why i shoot

“The wheel keeps on turnin’, Badger.”
“That only matters to the people on the rim.”
In a fit of karmic coincidence, I happened to answer Roberta X’s question almost two years ago, and almost a year before that too, and in a comment that was never published.
Quick-and-dirty recap, though: relaxation/entertainment, personal/familial/societal responsibility, because it is my inalienable right / because I can, self-defense, equalizing agent, education, etc.
As a random aside, though, in the chronologically most-distant post, I said:

That said, I see no reason for civilians to own fully automatic weapons, nor any weapon capable of projecting an explosive warhead. That goes a fair pace beyond even the limits of self-defense. But rifles, shotguns, pistols, carbines, derringers, and whatever else you can manufacture in semi-automatic, single-action, or whatever else modes? Have at it. Variety is the spice of life.

Over the years, however, my perspectives and thoughts have changed. While I did not say this particular word, “need” should not factor into any person’s ownership of any particular item, ever. At this time, I have absolutely no problems with the civilian ownership of fully-automatic weapons, and I did not have a problem with that even before having a chance to shoot one at GBRIII. To quote Anthroblogogy, “Those things are the best and quickest way to turn a lot of money into a lot of noise.” Objects that project explosive warheads, however… while they would be undeniably fun, they definitely fail the “common use” clause of the recent historic Supreme Court ruling, as well as possibly a few other aspects of society’s balance. At this point, I do not think I would rule them out completely, but controlling them carefully is within the realm of possibility for me.
Huh. I guess it just goes to show that people’s opinions do change over time.