re: #20 Political Atheist

From the top-
I’d like a reference of link to show me why to presume reserve police training is inadequate. Your presumption is backwards IMO. But if you can show that resereve police are somehow undertrained by all means show me.

There’s not one universal standard of reverse police training, though. This isn’t even possible. And no, the presumption shouldn’t be that people are sufficiently trained. Why is that backwards? Why would the assumption that, for example, a reserve cop who works the evidence room has enough training?

See ordinary citizens can easily get to a level of training that makes CCW as safe as any detective with a snubbie under his coat. But if reserve training is really that bad-on gun safety show me.

Can you prove that first assertion? Most of the training for CCW, as I’ve found in looking into this, is incredibly brief and haphazard. Florida, for example, allows people who have taken a hunting safety course to have a CCW, which is just ridiculous.

Where you have no clue-I can’t help that. Try having someone else read through and explain it to you. I suspect most folks can do that.

I’m sure that you can restate it so that it makes sense. Refusing a gun doesn’t imply that you think the person is going to go out and commit crimes with it.

If you don’t imply ill intent, or a lack of good character, then why not issue? This kinda flies in the face of your contention unless you seek to apply an impossibly high standard to getting a ccw. Nice, Well played as they say.

You’re writing in a really weird way, and you seem, again, to just be begging the question of what the standard should be. Even in Jersey, you can’t be arguing it’s an impossibly high standard, since CCWs do get issued.

I don’t think that everyone with good character and who doesn’t have bad intentions should automatically have a gun. I think they should also have a demonstrable need for it.

Now I reject your implication that I must show a lower rate or equal of crime from police to justify them having a CCW when retired or reserved.

That’s not what I said, though. I’m saying you’re giving retired police a special allowance here, and I’m asking you where it comes from. Cops are just normal people. On the job, cops are surrounded by rules, fellow cops, etc. Off-duty, they’re not. That structure, the formalization, has actual effects on behavior. Cops aren’t just dudes we issue badges and guns to and tell to go at it, there’s an entire system under which they exercise their powers under oversight.

No, show me why I should not impart trust in the very same police that go through background checks, training, retraining, drug tests, cameras in their cars and a police division devoted to watching their behavior as in Internal affairs responsibilities.

Because they have about the same crime rate as normal citizens.

I really don’t agree only ideological people will see the harm in denial of civil rights short of actual damages like a civil suit.

They literally will. For people who don’t see it as a harm to be denied a gun permit, they’re not going to see a harm. That’s pretty straightforward.

So are you finally clear on where and how we disagree so extensively on this topic? Leaving aside the relative merits that of course only readers could decide for themselves, have I left anything unclear about my opinions? Except that have no clue thing of course I can let that go as misunderstood.

The only thing unclear is why you think that this sort of pure ideological argument would ever convince someone who doesn’t fully agree with you already. What is the point of making the arguments you make?