Not exactly, but no set of requirements applies to all.
Every set of requirements, whether it’s the result of an individual deciding what matters to them, a police department hiring a consultant to write something up, or a military spending a decade in endless committees, is a statement of opinion. “This is what I think matters, based on the things I think are important.”
Equally rational, intelligent, and educated people can reach very different conclusions due to differences in values. Even when a requirement is based on some empirical research, it is a values expression because the choice of what types of empirical information to include and how much weight to give it is, again, a matter of subjective values.
There is nothing wrong with that. It’s just the nature of life. The problem comes when people start thinking that their opinion has some objective reality because it aligns so nicely with their values. That’s a mistake of reasoning.
I do not know anyone who has availed themself of realistic defensive shooting training, up to and including FoF training, who believes that a five shot capacity firearm would be desirable for primary carry. This subject has been discussed here ad nauseam over the years.
Primary carry for what, where? Your definition of “primary carry” appears to be limited to one context (the one that is personally relevant to you), but the world is a wide and wonderful place. It is naive to think that your idea of “primary” would be relevant outside your specific context.
I have never mentioned morality, nor have I alluded to it. How did you come up with that?
I have not discussed "good and bad"--only what realistically applies to what.
Again, if it wasn’t your intent, consider adjusting your writing style.
But: when a person simplifies a complex problem down to a part that can fit in a conversation, and says “this is important to me”, they aren’t showing that the problem is simple. Rather, the are demonstrating/expressing their values. The problem remains as complex as it ever was.
When someone has done that, and another person comes along and says, “I never think about that, the important bit is this one over here,” well, we clearly haven’t changed anything about the problem. We just have a values conflict. There are now two “right answers” derived from analysis of the same objective facts by people with different values. No problem at all.
But when that second person then goes on to say things along the lines of, “I know of nobody who has had the kind of training I respect and is willing to express a different opinion in my presence!”, well, it creates the impression that it is more than a simple values difference. It is being treated as moral issue. The person doesn’t see it as a difference between several valid opinions, but as a good opinion vs. a bad opinion. That makes it a moral position, whether the moralist acknowledges it as such or not.
Also, pro tip: saying you don’t know anyone who <something >... immediately raises the specter of people saying they, “don’t know any homosexuals”. Whether you are right or wrong in your assessments of other people’s private beliefs, readers will question whether the actual issue is that you make it clear that you won’t accept divergence, so the people who disagree just don’t talk to you about certain things.
