[Glenn E. Meyer]

Here, here - Pax. To Azak, you again avoided the issue and my reply.

Maybe I will say it slowly.

Critical incidents occur in crowded environments.

I gave an example of such to show what could happen.

Moves are being made to allow carry at schools.

Some have been successful.

There are other crowded environments.

Thus, if I was at a crowded church or mall or business - where I could carry - and a rampage broke out, I opine that I have the responsibility to make a reasonable attempt to have the skills not to screw up there.

That easy enough for the crowd?

Denial of this responsibility to be competent, as Pax laid it out, is saying more to me that you don't want to be challenged or bothered to attempt to have competence than anything else. The reason could be financial or personal (fear of failure). It is being couched in pseudo-philosophical terms.

Aaron - get off it - no one is dictating your moral level. You can reach some moral plane or wallow in the depths of immorality by your own choice. But don't expect us to close this or not express our opinions because you don't like the argument. You are free to leave it. So that's baloney.

And I will say it - if you are going to use an instrument of lethal force in a manner that may harm innocents, if you don't try to achieve some competency, you are less moral than those who do. Take it or leave it.

I once went to a meeting and one psychologist sat next to another. The first had the latest journal. Some old toot next to him, said: Oh, I haven't read one of those in years.

Guess what new studies have found new treatments. Shown that some old ones don't work. Old toot was immoral for not keeping his training up to date as he could hurt innocent clients. Extend that to fire, police, EMTs, MDs, who keep up.

Empirically, those with training do better in critical incidents. Deny that evidence if you want to.

If you only act in isolation, go ahead - shoot paper at 7 yards. If you say, that you will never use a firearm in that critical incident but flee, fine.

If you say that you will try to use it and you don't at least try to be competent in that stress level and dynamic environment, you have lost a moral step up.

I don't think it is immoral to flee. That's a good choice. Go for it. But if you act - you should be competent.

Last thought - the term voluntary as I explained before was to mean that we were not talking about a government mandate for a permit or license. But a course of action that I think should be made by your own choice. Should - Understand that?