One needn’t be an “expert” to defend one’s self. One merely needs to be familiar, through practice. Old ladies shooting young virile home invaders is a thing here. It is common for the common man to have greater expertise with their firearms than the average cop. Because practice vs having to qualify once a year.
Ok. Why?
What is the minimum standard for firearms or self defence expert?
And who controls this standard to see it is adheard to?
We are not.
I am an American citizen, who lives in the United States, who owns firearms, and carries them.
We are not at all in the same position, regarding gun use, and gun policies in the United States, that govern United States citizens.
Did some American here ask for your advice?
Or are you just living up to your reputation as an ignorant lout, who bores people with useless noise?
You can do whatever you want within the rules of the forum.
However, expect to be mocked for it, if you make false claims, show gross ignorance, and make a fool and a clown out of yourself, as you often, if not usually, do.
Apparently you need to be an expert to even comment on firearms.
I have been mocking you for false claims and gross ignorance, making a fool and a clown of yourself though.
Will that force you to change?
That depends, I know several of us, have had to keep repeating this to you, but there are many areas of firearm expertise, which one are we talking about?
If gun laws, being a lawyer, licensed to practice law in that domicile, is a good start.
One can have a credential as a gunsmith, and in fact, various gun manufacturers offer armorer’s courses, and certificates for the firearms, they manufacturer.
In my particular State, there are various ways the State certifies people to teach various firearm related courses for people to obtain concealed carry permits, or hunter education courses.
There is the competition circuit for competitive shooting, of which there are several flavors.
This is a partial list.
Not to mention, one may have expertise with some platforms of firearms, and be credentialed in same, but not others.
The problem is, I have a Ph.D., and four master degrees, in different areas,
and I am a 4th degree black belt in Gracie Jiu-Jitsu
and a Sandan in Judo,
I have produced world champions in BJJ,
I and my students have produced UFC champions, in the lineage under me,
And I am licensed by my State to teach the classes for people to get concealed carry permits.
And I have trained cops for over 26 years wearing gun belts, grapple fu, as well as sport grapplers, and MMA people.
I have asked you several times what areas of real expertise you have, and you have remained silent each time I have asked that question.
You seem to be what you seem to be, which is kind of dummy, with a big mouth, a chip on his shoulder to be heard, and very little of actual substance to say.
Why would anybody take what you have to say as more than noise?
Outside of airsoft, and matters relating to your local area?
No. I want to know what is required to be classed as an expert.
You have classed people as experts and not experts. What is the requirement?
There has to be a line. Or how do we get experts and non experts in the first place.
I just answered the question in the post that your post above is replying to.
Do you not know how to read?
Or is your reading comprehension that poor?
You have been in fights in riots and protests though?
I mean that is the subject.
If you shot someone in a riot. You get extra points.
If you have been hit by a skateboard. Also extra points.
Yes, I have been in both riots, and protests, in my lifetime.
Not during a riot.
I don’t think so.
Is this a criteria that you straight up made up out of thin air to some sort of personal standard of expert?
Are you basically telling me the equivalent of pretty?
You asked.
You seem fairly dense - not meant as an insult.
You know you are stubborn to the point of being dense.
To help you understand,
I gave you a good faith response,
as a kindness.
I am not really here to make fun of you.
The reason I gave you a hard time,
is because other people, reading this,
particularly younger people,
need to be able to tell the difference
between substance and bullshit.
I don’t mind helping you learn along the way.
But, you are not the easiest fellow to teach.
I am an expert in firearms. I come from a long lineage of men who could build and shoot accordingly. I make no claim of being an expert on self defense.
@gregaquaman What is an expert? Who bequeaths the title and who acknowledges the same?
Kyle Rittenhouse was within his legal rights to protect himself, all while retreating from those wishing to do him harm.
Again,
That first kill was righteous. One baby raping fucker put down. The others were ne’er do wells that, while not deserving to die for their past, nevertheless were out and about to do mischief. They just picked on the wrong kid. Darwin wins again.
1 Like
You know the rules Dr
The first one to say “stupid” looses
Not at all.
If someone is being willfully stupid, or dangerously stupid,
not only is it sometimes appropriate to point that out to the room,
sometimes one has the moral, ethical, and professional duty to point that out to the room.
As everyone who has ever worked in a lab, or live fire shooting range, or operating room, or heavy machinery environment knows.
Democratic Asians need more guns
You’ve said it again
Twice!
You’re incoragable
@gregaquaman What is an expert? Who bequeaths the title and who acknowledges the same?
Kyle Rittenhouse was within his legal rights to protect himself, all while retreating from those wishing to do him harm.
Again,
That first kill was righteous. One baby raping fucker put down. The others were ne’er do wells that, while not deserving to die for their past, nevertheless were out and about to do mischief. They just picked on the wrong kid. Darwin wins again.
[/quote]
This is the point though. Playing this who is an expert or not game is just super fucking dumb because we can just make up our own rules on it.
And I have been pages trying to explain how dumb that is.
And instead you make an argument and I either agree with it or not.
So in that specific case. Your argument is just messy from a mechanical point of view. So scumbags deserve to be put down. Fine. But a society that requires a rando 17 year old to do it, then spend months in a legal battle afterwards is really wasteful.
And I think if we are willing to sacrifice Rittenhouse to put down scumbags then we are being selfish.
Which is kind of what we do when we create this scumbag/hero rhetoric.
And I know. I bounced for twenty years and that is what they did to me. You are indispensable untill you are disposable.
Being a badass scumbag killer is a con job
It allows us to benefit without having any skin in the game.
Think Dana white.