Comment

My proposal for gun rights

38
Obdicut (Now with 2% less brain)7/31/2014 11:37:03 am PDT

re: #37 Rightwingconspirator

I’ll point out I’m in favor of a high level of training for family protection. Ican show it, link it, point anyone o great training. So who decides what level of tactical training is required to have a gun for protection at home?

Well, probably a panel of experts. But again, the test is the more important part.

I think the police already did. They have a good practical minimum standard to offer that’s good enough for new policemen and women.

And if that standard can pass the test, no problem.

It has to do with what reality, i.e. actual events have shown so far. Have we seen a problem with people at home with POST level training? Show me the study or at least the raw data. I have no idea where to get it or the time to compile it myself.

This data would be monumentally hard to compile, but again, we just have a test, you’re confident POST people would pass it, so what’s the problem?

So how would that work if you had your way? Prosecute them with what charge? Er, what severity I mean. Felony? Just a fine? You skipped that question.

No, I didn’t. I said that I want anyone who has a gun at home to be trained to use it for home self defense.

Is POST not a professionally created system as judged by professionals that understand lives depend on it? Caveat-My familiarity is LAPD and California ONLY. It gets real review by police trainers and executives. Certain incidents have changed the training so we know it can be responsive. If POST proved inadequate for simple home defense (unreasonable scenarios need not apply) it would be truly ground shaking in the LE community. If that training is inadequate for close up confrontations on the most familiar ground, and surrounded by walls all quite unlike the street they have a huge problem.

If this is true, then they can pass the test, so what’s the problem?

My impression is that again as a minimum starting point it’s fine. It’s a shame we don’t have some openly L.E. members to chime in here.

Why? Again, if they can pass the test, there’s no problem.

I am having a hard time assuming there is a lack of POST efficacy review among LE professionals like chiefs and head trainers.

They’re not testing POST efficacy for home-defense use. Why would they?

I never said he should not get training. i said the opposite. You want a law that applies here and I need to know exactly how it works and what standard to apply in the required training to evaluate your proposal. But up front if that’s well beyond current standards for police just to start you lose me.

Can you please state, clearly and straightforwardly, if you think that POST training is sufficient, why you are objecting so strongly to the idea of a test?

You keep going in a circle. You say that POST training is good for this sort fo thing. I say great, then they’ll pass the test no problem. You ignore that, and say that it’s sufficient. I say if it is, then no problem, they’ll pass the test. If 99% of POST-trained people always pass the test, then we can dispense with the test for POST-trained people.
Etc.

Again: If you think that POST training is sufficient, why don’t you want people tested? Please just answer that question, without sidetracking yourself into anything else. Why is the idea of a test so problematic for you?