Things Not to Live By
- Thread starter Kleanbore
- Start date
- Status
Trunk Monkey
member
Until those 12 find you guilty and send you to prison for the rest of your life
I agree. They are. When a firearm is constantly cocked, once loaded, you can't monitor the firing mechanism, and the only "safety" is also on the trigger, big surprise! You're going to have a ND Syndrome named after your gun.
One issue with "debunking" truisms and "assumptions", is the deceptive well of time-losing enlightenment this creates. In order to function, normally, and in a timely manner, we accept partially unclear or untrue truisms and assumptions, all day, every day.
Without these pseudo-factoids, to provide us with a functional perspective on the "real" world, we would never make it out of bed, in the morning, thru the day, successfully, or back into bed, at night.
Last edited:
Any facts to back that up?
RetiredUSNChief
Member
I've lost track...have we covered "racking a 12 gauge pump shotgun will scare the bad guys away" trope yet?
Yup. People who believe the "judged by twelve" fantasy aren't familiar with life in a supermax.
Otoh, if your choice is dead or relying on the legal system to get it right, go with the option where you are not dead. The problem with the saying is that it implies there are only two extreme choices, and that is probably not the case most of the time.
The real problem is that it is often used to imply that legality is not really somthing to consider.
Offhand McFlan
Member
Once I read about a guy who shot himself in the leg in his car while driving to the range. I was correct in my first guess that he was carrying a 1911.
Offhand McFlan
Member
People who hear things go *bump* in the night and go investigate feel more secure with a light attached to a picatinny rail. Personally I think it says to the Shadow Man, "Here I am. Shoot right at this light and you'll score a hit!"
Offhand McFlan
Member
Sights. I think some people place way too much emphasis on expensive high tech sights for SD/EDC weapons. If you think youll usually have time to even use sights in the conventional sense, youre probably being very unrealistic. However, in a combat situation Id say the exact opposite. In a real surprise SD situation people end up shooting around the side of a Coca Cola cooler in a convneiece store as they try to keep their vitals protected, or the same if they see a man with a gun sneaking up on them while they sit in their car eating lunch in a park. Awesome sights are great if youre on the offensive or pinning down some bank robbers. I certainly would like to have them on some of my guns but just not necessarily the one I carry concealed for self-defense.
I suspect he was fiddling with his firearm. It is not a toy.
So often the negligent action that causes a ND.
In fairness this is a valid argument for rkba when the nanny state thinks you must pass so many hours of training before you are permitted to exercise your right.
The fact that millions of defensive gun uses are simply brandishing with no shots fired is valid evidence.
that in no way means individuals shouldn’t avail themselves of formal training.
I think this discussion would benefit from more granular definition.
There are classes that teach you how to shoot and there are classes that teach you how to fight. A cop is probably a really poor choice for the former. Reasonable people can disagree about the latter, but I personally think very few were in the late pat Rogers’ league. It wasn’t any sort of “seeing the elephant “ bs that made his classes great though. It was the way he continually collected knowledge from previous engagements by his students and others and updated what he taught. “Best practices”.
perhaps and I’d agree that’s suboptimal. But if you utter that phrase because you decide to go armed in some place the gov has infringed on your rights, I prob won’t fault you.
If you live in London and have to shoot an intruder who was trying to kill you with a gun you couldn’t legally possess, idk what to tell you. Life sucks sometimes.
Last edited:
Old Dog
Member
Three states that I know of - mine (Washington), Indiana and (I believe) Pensylvania -- do not require ANY training in order to get a CPL/CHL/CCW license. I suspect (and some research has borne this out) that one will find that these states see no more firearms misuse negligent discharges or criminal action
by license-holders than the states that require training.
And I can tell you for certain that up here, large numbers of CPL-holders with zero training have successfully defended home, hearth and family, with or without having to actually fire any shots.
And I can tell you for certain that up here, large numbers of CPL-holders with zero training have successfully defended home, hearth and family, with or without having to actually fire any shots.
I'd like to read that research. Do you have a citation?
bdickens
Member
Jesus Christ! What's the matter with people? No one can make a statement any more without someone demanding "a citation" to "prove" it.
The information is readily available and less than 5 minutes on Google will turn it up.
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=concealed+carry+permit+holders+crime+rates
Hell, here in Texas, the DPS does the work for you: https://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/LTC/reports/convrates.htm
The information is readily available and less than 5 minutes on Google will turn it up.
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=concealed+carry+permit+holders+crime+rates
Hell, here in Texas, the DPS does the work for you: https://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/LTC/reports/convrates.htm
Those do not address the qustion.
They compare license holders with the population at large.
The question was about the impact of a requirement for the training of license holders.
Thibaut
Member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2019
- Messages
- 310
I am laughing. Thank you. Wait.......do I have to send you a photo of me laughing?
bdickens
Member
The bold help?
Help what?
Old Dog
Member
Feel free to peruse the research, but I'm not gonna do your work for you. Start by typing in "www.google.com"
You do know that Pennsylvania, one of four states with more than 1 million license holders, requires no training?
… and Indiana, also requires no training, has the second highest percentage of license holders in the country?
… and 16 states have no requirement for licensing (constitutional carry), hence no requirement for training?
… and then there's Washington, the senior shall-issue state in the country, requiring no training, where you claim to reside ...
It's actually pretty easy to extrapolate the data, even without a calculator. Hint: the FBI has also done a lot of work for you.
Byron,
Actually, in this age of rampant misinformation (claims made in belief they are true, but are in fact in error or misunderstood) and disinformation (claims made with full knowledge that they are untrue, or made in an intentionally misleading way), yes it is the claimant's job to back up the statement. While we all should be wary of both forms of "fake news (mis- and dis-), the first place to check is to ask the claimant where the claim came from.
As a researcher and academic, I have to have quality sources for all of my professional statements. I'm used to doing my own research. And I also have a healthy distrust of some of the self-proclaimed "fact checkers" running around.
Still, your comment leads me to believe you consider every request for source or background is accusatory. That is not the case. Most often, when we ask for the information it is because we want to learn more on the topic, and figure the claimant has the first place to look at hand.
bdickens
Member
As a researcher and academic, you are also no doubt aware that some things are considered "common knowledge" and do not require a citation. Now, it's been a couple of weeks since I've been in school, but I believe that anything out of an encyclopedia or textbook fall into that category. I suppose that the first page of a Google search would as well.
You are no doubt also aware that for a specialist in a certain field, much more counts as "common knowledge" than for the general public.
This seems to me to be a specialist audience.
You are no doubt also aware that for a specialist in a certain field, much more counts as "common knowledge" than for the general public.
This seems to me to be a specialist audience.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
