(October 23, 2020 at 2:18 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: OLB, you in favor of training for people with guns?

Toilet?

Given that way too many carriers when up in the shitter, yet, that's a start.

"Giving someone firearm training" is about as specific as "getting you some religion".

It depends who is defining it. Nancy Pelosi and Carlos Hathcock would give very different answers.


You will have to be specific.

(October 23, 2020 at 2:54 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: "Giving someone firearm training" is about as specific as "getting you some religion".

It depends who is defining it. Nancy Pelosi and Carlos Hathcock would give very different answers.


You will have to be specific.

Combat small arms training, then. My thought is that most people who carry aren't qualified to carry even after completing the locally required training courses. I know places where you can get your CCL by just paying the fee. And even if they've done the training there's still the issue of "will they shoot? Will they choose the right target? Will the person on their right mistake them for the active shooter? Will any of the stray rounds hit a perambulator?"

(October 23, 2020 at 3:09 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(October 23, 2020 at 2:54 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: "Giving someone firearm training" is about as specific as "getting you some religion".

It depends who is defining it. Nancy Pelosi and Carlos Hathcock would give very different answers.


You will have to be specific.

Combat small arms training, then. My thought is that most people who carry aren't qualified to carry even after completing the locally required training courses. I know places where you can get your CCL by just paying the fee. And even if they've done the training there's still the issue of "will they shoot? Will they choose the right target? Will the person on their right mistake them for the active shooter? Will any of the stray rounds hit a perambulator?"

No. That is not the right type of training for a civilian in a CCW situation. CSAT is for COMBAT - not self defense.

(October 16, 2020 at 5:19 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: I never have seen any good reason for open carry - except for hunting. In that situation you need to be able to access your weapon as quietly as possible - frequently in a hurry.

If you are carrying a gun for self protection - carrying it concealed makes more sense tactically. Why give an opponent a heads-up by carrying openly? They now know what you have - and where you have it.


Walking around with a gun on your hip is a bit like walking around with your dick sticking out... Now nobody is going to be shocked when you whip it out....

So personally I have no problem with banning open carry at polling places.


And keep your pants zipped fer crissakes.

I see no damned good reason for concealed carry either, unless you have a job, like a security guard, armed money transport truck, PI, or body guard or bounty hunter. 

But as usual you will stupidly jump to thinking I am calling for a ban on all firearms. 

It is a bullshit myth inside your house or even out in public, that stranger on stranger gun conflicts are the majority of gun violence.

You are far more likely to be injured or killed in your own home by your own stupidity by accident, or by someone you know. 

And in the event in a public setting where police are called, carrying a gun, even if you are honest, will slow police down because they don't know who you are and they cant blindly assume anything when coming upon a shooting event.

And if we all agree we want police safe, and want them to go home alive at the end of their shift, then it is stupid to simply flood the market with more guns. More guns in public has lead to the long term "shoot first" training we far too often see.

If one wants a gun for home protection, fine. If they want a gun for hunting, again fine. But if one stupidly thinks "no record" at time of purchase means the person buying it won't go on to hurt themselves or others, is bat shit insane.

It is a myth that only criminals get guns. Most suicides, domestic murders, and accidental deaths start out with a person with no record who legally buys the firearm. 

And I have never gotten a good answer from you OLB. I suffer from depression and anxiety. Do you think I should own a firearm?

(October 23, 2020 at 3:14 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(October 23, 2020 at 3:09 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Combat small arms training, then. My thought is that most people who carry aren't qualified to carry even after completing the locally required training courses. I know places where you can get your CCL by just paying the fee. And even if they've done the training there's still the issue of "will they shoot? Will they choose the right target? Will the person on their right mistake them for the active shooter? Will any of the stray rounds hit a perambulator?"

No. That is not the right type of training for a civilian in a CCW situation. CSAT is for COMBAT - not self defense.

CSAT is a higher level of training, yes? (I won't be back to this until tomorrow, Boss Lady want to get familiar with my face again.)

And as far as banning weapons at polling places, I am so sick of firearm worshipers bitching about regulations. Regulations are not bans.

Nursing homes ban firearms and why? The don't want family members handing firearms to patients so they can end their pain. If you want to end your life to end the pain, that is fine, but a pill or needle is far less messy than shooting yourself.

Airports, nobody bitches about that. 

Capital Hill bans firearms, nobody bitches about that.

And even Wayne La Pee Dipshit said allowing firearms in bars was a bad idea. For once I agreed with him. I mean a drunk person and firearms, what could possibly go wrong?

The only reason the assholes on the right want to open carry at polling places is to intimidate people.

(October 23, 2020 at 4:21 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(October 23, 2020 at 3:14 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: No. That is not the right type of training for a civilian in a CCW situation. CSAT is for COMBAT - not self defense.

CSAT is a higher level of training, yes? (I won't be back to this until tomorrow, Boss Lady want to get familiar with my face again.)

No it is not. It is a different type of training - unsuitable for a civilian carrying in civilian capacity.

It's like a 747 pilot jumping into a taildragger like a Piper Cub - if he has never been checked out and learned it - he is very likely to get into trouble - as they require different skill sets.

---

And Brian - I cannot stress how very little I care that you disapprove of my choice to carry a gun legally.

Nor do the legislators in my state.

Your opinion does not affect the reality at hand.

I am licensed. I may carry.


Boo hoo to you..

(October 23, 2020 at 5:23 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(October 23, 2020 at 4:21 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: CSAT is a higher level of training, yes? (I won't be back to this until tomorrow, Boss Lady want to get familiar with my face again.)

No it is not. It is a different type of training - unsuitable for a civilian carrying in civilian capacity.

It's like a 747 pilot jumping into a taildragger like a Piper Cub - if he has never been checked out and learned it - he is very likely to get into trouble - as they require different skill sets.

---

And Brian - I cannot stress how very little I care that you disapprove of my choice to carry a gun legally.

Nor do the legislators in my state.

Your opinion does not affect the reality at hand.

I am licensed. I may carry.


Boo hoo to you..

DAMN IT MAN, WILL YOU STOP FALSELY ACCUSING ME ABOUT MAKING THIS ABOUT YOU PERSONALLY.

This is about collective societal attitudes.

In a perfect world, if we didn't have the amount of firearm violence we do, I wouldn't be bitching. But we do not live in a perfect world and we do have a extremely high and needlessly high rate of firearm violence.

Now again, and you still have yet to answer me. DO YOU think I should be allowed to own a firearm? YES OR NO?