V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Here is 436 in its entirity:
And I asked you “what conjecture?”
Is your inability to tell us what training you recommend a "conjecture?
- Status
Is your inability to tell us what training you recommend a "conjecture?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
What question?
You mean the one about “Do you think the average man can learn to handle a handgun, which is more dangerous than a nuclear weapon, without getting a PhD in the subject, followed by 75 years of hands-on experience?”
(Well, what you actually said was, “Is it really your position that pilots should have firearms without any idea how to safely use them?”) And that’s a loaded question, because of your assumptions that most pilots don’t have firearms skills, and that such skills are difficult to acquire.
Try asking a non-loaded question, like, “Vern, in your many years of experience with firearms and training, do you think aircrews can be trained to safely handle firearms in less than a day?”
The answer to that is, “yes.”
How long do you think it will take me to train that?
R
rtconstant
Guest
I’m well aware that pilots are not inlisted. Today around 40% are ex-military. That’s all I’m saying Vern I don’t know why its difficult.
No kidding? The point was that you seem completely opposed to training for no real reason.
The stratosphere is the same Vern. A military aircraft however is designed to to take impact. A civilian aircraft is not. Now this doesn’t mean all hell breaks out as in a movie but it is a concern depending on altitude and oxygen levels. Do you typically take everything some one says no matter how practical to the Nth degree for no other reason, when you plainly understand the difference at had?
80% in the 70’s, 40% now still significant but different. You brought it up take it as you like.
No just frustration at feigned lack of understanding of the obvious, and intentional trying to be obtuse for the sake of argument.
My dad owned guns I picked up the bug and basic knowledge from him and my older brothers. The military also played its part. Mostly though I enjoy shooting and so experience has been the biggest part. Some guys play golf I like Trap.
Never said I was. I just suggested things that might prove useful. I also commited the sin of suggesting that some form of training might not be unreasonable. There are certainly more qualified individuals than me though.
You didn’t? That’s pretty much how you come across. As to those saying its a “big deal” who are they?
That’s for voters and politicians to decide not you or I as individuals though of course we can make our opinions known through voting.
Requirements, depend on the individual state if at all currently. Tasks, standards and conditions? Again that is judged by the individual states. If we’re talking about adding different or new conditions don’t really know. I’ve already told you some things that might be useful. I know you didn’t like them but I can’t help that.
You’ve been giving suggestions. Its your problem that you didn’t like them or their format. Not that it really matters here anyway you’re against all forms of training for a carry liscence so exactly what could we say that would matter to you anyway? If a preset qualification of marksmanship, risk, threat and escalation analysis all seem absurd to you why not give suggestions for what you think would useful? Surely even with a dislike for the idea of training surely you can think of something useful? If so that would be much more productive here as we won’t immediately discount it. If you don’t care to do so that’s cool to but really If anyone went through the trouble of creating an in depth and detail rich training regimine we both know you still will be against it. That’s OK, that’s your opinion your only problem is that you think that any view outside of your own here can not possibly have any merit whatsoever.
That’s cool. So why are you so aggravated at the suggestion of there being training at all?
When did this happen? I haven’t seen anyone here suggest anything all that intrusive let alone impossible. Most of the armed Pilots are asking for more training, tactics courses and supervision not less. What they don’t like now is that the refresher courses are too far inbetween and not convenient to get to. Also the Airlines themselves have not been vary receptive to it. The Pilots want the training programs but they would like to have employers support them, and for the government to make it more accessible. Seems reasonable.
See above. Why do you ask for something you don’t actually want? I gave possible tasks. Conditions and standards can be highly variable and I never claimed that I was qualified to say. All I did was say that it was reasonable to ask for standards. You disagreed. If you actually want to add to this tell us what you think is reasonable. If its nothing fine, if you actually have something constructive then throw it out there.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
The static was over the insistance that, by golly, they have to have oodles of training. I can train those five tasks in an hour – for those people who need training. I would expect at least 2/3s of the class to be able to perform the tasks with no training at all.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
What tasks?
“Highly variable?” You mean like one student gets a gun, and the other gets a file and a bar of steel, and has to make his own?
No, I said the hullabaloo about “training” is a smokescreen to keep aircrew unarmed.
“oodles”???
Whatever gave you that idea?
I certainly have said nothing to the effecxt of how much training would be required. That is your invention, not mine.
R
rtconstant
Guest
Reread the posts.
Yeah, that’s exactly what I mean…
So you’re arguing against a straw man, gotcha.
R
rtconstant
Guest
No body here has suggested that. The Pilots themselves would like more training. The issue here isn’t a case of more or less training, its the caliber and convenience of the training. Pilots don’t mind putting time at a range what they don’t like is the fact that currently the government gives them limited options for location and time. Pilots have voluntarily requested tactics courses but would like to take them online so its easy to accomplish in their busy schedule.
All of these things are reasonable and actually really wouldn’t be that hard to setup. But I think we can all agree that the government is the worst at doing anything in a convenient and efficient manner. The response isn’t to throw it all out. But to make things work efficiently. Privatization might be the best way to go. It would probably be cheaper, high quality and certainly more efficient. That way everyone wins. Jobs are created. Pilots feel more confident, passengers feel safe and knuckleheads think twice.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Ah, the old switcheroo!
By not stating what the training should be, but demanding it be done, you avoid all responsibility for your statements.
Not at all.Ah, the old switcheroo!
By not stating what the training should be, but demanding it be done, you avoid all responsibility for your statements.
You are the only person on this thread to insist upon “oodles” of training. And oddly enough, you are the only one arguing against it.
Admit it Vern. You made up a straw man and got caught at it.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Admit it VZ. You made up a straw man and got caught at it. You were the one beating the drum for training – and we told you many times that only minimal training is required.Not at all.
You are the only person on this thread to insist upon “oodles” of training. And oddly enough, you are the only one arguing against it.
Admit it Vern. You made up a straw man and got caught at it.
R
rtconstant
Guest
Noticed that to huh?Not at all.
You are the only person on this thread to insist upon “oodles” of training. And oddly enough, you are the only one arguing against it.
Admit it Vern. You made up a straw man and got caught at it.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Actually, it was two of you, running around with your hair on fire and saying things like, “I can’t believe you’d allow someone with no training to carry a gun” or :
E
Eric_Olsen
Guest
It’s not the governments job to wipe your a**!
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
It violates natural law regarding liberty and property and the Catholic principle of subsidiarity and the dignity of the human person. Other than that, its perfect.
- Status