noskilz
Member
Why, because an individual is a female it is assumed they will be on a less than equal footing with an assailant more-so than a man who is being robbed or otherwise assaulted.
Um, yes.
Why, because an individual is a female it is assumed they will be on a less than equal footing with an assailant more-so than a man who is being robbed or otherwise assaulted.
The course I took allowed any firearm that had a capacity of 5 or more rounds, including rimfire. As it was in the worst part of out local ammo shortage, I chose a .22 after weighing my options, and so did MrsBFD. I don't have a problem with demonstrating proficency with a .22, it at least beats firing a single blank into a hole in the ground (which I hear is common in the more backwoods quickie/sleazy classes), so long as the proficency requirement is reasonable*. Would it really matter if I showed up to the class with a .454 Casull instead of my Ruger mkIII? Shall we ban grandmas (who are just working up to centerfire) from CC until they come to the class with a bigger gun? For that matter, what's more important ... muzzle control and a steady hand, or the big boom from a rented .45?
If we all waited until we were experts before we did something, none of us would ever do anything.Ok I guess my thought process did miss a few points
-There are no statistics on accidental shootings from CHL owners. The incidence is probably very small.
-Very early it was asked how I thought I had so much experience. Well the fact is that I don't own a handgun as a matter of economics. My thought was that everyone who owns a gun has the responsibility to be as expert as possible with that weapon. I do not therefore possess a CHL. Personally I probably wouldn't apply for CHL until I had owned a handgun for at least 6 months and felt competent with it to an extent that taking a class would be more an educational experience in threat assessment and proper target engagement than basic firearm safety, and operation.
So you would rather we let everyone carry freely because that is their right than we do the best we can to sure they can competently use that weapon?
So you would rather we let everyone carry freely because that is their right than we do the best we can to sure they can competently use that weapon?
So you would rather we let everyone carry freely because that is their right than we do the best we can to sure they can competently use that weapon? I'll remember that next time my rib becomes collateral damage due to someone attempting to shoot an attacker and missing because they were completely incompetent with the firearm they were carrying.
So you would rather we let everyone carry freely because that is their right than we do the best we can to sure they can competently use that weapon? I'll remember that next time my rib becomes collateral damage due to someone attempting to shoot an attacker and missing because they were completely incompetent with the firearm they were carrying.
-Very early it was asked how I thought I had so much experience. Well the fact is that I don't own a handgun as a matter of economics. My thought was that everyone who owns a gun has the responsibility to be as expert as possible with that weapon. I do not therefore possess a CHL. Personally I probably wouldn't apply for CHL until I had owned a handgun for at least 6 months and felt competent with it to an extent that taking a class would be more an educational experience in threat assessment and proper target engagement than basic firearm safety, and operation.
Unless you hang out with a bunch of former East German "female" athletes, that isn't a guarantee, but it's a safe bet.
Men (especially violent criminals) are generally larger and stronger than women. You can argue with biology, but you rarely win.
I wish that there was a test of competence before someone was allowed to make some bigoted and asinine statement on an internet forum. But wait.... there is a first amendment right to free speech. Maybe we should get rid of that while we are at it?