ConditionThree
State Pioneer
imported post
Ridiculous hypotheticals aside, there were two other things that chapped my hide.
1) Is the scoffing after Mike made his statements. It wasnt sufficient to be insulting, but they also disrespected Mike in a nonverbal rebuttal which said to listeners- "I think this is steeewpid..."
2) The interviewer repeatedly brought up training. To use his car analogy, just how much training is required before someone is given a license to drive? I recall drivers ed here in California and we spent like half a semester in the classroom and about 30 minutes behind the wheel with the instructor. So- if we were to adhere to this mans equivilency analogy then we would spend three months in a classroom and touch off 100 rounds of ammunition -- and then it would be satisfactory for him?
Probably not, as he then brought up the fact that policemen have to go through hours and hours of training and also must requalify. Policemen are required to requalify, retrain, and learn new gun laws and tactics constantly. Do armed citizens have to possess the same knowledge andtactical abilities a policeman has? While it would be nice, the answer is no.
This issue of training with the interviewer is just another means to limit ownership and use of firearms by anyone other than police. How many hours of training should be required? 40 hours? 100 hours? 1,000 hours? And then how frequently should requalifying occur? Every 5 years? Once a year? Every 6 months? And who accredits training? A localapproved firearms school? A State regulated school? A State Academy staffed by civil servants? All of these things can be used to eliminate average people from carrying firearms.
Is some training necessary? Yes- but we arent training cops...and safe gun handling hasnt changed one iota since I began carrying mine nearly 15 years ago.
Ridiculous hypotheticals aside, there were two other things that chapped my hide.
1) Is the scoffing after Mike made his statements. It wasnt sufficient to be insulting, but they also disrespected Mike in a nonverbal rebuttal which said to listeners- "I think this is steeewpid..."
2) The interviewer repeatedly brought up training. To use his car analogy, just how much training is required before someone is given a license to drive? I recall drivers ed here in California and we spent like half a semester in the classroom and about 30 minutes behind the wheel with the instructor. So- if we were to adhere to this mans equivilency analogy then we would spend three months in a classroom and touch off 100 rounds of ammunition -- and then it would be satisfactory for him?
Probably not, as he then brought up the fact that policemen have to go through hours and hours of training and also must requalify. Policemen are required to requalify, retrain, and learn new gun laws and tactics constantly. Do armed citizens have to possess the same knowledge andtactical abilities a policeman has? While it would be nice, the answer is no.
This issue of training with the interviewer is just another means to limit ownership and use of firearms by anyone other than police. How many hours of training should be required? 40 hours? 100 hours? 1,000 hours? And then how frequently should requalifying occur? Every 5 years? Once a year? Every 6 months? And who accredits training? A localapproved firearms school? A State regulated school? A State Academy staffed by civil servants? All of these things can be used to eliminate average people from carrying firearms.
Is some training necessary? Yes- but we arent training cops...and safe gun handling hasnt changed one iota since I began carrying mine nearly 15 years ago.