Obviously the day of the amateur is past. You have to be certified, trained, licensed and possibly even badged. Or am I reading your post the wrong way?
You've absolutely read my post(s) the wrong way. I have never once suggested any requirement
to be "certified, trained, licensed and possibly even badged". We have a right to own and carry whatever weapons we see fit for our defense, and I've never said anything to the contrary. This being factually true, it begs the question as to how (or why) you could possibly mis-characterize my statements so badly.
This is the sort of reasoning that ultimately suggests that firearms are much too difficult and dangerous to trust to anyone but professionals.
If I reasoned such as you have suggested, your conclusion would be sensible. Since I haven't at all
, it isn't.
The supposition of the OP seems to be that one with no real training or experience, (and being demonstrably ignorant
of the past 50 years of history), is on equal footing with those better trained and more experienced, to assess what works or what does not in a self-defense encounter. Is there a problem with recognizing that as silly
I'll not for one second suggest that anyone should be required to train to some arbitrary standard of my liking, in order to retain the right to defend themselves. We all have our priorities, and I don't stand in judgement of anyone's personal decisions in this regard. I consider anyone who gains even minimal skill, and carries daily, to be a potential ally and a brother.
I can nonetheless certainly note what should be obvious: some opinions are better informed than others. I resist the suggestion that ignorance is as good as knowledge, that slogans are a substitute for reason, or that an occasional range trip is the same thing as training.