jcd11235 0 #101 January 23, 2013 QuoteI never stated it was all about shot placement, that is why I qualified the statement with "all other things being equal." In that case, you statement is vacuously true, since all other things are not equal.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #102 January 23, 2013 QuoteQuote Correct. On the other hand, trained individuals with firearms are also banned from these gun free zones. Can you give examples of where cops are required to disarm themselves before entering the premises? I'm not talking about cops. I'm talking about other trained individuals. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #103 January 23, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuote Correct. On the other hand, trained individuals with firearms are also banned from these gun free zones. Can you give examples of where cops are required to disarm themselves before entering the premises? I'm not talking about cops. I'm talking about other trained individuals. Oh, like minimally trained CCW holders? I thought you actually meant well trained individuals. My mistake.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #104 January 23, 2013 Perhaps with your wealth of knowledge you can train CCW holders instead. That way they can shoot themselves in the foot over and over again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #105 January 23, 2013 QuotePerhaps with your wealth of knowledge you can train CCW holders instead. That way they can shoot themselves in the foot over and over again. In my experience, people resort to witless personal attacks when they have no legitimate argument to support their assertions. It appears that you've reached that point. Have a good day.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RMK 3 #106 January 23, 2013 Yes, you'll always be safe with some police training... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw-jTCNZSmY "Pain is the best instructor, but no one wants to attend his classes" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #107 January 23, 2013 Nice try grandpa. Just because some nitwit thinks he can demonstrate firearms safety under the veil of a federal badge doesnt mean shit to me. I've been trained by the best. Not only does my father run the range for all the local sherrifs he used to train their SWAT team on urban tactics. Is it hard to see when your head is stuck up your arse? I wouldnt know. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #108 January 23, 2013 QuoteOh, like minimally trained CCW holders? I thought you actually meant well trained individuals. My mistake. I mean more like, "Trained to the standard that is set." What are cops? Maximally trained? No. They are trained to the minimum standard. Given my history of training a few thousand of the US soldiers, I can tell you that each person or unit either passed or failed. (“Go/No Go”). Marksmanship – you either hit 23 of 40 or you didn’t pass. Those are the minimum qualifications. You either meet the standard or you don’t. (Aside – I was ordered to change the Platoon motto from “We’ve upped our standards, so up yours” after some battalion REMF had a problem with an E-3 salute me and say, “Up yours, sir.” So I am not averse to demanding more than what the standards indicate). Let’s take a look at a driver’s license. Meet the qualifications and you get one – pass fail. Lawyers? Meet the qualifications and get a license – it is pass fail. Doctors are pass fail. Aircraft structural mechanic – pass fail. CCW – pass fail. Airline Transport Pilot – pass fail. A license to skydive – either meet the qualifications of you don’t get qualified. President – be a natural born citizen over the age of 35 and resident of US for fourteen years and you are qualified. (Teddy Roosevelt was 42 when he took office. Did he barely meet the minimum qualifications? No. He was qualified). What you are arguing is that the governments aren’t giving standards that you are happy with. Minimum qualifications being met means “qualified.” You are arguing that “qualified” is not enough. I’m saying that requiring something other than minimum qualifications sets the stage for decisions being arbitrary and capricious. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #109 January 23, 2013 agree, the term "minimum qualifications" is meaningless ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #110 January 23, 2013 As I stated There was no AR rifle used so it is quickly dropping off the news cycle cause is cant help the banners cause The only news I could find easily was local news http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=houston+community+school+shooting&oq=houston+community+school+shooting&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j43i400.3922.14545.0.14733.37.10.1.26.4.1.469.1453.0j2j3j0j1.6.0...0.0...1ac.1.gAkUOHwY2X4 Yes I am sure there is more out there ......."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,632 #111 January 23, 2013 QuoteQuote I bet you think the justice system inherently protects you from violence too, don't you? It does a lot better job of doing so than do civilians carrying concealed weapons. (Yes, I've read John Lott's work. His conclusions regarding CCW effects on crime rates are not justified by the data.) What data? It is well established that Lott fabricated much of his so-called "data".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,632 #112 January 23, 2013 QuoteIve encountered many people in the service industry that I ask them for assistance and they tell me...Oh I'm on break...ask steve. She could have gone home and watched the news instead. I hope you arent a waiter because you seem to be the kind of person that would say youre on break rather than going out of your way to help. I doubt that AggieDave would like your comparison of a trained and sworn LEO to a waiter.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #113 January 25, 2013 QuoteWhat you are arguing is that the governments aren’t giving standards that you are happy with. Minimum qualifications being met means “qualified.” You are arguing that “qualified” is not enough. I’m saying that requiring something other than minimum qualifications sets the stage for decisions being arbitrary and capricious. Yes, I'm saying that the standards for CCW in many states are very low. The idea that there is no substantial difference between a typical CCW holder and a typical off-duty cop, as implied by at least one poster in this thread, is ludicrous.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #114 January 25, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuote I bet you think the justice system inherently protects you from violence too, don't you? It does a lot better job of doing so than do civilians carrying concealed weapons. (Yes, I've read John Lott's work. His conclusions regarding CCW effects on crime rates are not justified by the data.) What data? It is well established that Lott fabricated much of his so-called "data". If the data points with missing data are removed from Lott's data sets, Lott's methods do not show a statistically significant effect of CCW laws and crime. If jurisdictions with CCW laws in place for over seven years are removed from the dataset, then Lott's methodology results in a positive correlation between CCW laws and violent crimes, i.e., jurisdictions with shall issue laws have higher crime rates. The only thing we know for certain about the effects of shall issue laws is that we don't have enough data to understand the effects of shall issue laws. That, of course, raises the question: Why are the NRA so adamantly opposed to research into the effects of guns and gun laws on society?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,345 #115 January 25, 2013 QuoteQuoteWhat you are arguing is that the governments aren’t giving standards that you are happy with. Minimum qualifications being met means “qualified.” You are arguing that “qualified” is not enough. I’m saying that requiring something other than minimum qualifications sets the stage for decisions being arbitrary and capricious. Yes, I'm saying that the standards for CCW in many states are very low. The idea that there is no substantial difference between a typical CCW holder and a typical off-duty cop, as implied by at least one poster in this thread, is ludicrous. Well, the training standard for cops isn't all that great either. I've watched them train, and seen them shoot. Don't kid yourself that they are "experts" with guns (some are, but not most). The recent NYC shooting, and the Diallo shooting several years back are far more indiciative of their skill level. Police training stadards are better than what's required for CCW, but a lot of permit holders are far better than you seem to think. The ones that are disciplined enough to carry regularly also are disciplined enough to practice regularly. Admittedly, my sample isn't random, but the guys that I know that carry regularly are pretty good with their pistols."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #116 January 25, 2013 QuotePolice training stadards are better than what's required for CCW, but a lot of permit holders are far better than you seem to think. The ones that are disciplined enough to carry regularly also are disciplined enough to practice regularly. I know some CCW holders who carry all of the time, but who practice very, very little. They may not be a representative sample, but I seriously doubt they are all outliers. These are the same people who are among the most vocal when it comes to regurgitating BS NRA talking points. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to raising LEO training standards, but as you said, even current LEO training standards tend to be higher than CCW training standards.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,632 #117 January 25, 2013 QuoteQuoteWhat you are arguing is that the governments aren’t giving standards that you are happy with. Minimum qualifications being met means “qualified.” You are arguing that “qualified” is not enough. I’m saying that requiring something other than minimum qualifications sets the stage for decisions being arbitrary and capricious. Yes, I'm saying that the standards for CCW in many states are very low. Standards for CCW in some states are non-existent.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,632 #118 January 25, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I bet you think the justice system inherently protects you from violence too, don't you? It does a lot better job of doing so than do civilians carrying concealed weapons. (Yes, I've read John Lott's work. His conclusions regarding CCW effects on crime rates are not justified by the data.) What data? It is well established that Lott fabricated much of his so-called "data". If the data points with missing data are removed from Lott's data sets, Lott's methods do not show a statistically significant effect of CCW laws and crime. If jurisdictions with CCW laws in place for over seven years are removed from the dataset, then Lott's methodology results in a positive correlation between CCW laws and violent crimes, i.e., jurisdictions with shall issue laws have higher crime rates. The only thing we know for certain about the effects of shall issue laws is that we don't have enough data to understand the effects of shall issue laws. That, of course, raises the question: Why are the NRA so adamantly opposed to research into the effects of guns and gun laws on society? That is a rhetorical question, right?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
