A rebuttal

A commenter on my last post, David Yamane, seemed unhappy about the content I chose to write about, and had some suggestions for me:

Why don’t you post about how sick you are hearing about how gun culture hates women? I actually heard a talk at The Tactical Conference by Kathy (Cornered Cat) Jackson, in which she draws on research about women in STEM to give gun guys suggestions about how to get women involved in gun culture.https://gunculture2point0.wordpress.com/2014/07/09/the-cornered-cat-kathy-jackson-on-what-women-want/

You should let her know how grateful she should be that male dominated gun culture allowed her the time and space to share her views!

I know that you are probably sick of hearing about Kathy Jackson already, but since you seem pressed for things to write about concerning guns, why don’t you read Kathy Jackson’s comments about women in the gun community since she draws on research about women in STEM fields to show that gun guys are NOT embracing women.

I will take his advice and write about the issue of Gun Culture 2.0 and women.

I don’t know Kathy Jackson, The Cornered Cat, I have never met her, nor have I read her book.  Although, knowing that it is available as an audio-book, I’ll have to give it a try.  So for the purpose of this post, I’m going to have to rely on his assessment of Jackson’s book.  So please forgive any error as hearsay.

I can accept Jackson’s differentiating between being a guest in Gun Culture 2.0 and belonging in Gun Culture 2.0.  Now Social Justice has taught me that I should never question a person’s lived experience, and truth be told, I don’t know what she has experienced, but allow me to bring up a few things from my lived experience.

First, a quasi gripe about Gun Culture 2.0.  I fully consider myself to be Gun Culture 2.0.  I don’t hunt, and have no interest in it.  I like black rifles with 30 round mags.  My gun ownership is the product of an interest in self defense and political support of the 2A.  Much of Gun Culture 2.0 has been influence by military culture.  This is in part do the number of veterans of the War on Terror who have continued to shoot recreationally after their service is up.  There is also the feedback from the video game industry, where shooters want the real life version of their favorite gun from their favorite Call of Duty game.  The most popular firearms sold today are semi-automatic facsimiles of military arms.  Tacticool is a word that has entered the lexicon to describe a civilian rifle that has be accessorized to look like something carried in Black Hawk Down.  The word “operator” gets tossed around a lot.  One cannot go to a gun range, gun show, gun store, or anywhere else in the gun world without it being a 5.11 tactical pants and Blackhawk rigger belt convention.  A substantial portion of Gun Culture 2.0 has an aesthetic that could best be described as Blackwater chic.

Quite a number of new small gun companies have sprung up advertising their founding by ex-military.  The stamp of ex-military has become so important to Gun Culture 2.0 that some people are willing to lie to benefit from it.

No disrespect to our veterans, but this frustrates me.  I never served in combat.  I never cleared a house with my M4 pattern rifle.  I have no operational experience.  I am an engineers and a good one at that.  I know heat treating, GD&T, fluid dynamics, heat transfer, finishing, manufacturing, and everything else it takes to make a gun work.  I may not know how to stage an ambush but I do know how to take aluminum and steel and turn it into one of the finest firearms money can buy.  That took years of schooling and is not something taught in basic training or AIT.  The problem is, who in Gun Culture 2.0 wants to buy an AR or a 1911 from some fat engineer who sits behind a desk with gigabytes of test data to show how good his gun is?  Gun Culture 2.0 wants to buy an AR or 1911 from some ex Navy Ranger F16 door gunner who designed his weapon EXPLICITLY for killing Taliban.  It makes me understand (but not condone) faking military service to get your fledgling gun company off the ground.

All of this goes double when it comes to firearms training.  There are a lot more firearms trainers today than there were in the past.  That is a good thing, it means more training available for all.  But many of these trainers hype their ex-military status as a bona fide.  I am not a woman, and cannot claim to know how a woman may feel but I may have experienced similar feelings of not belonging when I am the guy who shows up at the training course in shorts, carrying a .38 snubbie and not in 5.11, drawing a Glock from the latest in kydex wonder-concealment.  I go to these courses to improve my ability to defend myself in a home invasion or if I am caught in the middle of a convenience store robbery.  However, some of them seem to be “let’s pretend you are Delta Force” weekend retreats.

I think one thing that would make Gun Culture 2.0 more welcoming, not just to women, is a demilitarization.  I am a shooter.  I love shooting.  I’ve been a gun nut since the first time my dad took me shooting when I was six.  Just because I never shot a Taliban in the face with it, doesn’t mean I don’t know how to use my rifle, or that I am a wannabe or armchair commando, or anything else you want to call me.

Second, guns have traditionally been a guy thing.  I believe that they will always be a guy thing.  No, I am not saying women are not welcome or that I think any less of them.  It’s just a matter of reality.  I doubt there will ever be equal parity of the sexes in gun culture.  I don’t believe that that is inherently wrong.  There are many things that are guy things: cigars, motorcycles, off-roading, car racing, etc.  Yes, of course we should be sensitive to women in our midst.  Overt sexism is ugly, I don’t like it when I see it.  But we are never going to completely purge the “guyness” from gun culture, and don’t ask us to.

Again,  I am not a woman, and cannot claim to know how a woman may feel but I may have experienced similar feelings of not belonging when I go into a yarn/bead/scrap book/fabric/craft store with my wife.  When I drop her off for a “stitch and bitch” night at the local knitting store, the other ladies welcome me, but I can tell they are all wondering if I’m going to sit and stay and pull out my own pair of needles.  They are happy to try to teach me to knit (there have been offers), but I know I will take a long time to really become one of them.  I am not offended.  I accept that I have wandered into a sphere of women’s culture and that’s OK.

I want more women to come into shooting.  I want more people in general to come into shooting.  We in the community are extending ourselves to women the best way we know how.  I have seen plenty of lady’s nights at the local indoor range or ladies only CCW classes.  I have also seen ladies only motorcycle training courses among other things.  I have never seen a “daddy and me” day at the local park or a guy’s night at the local craft store where I can have a beer and do a needlepoint of my favorite line from Conan the Barbarian.  One act of making someone feel like an outsider doesn’t justify another, and I’m not suggesting that it should.  I just want to give some perspective.


Third, of course I have seen gun shop employees who have been condescending to women when they (women) go into to guy a new CCE piece.  But nearly every time, those same jerks have been condescending to me and other guys when we want to look at something other than the latest in Teutonic plastic fantastic that “starts with 4 and ends with 5.”  I have griped about that before.  My first rule about gun stores is: If I say “I want to look at X” and the person behind the counter says “Why?  Let me show you a Glock/H&K/SIG.”  Just leave.

There is an aphorism known as Hanlon’s Razor, which states “never attribute to malice what can adequately be blamed on stupidity.”  There needs to be a corollary that states “never attribute to racism/sexism/discrimination what  can adequately be explained with by somebody being an asshole.”  This is something also seen in STEM, don’t take it personally.

Even if there are real individual causes of discrimination, don’t let that stop you.  I can’t stand the asshole at the gun show with the Nazi paraphernalia selling copies of the Turner Diaries.  I have been asked on more than one occasion at a gun show by a dealer “what can I Jew you out of?”  I don’t give those bastards my money.  I ignore them.  I didn’t let those people drive me out of shooting.  For women, if a guy at a gun range really is a sexist pig, find a different range or a different instructor.  Show your disapproval with your dollars.  For every one of them, there are dozens of us who are happy to count you as part of the group.

Fourth, Dana Loesch, who was the Beyonce of NRAAM 2015.

Fifth, Emily Miller, the smartest person on gun laws in America who is not a member of SCOTUS.

Sixth, Kirsten Joy Weiss, who can shoot better than you can.

Seventh, Lena Miculek, who can shoot WAY better than that.

Eight, Julie Golob, rock out with your Smith out.

Ninth, Jessie Duff.

Not just are these women shooters.  They are also celebrities in the culture.  They give talks and demonstrations and have hundreds of thousands of people read their blogs and watch their YouTube videos.

Tenth, the firearms industry itself actively reaching out to women.

Call me skeptical, but I really don’t see how gun culture hates women.  Every indication is the opposite.

Not to overly criticize Ms. Jackson, since I didn’t read her book, but the synopsis seems to indicate her complaints fall very close to the idea of Social Justice microagressions.

“Sure the industry is bending over backwards to develop new products for women.  Sure the industry is bringing very smart and experienced women on board as senior management.  Sure, shooting ranges and firearms instructors are hosting women’s only events to make women feel more comfortable.  But Dillon Precision’s calendar still features beautiful women with guns; and Billy Bob, the owner of Billy Bob’s Guns, Live Bait, and Overalls Emporium called me ‘sweetheart’ so gun culture hates me.

I think no.

I’ll agree that we have a little bit more to go towards incisiveness, but give us credit were credit is due.


I read Miguel’s comment and it got me thinking.  There is something I didn’t take into consideration that may address our difference in opinion: age.

I don’t know how old Ms. Jackson or Dr. Yamane are, but I can postulate.  Ms. Jackson claims on her website that she’s been a shooter for 15 years and married for 25.  Well, this year is my 15 year high school reunion.  Ms. Jackson got married when I was middle school.  Assuming she got married after college, that would put her in her lat 40’s at a minimum.  Dr. Yamane got his B.S. in 1991, putting him in at about the same age.

I can appreciate how their views on this issue may be different.

I look around me at work, and it shocks me that I am one of the oldest people in my group, not in management, at the ripe old age of 32.  The people I work with, the people I shoot with, the people I hobnob with are in their late 20’s early 30’s.  We are as much raised in Gun Culture 2.0 as we were raised in Web 2.0 or with cellphones.  Women in shooting is nothing new to us, they have always been there.  Our sisters were taught to shoot along side us.   There have always been camo clothes for women and girls available at the local sporting goods store to us.

When some old gray beard Gun Culture 1.0 says something dismissive of women, the response of us is “yeah, sure, whatever gramps” and then our wives and girlfriends out shoot him on the range.

This is the same issue I have with criticism of STEM by the way.

“Blah, blah, blah, women aren’t in enough faculty positions of management, STEM is sexist blah, blah, blah.”

Whatever you say bucko.  Being management or faculty is what happens late in your career, not the beginning.  Those women entered the workforce when the math I was learning was One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish and VCR’s still roamed the earth.  The girls I know and went to school with are just as competent as the boys in engineering.  They were recruited into the same programs.  They grew up in a climate were there were outreach programs dedicated to bringing women and girls into STEM.  When you look at how THESE girls are doing in their careers, they are on par with the boys in most fields and doing better in others.

There is a generation of difference between our experiences, literally.  The trials and tribulations of the first wave of women in mainstream shooting won.  So when I hear “Gun Culture 2.0 hates women” it just rankles me.

18 Replies to “A rebuttal”

  1. I know Kathy Jackson and with her sister from another mother, Gail Pepin, both have been pounding hard and deservedly against Gun Culture 1.0 (I disagree with J. Kb. on the ordinal) and the “Here little lady, a pink revolver for you” mentality that is still going on.

    To say that advances are not being made to bring women into mainstream Gun Culture is BS. That the advances could be faster, yes,but we are fighting decades of both institutional inertia within the gun community and outright cultural propaganda from the opposition and the Old School Feminists.

    The solution is neither simple nor fast: Female Instructors to teach women. We males need to create the atmosphere in which women can feel good getting training or at least not getting in the way. We dress differently, we have different bodies, different biochemistry and even how we look at life…and we members of the XY clan cannot even begin to figure out how to address how that affects teaching and learning. Female instructors will.

    I always return to one story that Kathy Jackson told in the Pro-Arms podcast of a male instructor assisting one of her classes and being dumbfound when somebody asked how to reload magazines without destroying the manicure. He did not have an answer and could not figure one out. And if you are stupid enough to laugh and dismiss the question as female silliness, you are part of the problem and I am going to be a prick not explaining why.

  2. I appreciate the time and thought you put into responding to my provocation. I don’t believe that Gun Culture 2.0 hates women. To the contrary, it loves women. It loves the idea of women shooting as a way of telling its enemies to F-off, it loves the vast untapped market for gun and accessory sales that women represent, and it genuinely loves the idea that women can use firearms for enjoyment and protection.

    I think your thoughts on the militarization of gun culture and women are extremely insightful.

    At the same time, there is a residual sense, that you express well, that guns are “a guy thing.” Like cigars, motor sports, Augusta National, and the presidency, and the best women can hope for is that guys will “be sensitive to women in our midst.”

    I think it will be unfortunate if guns remain a subset of male culture as opposed to a culture in and of itself with its own beliefs, values, and ways of doing things. One of the great potentials of GC2.0 over 1.0 is that it has the potential to be inclusive of men and women under the rubric of personal protection – which everyone needs equally. To the extent that men are seen as the primary protectors and women as their auxiliaries, GC2.0 will have failed to realize its potential.

    Whatever our differences and the sources of them, I appreciate the opportunity to learn from you and share our respective views. I especially liked learning about Hanlon’s Razor and its corollary that we should “never attribute to racism/sexism/discrimination what can adequately be explained with by somebody being an asshole.” It helps explain why there are so many a-holes in the STEM fields. Apologies to all my friends who are engineers and surgeons, but you know you are!

    1. “At the same time, there is a residual sense, that you express well, that guns are “a guy thing.” Like cigars, motor sports, Augusta National, and the presidency, and the best women can hope for is that guys will “be sensitive to women in our midst.””

      That is totally disingenuous. Augusta National was gender segregated by bylaws as a private club.

      The Presidency has no restrictions other than natural born citizen over 35, so though it has never been held by a woman, there is no legal means to deny a woman from running for, winning, and taking the oath of President.

      I have never seen a gun range refuse to let a woman shoot. I have never seen a gun store not sell a gun to a woman. I have never heard of such a thing. To conflate what I said about interest with active discrimination is intellectually dishonest.

      I stated out right that it is a matter of interest. Simply and straight forward. Personal choice. I hear constant griping about the lack of women in STEM. It only seems to apply to fields like aerospace engineering, software, or cardiac surgery. Because chemistry, biomedical engineering, all fields of biology, psychology, psychiatry, obstetrics, pediatrics, and general practice range from near 50% to over 70% women.

      Women make up about 15% of the military, all branches combined, despite every effort to recruit more women.


      Is it because, perhaps, little boys like to blow shit up more than girls do?

      Is it because men play the overwhelming majority of first person shooters while women prefer puzzle games and RPGs?

      Across the board, women are about 20% of engineers. Despite all the efforts into recruiting more women into STEM.

      I don’t believe it is because dads everywhere tell their daughters that it’s not lady like to build a turbine.

      I have never witnessed in STEM or shooting open discrimination against women.

      But what started all of this is that I am tired of being beat over the head with the notion that anytime something attracts more men then women it is inherently bad and inherently caused by discrimination.

      Women shoot. They do, at every range I’ve been to. There have been women in every CCW class I’ve taken and every shooting match I’ve been to.

      I’ve never been asked “how do you load mags with a manicure.” The response is “It’s called a Maglula, they are about $30, and they are great if you have to load a bunch of mags and don’t want to wear out your thumbs.” Why is that so damn hard. Why does that have to be a THING.

      But it feels like accepting women is not what you want. I want to go to the range and blow shit up. It’s my fun. I’ll accept anybody who wants to come and blow shit up with me. I’ll do my best not to say anything offensive, and that should be good enough. You seem to want obsequiousness.

      1. I’m not sure why you think my comparison to thinking of guns as a “guy thing” to other things that have historically been considered “guy things” is disingenuous. There are clear and strong historic precedents for setting up areas of society in which extremely important things get done (like business at Augusta National or politics in the White House) and designating them as men’s areas. Whether that is done by law or by social norms. When Hilary Clinton ran for president last time, there were people who actually questioned whether you would want her, a woman, to be the one answering the red phone at certain times of the month. So, seeing gun culture as a guy thing and just expecting the guys to be polite seems problematic to me in a parallel fashion.

        Now, are things as bad as they used to be? No, of course not. According to the Constitution, as you note, the Presidency has no restrictions other than being a natural born citizen over 35. But that does not mean the ability of a woman to run for president was not restricted in other ways. Recall the 19th amendment, guaranteeing women the right to vote, was not ratified until 1920. So, we’ve come a long way baby. And not just because of the individual decisions people made to resist inequality, though those are important as well.

        Could things be better? I think so. And in terms of gun culture, people like Kathy Jackson think so also. To want people in gun culture think and talk about the ways things could be better is not wanting obsequiousness from you. Really, no one is asking you to be servile, ingratiating, sycophantic, fawning, unctuous, oily, oleaginous, groveling, cringing, subservient, submissive, slavish (I had to look up the definition of obsequiousness, sorry). As much as you criticize the social justice warriors for their victim mentality and sacralizing of personal experience, you exhibit many of those same traits.

        In the end, you and I have a fundamental difference in how we see the world, and that’s OK. You see everything in terms of personal choice. I want to understand how people make choices under certain conditions not of their own choosing. That doesn’t mean people don’t have agency, but it does mean certain decisions become much easier or harder because of those conditions. If a woman is making a decision to get involved in gun culture, I want to make that decision as easy as possible. Seems to me that is what Kathy Jackson, Gail Pepin, and others are saying.

      2. “who in Gun Culture 2.0 wants to buy an AR or a 1911 from some fat engineer who sits behind a desk with gigabytes of test data to show how good his gun is?”

        Had I the budget, I would have a laundry list of custom guns I could request of you.

        “To conflate what I said about interest with active discrimination is intellectually dishonest.”

        “Intellectually dishonest” adequately describes everything I’ve seen davidyamane post on this blog. As far as I can tell, he’s a feminist apologist who decided to poke his nose in here and rile up those racist, sexist right-wingers.

        Funny thing, the biggest misogynists I’ve ever seen are male feminists. (Lookin’ at you, Joss)

        But his antics are met with confusion, because contrary to what the Left would have people believe, no conservative is racist or sexist. We get accused of it because we don’t give special treatment to blacks and women, but then, we also insist that giving someone a college scholarship or a job purely because of the color of his skin is racist, regardless of what that color may be. Not hitting someone with jail time because they killed a man and had sex with a little boy just because she was born with ovaries is sexist. Objecting to hiring practices designed to ensure a 50/50 male/female split, including passing over a perfectly qualified individual just because he doesn’t have breasts? That’s not sexist.

        Every “boys’ club” community I’ve ever seen, whether it be gamers, engineers, shooters, or car enthusiasts, has been universally accepting and encouraging of women. If any chauvanist got caught making light of a woman in the group just for being a woman in my social circles, he’d have been tossed out so fast he’d get whiplash. But if we’re going to consider you “one of the guys,” you’re going to be held to the same standards as “one of the guys.” We won’t make fun of you for being a woman in a stereotypically male field, but we also won’t give you a free pass for it either.

        And frankly I’ve seen more women try to get into boys’ clubs based purely on their merits of having boobs than I have men who try to make women feel anything but unwelcome.

        1. clockworkgremlin – unlike you who posts under the veil of anonymity, I post here and write elsewhere under my own name. So your comment “as far as I can tell,” like your name-calling in place of argument, only reveals your own intellectual laziness. Which is fine. I don’t judge you for that. You wear it well.

          1. Yeah, I’ve seen what feminists do to someone they don’t like if they can dox them. I don’t need that in my life.

            Nice job trying to get me to doxx myself. Your self-righteous holier-than-thou attitude doesn’t look good on anyone, though.

        2. Well one day I hope you have the budget. My biggest fear in going out on my own as a gun maker is that I don’t have some flashy tactical hook.

          I want, for example, a commander size 1911 in 10mm that won’t shoot itself to death. I believe it can be done by selecting the right materials, heat treats, and manufacturing technologies. I want to bring automotive 6 sigma practice to guns, which would give hand fit accuracy and finish at Glock pricing – think about how cheap but reliable a Toyota sedan is.

          This come from years of experience in engineering and manufacturing, and is cool to me. But how do I make that cool to Captain Mall Ninja McTacticalpants?

  3. Part of me feels a slight “thou doth protest too much , J kb”.

    There’s some straw men being raised by J Kb. After reading David Yamane’s post, I did not get the impression Kathy Jackson was implying that “gun culture hates women.” Kathy Jackson’s post was very specific in that she felt that women were treated as guests but not family. That’s far from hate, and it acknowledges that she knows gun folks are doing their best to try to make women feel welcome at the range and in classes (insomuch as being guests, though). You even began the post this way in acknowledging you understood Jackson’s post to that extent — so I don’t understand the need to go with the “hate” hyperbole!

    Look, I get your point too J. Kb. We as guys are trying our best, but you know, sometimes we let little things slip like those bikini-girl calendars and stuff. It doesn’t mean we’re sexist or misogynist. But that wasn’t what Mrs Jackson was saying either.

    I feel we should welcome Mrs Jackson’s critiques with an open mind and open heart. Instead of having a knee-jerk reaction saying “hey gals, stop complaining about us guys!”, try to step back and think for a moment “ok, does what she say have merit?” If it has merit, then what can we as a gun community do better so that women don’t just buy their first firearm, but continue to train and have a passion for the second amendment? Remember, Mrs Jackson’s critiques about gun culture was about making women feel as part of a family and not just guests.

    We can ignore her advice at our own peril, especially at a time when more women are getting their foot in the doorway when it comes to guns.

    1. I want Ms. Jackson to be part of the family.

      But when I got married, I didn’t get rid of all my stuff my wife didn’t approve of. She moved in her stuff, some of it I didn’t like.

      I want women to bring in their stuff. I want ladies to have kydex parities in their homes and drink wine and swap holsters, or build ARs from parts kits, or do whatever else they want to do.

      There is room for more under the umbrella.

      1. This has been a great discussion, thanks guys but I think you need to hear a little bit from the distaff side. It’s already been pointed out that nobody said that “Gun Culture 2.0 hates women” so I won’t go there but I believe what Kathy was trying to say about Impostor Syndrome and feeling like a guest in the gun culture are very real concerns for women. It rankles me when our concerns are poo-pooed, minimized and compared to “micro-agressions.

        Let me preface all this, since I don’t know you, J.JB, that I am even older than Kathy Jackson. Holy crap, I have children older than you. I guess I am not really Gun Culture 2.0 by a long shot but I have only been actively shooting for the last 20 or so years. I’m not the kind of girly-girl who has a pretty manicure and feel more comfortable hanging out with the guys most of the time.

        Most all of the men I know in the shooting world are wonderful friends and I think the world of them.

        But…I have had quite a few experiences that make me feel like a “guest” in your boy’s club. (I have been a “guest” in boys clubs and I do know how it feels but that’s not important right now)

        I would like to give you a few examples:

        1. My sig-other and I travel around the country most of the year. In these travels we stop at new and exciting gun stores. I like to try a little experiment when we go to a new shop. I will go in first and start looking around, he will wait outside while he smokes a cigarette and then comes in. I like to see the actions of the store staff, sometimes they ask if they can help me, sometimes they will ignore me and when he walks in they ask if they can help him, sometimes they will ignore us both.

        2. At the NRA annual meeting I went to the booth of a well known holster company, I have some of their holsters and wanted to buy one for a gift for a new shooter. I stood at the front of the booth looking at holsters, picking them up and trying to make eye contact with the guys in the booth but to no avail. A man walked up and immediately one of the booth dudes engaged him in conversation.

        3. Last summer I gave a range command to a male student on the firing line, I told him to wait for the command before he reloaded, now this is a class I help teach almost every weekend. He then motioned over to the man who was hosting the class and told him what I had instructed him to do and asked the host if this was really what he was supposed to do.

        4. At the end of the class there is a live fire qualification test, first the staff shoot the qual, to show the students how it’s done and then the students shoot the qual. I beat a male staff member on the staff run and he made a point in not only telling me that he had a better group and would have beat my target in his practice run but he went through the trouble of digging up that target to show it to me.

        So yeah, some of these guys are just dicks, like the ones who ignore both of us in the first example, but the others are the ones who make us feels like “Impostors” or “Guests.”

        1. Well #4 is an idiot for sure. Biophysiologically, shooting sports favor women over men, because womens’ bodies are better tuned for fine motor control and precision, vs. mens’ bodies which are tuned more for raw brute strength.

          You don’t need a lot of brute strength to shoot a gun.

  4. There’s a thing I’ve seen on the interwebs when someone ask what gun they should get for the little lady. Inevitably someone will assert that wimmin are too dumb and weak to operate semi-autos.

    1. Don’t assume the trolls speak for everyone. They aim to make the group look bad, even if they don’t actually believe any of the things they’re saying.

      In fact, I would wager most trolls don’t believe the things they’re saying. Most trolls don’t really believe in anything. And unlike your typical egotist, that includes themselves.

      Otherwise they wouldn’t be seeking validation by tearing down strangers from the safety of a keyboard.

      1. That bit of well meaning advice is less “Troll” and more general guncounter derp.

        And don’t get me started on the idiots who thing that a gal’s best, first intro to shooting is a .500 S&W or similar beast.

        1. I actually addressed that this past weekend when my family gave one of my sister’s friends her first shooting experience.

          My dad thought it would be OK to start her on his .380 pistol. I was fairly insistent that it should be a .22lr rifle.

          She had a great time.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick. Also, You can use html code to decorate your comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.