Let's discuss something less polarizing... like 1911 vs Glock...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I won't carry a 1911 for self defense because a prosecutor might argue that sense it was so deadly in 2 world wars, I was just looking to kill someone with it.Let's discuss something less polarizing... like 1911 vs Glock...
I won't carry a 1911 for self defense because a prosecutor might argue that sense it was so deadly in 2 world wars, I was just looking to kill someone with it.
I survived a bad crash in the Vette..with good seat belts..i survived a motorcycle wreak with a helmet..more safety you put into something the less likely you will die wanting any of said devises, how ever choice is choice..just hope you make the right one.I am torn on seatbelts and helmets. On one side I believe its your body, do what you want with it. That extends to drugs, abortion, suicide... So long as it isn't impacting my rights, do what you want.
But then the other side, you have to factor in insurance. You are required to have insurance as a motorist, be it bike or car. Premiums are based on pooled risk. So what you do in this case, can and does indirectly impact others via higher premiums...
There is an argument to be made on both sides, I think.
I survived a bad crash in the Vette..with good seat belts..i survived a motorcycle wreak with a helmet..more safety you put into something the less likely you will die wanting any of said devises, how ever choice is choice..just hope you make the right one.
I watched an interview with one of their lawyers and was very impressed with him, and with his description of what they have to offer. I'll see if I can find it.
..It needs to be said that some guys are under the impression that instructors are proponents of it because they believe it will drum up more business for them through eventual BS legislation that requires training and carry insurance....
I don't think the liberals will EVER try to mandate self-defense insurance.
They'll mandate liability insurance that protects THE OTHER PEOPLE, not you. It would be for the benefit of the bad guy you shoot (or scare, and cause PTSD in).
As for mandatory training, perhaps.
In liberal states that hate guns and gun carry by mere private citizens without LEO badges, they HAVE mandated training. But it's usually a short and easy course, mostly on gun safety. Some states don't even have a marksmanship component, which means the course can be done in a classroom in any building, with some dummy guns so the students can show safe gun handling). No state, or country, that I've ever heard of has used unreasonably burdensome or expensive "mandatory training" as a backdoor way of gun control.
And, I have to say that the free market has failed to motivate enough people to take gun training on their own, at their own expense. Only a tiny percentage of the gun-owning public have ever had real firearms training, even if only a few hours in a classroom. Most of THEM got the training in the military, which may have been decades ago and long forgotten, or they got the "hunter's safety course" when they were 15 or 16 years old, and they promptly forgot about all that gun safety stuff since then (or they rememmbered the main points-- don't drink Budweiser in the deer stand. Don't shoot into the bushes when they wriggle..)
When "the people" don't do what they know is the right thing (get training) and they pay lip service to that, but they don't actually spend the $$ or set aside the time to make it happen, then it's very likely that "the people's representatives" in government WILL make it mandatory. Give them the incentive to do what the people think is the right and responsible thing to do anyway.