Quote:
|
the point of this thread, and the OP's point, is not that training should be required. It is that getting training is the wise and responsible thing to do.
|
That has also been the thorn in everyone's side in this thread,,,
In that the phrase "
required training" kept (keeps) showing up.
I have read every word (all six pages) of this thread twice now,,,
I'm not sure how anyone would
not have thought the OP was arguing for training requirements before getting a license to carry.
Normally I read every word that a few of the people here care to write,,,
In most cases PAX writes clearly, concisely, and to a definite point.
In this one It took me several readings to decipher exactly what she was advocating.
If I am correct she is simply stating everyone who is carrying a weapon would benefit from advanced training in it's use both physically and tactically.
Now personally I have no problem with that position,,,
My gawsh, it's just common sense to agree,,,
More training = better trained person.
But her arguments on why it's a good thing can also be used to bolster the argument for state mandated training as a requirement for licensure.
There's that danged camel again,,,
trying to get his nose in my danged tent.
Would it not be ironic if an anti-gunner quoted parts of her post as an argument for high levels of required training.
The whole sheepdog versus lone wolf thing is moot in my case,,,
Oklahoma law is very specific as to the fact you are only allowed to defend you and yours.
If you intervene in a situation and get it right you are a hero,,,
DA's, being elected officials, rarely ever prosecute a lawful hero.
But if you intervene and don't get it right,,,
That same DA will hang you out to dry as a vigilante.
PAX' point could be interpreted to mean,,,
That extra high level training could help you to get it right.
But everything being a double-edged sword,,,
I have seen cases here in Oklahoma where that training was used to illustrate that the person was a blood-thirsty vigilante who very much wanted to shoot someone.
Don't jump on me for restating that I am against state mandates for "Required" training,,,
This topic goes hand-in-hand with that danger.
If we start talking about how it's a good thing,,,
The anti-gunners will say "That person is a gun writer and 2nd amendment advocate and that person believes we need to require that training as well."
Very dangerous topic,,,
Full of pitfalls and subtle traps.
.