In fact what I stated is I’d be fine with that should you like that to be the case. I’m up to meeting any standard and then some currently. If I decide I’m not I’ll forgo carrying.
At some point I’ll have to as, like with driving, I’ll likely age out if I live long enough.
I’m smart enough to know that.
Got evidence to the contrary? Perhaps you stopped reading the research after you came across that cherry?
You are misquoting me. I said I held what I was speaking to as a minimum standard and I confirmed to it. I didn’t say that minimum was my highest level of proficiency or it was all I was capable of.So you're fine with meeting any standard, because you exceed them all! Wow. Earlier you said you exemplified the minimum standard. But not only that...you'll decide if you meet the standard.
This is why your continued reference to yourself as a standard bearer can't be taken seriously.
Of course you don't, you've obviously acquired all the knowledge you're ever going to need. That's the case with all close-minded individuals.I don't need to read research to know that it's a meaningless statement.
I am on record here and elsewhere that I have no problem with anyone carrying concealed who meets or exceeds the requirements I hold myself to for that purpose...You are misquoting me.
I said I held what I was speaking to as a minimum standard and I confirmed to it. I didn’t say that minimum was my highest level of proficiency or it was all I was capable of.
I, again, am not holding myself out as a standard. I am using myself as an example. Not the same thing. A standard sets a mark. An example shows a standard can be met.
Of course you don't, you've obviously acquired all the knowledge you're ever going to need. That's the case with all close-minded individuals.
You're just repeating yourself. Try answering my question -Here's a key piece of knowledge I have: Your source says "may increase."
No, it's not. And we are not having a policy discussion because we are not policy makers.That's meaningless in any policy discussion.
Prove it. The above is just an unsubstantiated opinion otherwise, a massive stretch based on the journal article's actual research which states -And that's without pointing out that this conclusion is a massive stretch based on the source's actual contents.
I am on record here and elsewhere that I have no problem with anyone carrying concealed who meets or exceeds the requirements I hold myself to for that purpose...
And:
I was suggesting my level as minimums.
That's convenient, since it is unsupported and you claimed you can meet ANY standard. The most proficient pistolero in the world, we must assume.
Yeah yeah...and you can meet ANY standard. The above that I quoted seems to indicate you consider yourself both standard and example.
But we can test. Are there people with a lot less training and experience than yourself that are qualified to carry concealed firearms for their self defense? For example...I make no claims to engaging in gun battles. I've got exactly zero law enforcement experience. My military training never really covered any practical use of firearms I wasn't already aware of, so I guess you could say I also have nothing in the way of official instruction that means anything. I must admit that I have carried firearms though. Anyway, I consider that I am qualified to carry a concealed firearm, if that was my desire.
I'm thinking that might not meet the lofty standards you set, though.
I don’t see that as non-com-statements and I doubt anyone else would. If they did even they would say it’s picking at dust.
Misquoting me again. What I said precisely is I think I could raise my skills to any reasonable standard i wasn’t;t at already and if I couldn’t I am fine with giving up carrying my sidearm as I know that day will come sometime due to aging if I live long enough.
...any standard and then some...Any reasonable one. Look, believe anything you care to. Means nothing to me, because it isn’t required it should. Same the other way about. Nothing I think shouldn’t matter to you, and I’m pretty sure it doesn’t.
I’m not reinventing the wheel here. There is nothing I’ve suggested that isn’t practical common sense.
Can you pass a mental health and criminal history screening?
Do you know how to safely store your weapon so it’s no danger to you or anyone else when it’s not on your person?
Do you know it’s safe operation?
Do you know how to retain it when it’s on your person or in your hand do it can’t be taken from you?
Do you know how to fire it, particularly under duress, so under those conditions you’ll hit what you aim at?
Are you capable of determining before you fire, in real time, what your bullet is going to hit if you miss or the round passes through its target and continues down range?
Are you fully aware of use of force law in the jurisdiction this is taking place in?
Have you insured yourself so if bad things happen and you get sued, and you will be sued, the person or their survivors effected will have resources to make themselves whole, or as much as possible, and you’ll not live under the cloud of liability based forfeiture for the rest of your life?
Like I said, nothing not common sense based there.
I have all of this, because it is common sense if you’re going to carry a lethal device on your person when you are out and about. If you have them as well it is my opinion you are at least minimally prepared to carry a lethal device without being a major risk to yourself and others.
If you don’t have them, it would be my opinion you aren’t prepared. I’d bet if we took a poll most present here would agree with me.
Here's what you said: I’m up to meeting any standard and then some currently.
...any standard and then some...
Unconstitutional subjective criteria so far as "mental health screening". I'm good with a criminal background check for mere possession of guns and motor vehicles.
Unreasonable standard.
When it's loaded, only point it where you want the bullet to go.
Unreasonable standard.
Unreasonable standard, and apparently not a law enforcement standard anyway.
Something else law enforcement officers regularly fail at.
Self defense. Not rocket science. I'll worry about the law after I defend myself or my family from a threat of death or bodily injury.
That's my lookout. Not yours or anyone else. Seems more like a way to keep economically disadvantaged people from having effective self defense capabilities.
Doesn't seem sensible at all. Some of it is pure fantasy.
Oh bullshit. My criticism is way more sensible.
If you think a poll of an anonymous discussion site carries some sort of moral authority, you're sadly mistaken.
Can you name a single place in this country where teachers are allowed to read and teach as they see fit unless it meets the requirements set out by the people in charge of the school.MAGA states want teachers to be armed with a gun but not with the independent choice to read and teach as they see fit unless it dovetails strictly with MAGA and theocratic values.
You're just repeating yourself. Try answering my question -
"Got evidence to the contrary?"
No, it's not. And we are not having a policy discussion because we are not policy makers.
Prove it. The above is just an unsubstantiated opinion otherwise, a massive stretch based on the journal article's actual research which states -
View attachment 67506681
Yes, post your research that states it is not true. The correlation is there my friend. Deny it if you can, but with evidence, not opinionated snark.Evidence to the contrary that something "may" be true? Really?
Are you a policy maker?Oh right, and this isn't a forum for debating politics, or anything like that. This line of thought from you keeps getting more and more bizarre.
My citation is my evidence, you prove it's wrong.Prove the contrary. It's your citation.
Slippery slopes are fallacies.
Slippery slopes are fallacies.
Also why didn't people walk into fort Knox with guns?
That could mean as is or by adding to my skill set. I have room to improve with more learning. So, likely, do you.
I disagree. You know that. I already comply. There have been Constitutional challenges we’ve brought. Some were successful, like fees being charged. Some weren’t, like round limitations.
And again.
If you think that’s the extent of it, you’re a lousy risk, dun;t know enough about shooting under duress, and are dangerous to yourself and others.
Nope.
Your wrong.
Your lucky I don’t have the final say on it. You don’t know half of what is required to make you safe with a ballistic projectile with lethal force. I don’t know if I’d trust you with a Nerf gun. Just my opinion.
I certainly wouldn’t want you carrying a gun on my former job covering my six. You’re just arguing to argue. I doubt you even hold with much of what you’re putting forth. I’m done.
Anyway… have a good night.
I see, so your definition of "safe" is "100% safe" and, of course, you are 100% safe from being gunned down by some nut with a whine in the US - right?Thus, you are not safe, you just feel safe.
Thus, you are not safe, you just feel safe.
If you think that American elections are "... free, fair, open, and honest elections which are not manipulated by the party in power in order to perpetuate their grasp on power regardless of their degree of popular support." then you haven't been paying attention.Nonsense.
Show me the place in the constitution of the United States of America where American citizens have the constitutional right to "... right to enter, remain in and leave ..." the United States of America.What makes you think that? Al I need is the proper ID.
And, by and large, they fail to do so.In the US, the states can choose to restore felons voting rights.
Strangely enough I do have the "right to own a gun". Not only that, but I would have that right if I was 80 years old and had committed a felony when I was 19 years old. In the United States of America I would NOT have that right even if I was 80 years old and hadn't committed a crime of any nature since I had been convicted of "felony embezzlement" when I was 19 years old.You do not have a right to own a gun, you have a privilege granted to you by the state.
Indeed, you would be quite correct IF I had never paid into the medicalcare insurance pool myself. You do understand how insurance works, don't you? You do realize that, if you take out a $1,000,000 fire insurance policy and your house burns down the day after your policy comes into effect (because you have paid your first premium) you are "forcing" every other policy holder to pay for your burned down house, don't you?That's not a right, it's a privilege given to you by the state; in giving you that privilege, the state forces other people to pay for your medical care.
Quite frankly, no rational person wants to be able to walk around armed to the teeth and dressed like an extra in a third-rate movie about mercenaries.True. You have the privilege, as you have no right to a firearm.
If I choose to delegate that power to the government then, yes it does.Just so long as you understand the state cannot make such a requirement.
And sometimes it'sSome questions are not worth the bother.
View attachment 67506609
Political cartoons are not "Spam", this is -
View attachment 67506607
By my calculation, the current "whackdoodle right" position is that there should be a minimum of three armed persons (the teacher and two guards [the guards to prevent either the other guard or the teacher "going postal"] in every classroom PLUS a fully equipped SWAT team in each school (in order to deal with situations where the three armed guards in the classroom have all "gone postal" [or been gunned down by either the kids or an intruder]).
Personally I'm opposed to "concealed carry" and don't think that anyone should be allowed to carry a concealed gun.I don’t see that as non-com-statements and I doubt anyone else would. If they did even they would say it’s picking at dust.
Misquoting me again. What I said precisely is I think I could raise my skills to any reasonable standard i wasn’t;t at already and if I couldn’t I am fine with giving up carrying my sidearm as I know that day will come sometime due to aging if I live long enough.
Any reasonable one. Look, believe anything you care to. Means nothing to me, because it isn’t required it should. Same the other way about. Nothing I think shouldn’t matter to you, and I’m pretty sure it doesn’t.
I’m not reinventing the wheel here. There is nothing I’ve suggested that isn’t practical common sense.
Can you pass a mental health and criminal history screening?
Do you know how to safely store your weapon so it’s no danger to you or anyone else when it’s not on your person?
Do you know it’s safe operation?
Do you know how to retain it when it’s on your person or in your hand do it can’t be taken from you?
Do you know how to fire it, particularly under duress, so under those conditions you’ll hit what you aim at?
Are you capable of determining before you fire, in real time, what your bullet is going to hit if you miss or the round passes through its target and continues down range?
Are you fully aware of use of force law in the jurisdiction this is taking place in?
Have you insured yourself so if bad things happen and you get sued, and you will be sued, the person or their survivors effected will have resources to make themselves whole, or as much as possible, and you’ll not live under the cloud of liability based forfeiture for the rest of your life?
Like I said, nothing not common sense based there. I have all of this, because it is common sense if you’re going to carry a lethal device on your person when you are out and about. If you have them as well it is my opinion you are at least minimally prepared to carry a lethal device without being a major risk to yourself and others.
If you don’t have them, it would be my opinion you aren’t prepared. I’d bet if we took a poll most present here would agree with me.
Kinda like gun registration is the first step to gun confiscation?Slippery slopes are fallacies.
Perhaps we should turn all of our schools into little Fort Knox's? Want to include high fencing topped with razor wire around our schools? How about manned gun towers? That might have stopped the Uvalde school massacre right?Also why didn't people walk into fort Knox with guns?
Kinda like gun registration is the first step to gun confiscation?
Perhaps we should turn all of our schools into little Fort Knox's? Want to include high fencing topped with razor wire around our schools? How about manned gun towers? That might have stopped the Uvalde school massacre right?
Your question is ludicrous my friend. Put more thought into the next one.
Personal attacks, and "Nuh-uh" arguments.
Let's look at just one of your supposed standards.
Do you know how to retain it when it’s on your person or in your hand do it can’t be taken from you?
Where's the standard? Surely you don't mean in the absolute sense implied in your statement. That's unreasonable and unrealistic. So where's the standard?
The absolute implication of what you wrote might not be of importance to someone who claims he can meet or exceed ANY standard, but mere mortals might be less perfect.
Personally I'm opposed to "concealed carry" and don't think that anyone should be allowed to carry a concealed gun.
On the other hand, I do support "open carry" (admittedly with a proviso that any person who has NOT established that it is safe for them to be in possession of guns be required to clearly display visible and auditory notice of the fact that they have not done so and are armed. Something along the lines of
but with full led lighting and the constant sounds of bells ringing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?