To an outside observer, going over the messages that have been presented by both of yourselves, it would appear the both of you are on the same side of the argument, simply at different angles on the matter.
"A woman, or anyone, buying a gun may feel secure, but unless they are trained to use it, it could easily be used against them." Those were his words, not mine. They place us on opposite sides of gun control and the Second Amendment. No thank you. And then he doubts my professional standing and resorts to hurling dung at me via cheap Politicians insults, when he can find no fault in myself and my statements. Sure..... We are on the same side, Snort ! My avatar, Is a picture of me at an accident scene, a school bus and 14 children injured.
Mate? Sorry, I don't swing that way, dude. Try some other guy. LOL. "Nice try and Epic fail" from the dude who just posted this:
Agreed, but "the Dude" seems desperate to rack up a "win" of some sort. He must be in a dry spell. I'd be inclined to give it to him but am presently having too much fun ****ing with him.
I have often found the arguement that a woman is just as, if not more likely to have a gun taken away from them and used against them as both a gender demeaning and a false narrative. First, to my knowledge, there has never been any stats produced to support the arguement, Second, are women somehow more likely than men to have weapon retention problems? Third, are women less likely to use a gun they possess to defend themselves than men? Forth, are, women less likely to seek training than men? Both I, and my better looking half are firearms instructors, both have trained large numbers of women, and the numbers of women acquiring firearms and seeking training have been significantly increasing over the last couple decades. The numbers of single and groups women attending gun shows and patronizing gun shops and ranges has also been significantly increasing, to the point many new products, guns, assessories and attire, have been introduced that specifically target women as well as many ranges providing training venues for women which include things like women’s night, women’s shooting events and women SD instructors. I have trained a large number of people and worked in shops selling firearms in the last few decades and help many select firearms. My experience/observation is that very few people simply acquire a firearm for SD and then never train/shoot with it. Most, women, or men, seek training and understanding from friends, family, or those with experience. If anything, women, more than men are less likely to think they can master a firearm without knowledge or training. Then too, I have known many women that have become crack shots, Annie O’s in their own right, as have both of my girls. The classes at the ranges I work with are always running at capacity. The tired stereotype of women incapable of defending themselves and needing a man for their defense has been more perpetuated by the left, seeking to demonize guns than among gun rights advocates. Their use of the emotional appeals of ‘dead children’ are targeted directly at women voter sympathies. While liberals promote themselves as LGBT, other minority and women’s rights supporters, their irony is current and proposed gun control laws have the effect of being discriminatory against these groups, making them more dependent on their security by the State which, rather than protect them or advocate self sufficiency, sacrifice them to the CAUSE and them blame gun rights acvocates and the NRA bogeymen for any victims that occur to sway their voter base...and ultimately a defenseless population of conformists, victims of liberalism. The State doesn’t protect, it merely cleans up the crime scenes and then seeks the criminals after the damage has been done.
For those who think firearms training is useless: https://gunsafetyrules.nra.org/ https://firearmtraining.nra.org/student-courses/ https://www.policeone.com/police-pr...n-mistakes-in-self-defense-firearms-training/
Based on observations, it is not training itself that is opposed and regarded as useless. Rather it is the notion that such should in any way be made mandatory by government, and a prerequisite before the right can be legally exercised. Such is agreed with, as such an approach would be too easily utilized to prevent firearms ownership, by setting a training standard that is so high it is physically impossible to actually pass the requirements, thus acting as a de facto prohibition without the need to legally enact one. In short, an end run around the constitution. The district of columbia enacted something similar as far as registration over thirty years ago, first by stating that only registered handguns could be owned, and then ending the registration process.
My only comment is that I believe that gun ownership is a right, but all rights require responsible exercise, and pursuing proper training for competency is part of that responsible exercise. However, laws that make getting official training mandatory before you can exercise your right to self-defense are not desirable nor acceptable. In my own case I had almost no formal training before landing my first job that required me to be armed, but through the efforts and mentoring of trusted family I was a far more advanced and skilled of a shooter than the instructors who were supposed to be certifying me to carry for the job. I have sought to pass that along; often helping friends with learning fundamentals and even donating my time to teach people self-defense tactics.
I'm completely against mandatory requirements for rights and even clarified it when Who implied I did.
What is being discussed is the notion that suicide, which is blamed on spontaneous, undetectable, irresistible impulses that trained psychiatrists cannot detect, only come into existence at the moment in time an individual decides to legally purchase a firearm, does not exist at any previous point in time, and then never exists again after the purchase has been completed.
I rather think none of this chatter matters at all, it is merely an escape from the reality that we as a society made peace with gun violence and death in our society long ago. There will be another mass shooting any day now and we'll all repeat the same circular repetitive behavior pattern on cue.
A claim that cannot actually be demonstrated as factual. If such is believed otherwise, then go about proving otherwise.
I had a parrot that for a mere peanut could repeat just about anything, you have managed to beat that parrots record, Conga-rat-u-lations !
