a USPSA stage?

What a mass killer sees in a "gun free zone."

If the threat of return fire would make things tougher for a recreational shooter, wouldn’t it also make things tougher for a would-be murderer? Why would we want a killer to have nothing in front of him other than “targets that don’t shoot back”?

This target shoots back. (From FASTER Saves Lives)