A "pragmatic" approach to gun violence?

Reality is this discussion wasn't intended to get into an argument over which "rules" for gun safety might be better than another.

Reality is also that your tone dictates any responses I might give and their resultant tone in response. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if you had any modicum of an open mind on this issue, you'd be able to see that these rules you advocate for could, in fact, be added to the "list" for consideration. I'm not discounting them by any means. They're just as relevant as those of the NRA or of any other pro-gun advocacy organization concerned about gun safety rules. Truth is, I'm not questioning your "truth", but you seem pretty hell-bent on questioning mine. The last sentence of your post goes to that point.

HEARTLESS wrote: Regarding his self professed "gun expert" status, the military qualification for expert status requires greater than approximately 87% hits, not under time pressure. At Front Sight, the largest firearms training school located near Pahrump, Nevada, distinguished graduate requires 90% or greater hits under time pressure. Then malfunction drills must be performed under time pressure as well and only remove points if not completed properly and within the allotted time. I have achieved distinguished graduate several times and shot at that level, only to fail myself back to graduate status due to malfunction drills. I do not call myself a gun expert, no need to get the ego stroked as he seems to need. If someone wants to truly be considered expert, try the Combat Master test and see how good you really are.

I was going to let this one go, but, given the tone of some of your other posts, I felt it necessary to address this.

Trying to discredit Jim Wright's "self-professed gun expert status" while promoting yours as being better goes to ego as far as I'm concerned. It does no one any good in discussions like these, especially given the fact all Jim Wright was trying to do was offer some of the professional experience he has that would even allow him to put forward anything like this.

If your efforts to discredit Jim Wright by somehow "proving" your qualifications exceed his isn't ego driven, I really don't know what is.

Again, none of this thread was intended to prove anyone's points, experience, or rules for gun safety are intrinsically any better or worse than anyone else's. For some reason, that appears to be your focus, though, and I would, with all due respect, ask that you reconsider that.

Zhawke I thought you wanted discussion. Your approach doesn't encourage it.

Ashley wrote: Zhawke I thought you wanted discussion. Your approach doesn't encourage it.

If the discussion stays on topic, I'm perfectly fine with that. It's when discussion goes south into trying to discredit another that I have a problem. If HEARTLESS feels his positions are worth discussing, I'll try to listen. But I reserve the right, as does he and as do you, to call him out on those positions as I would expect both of you to do, as well. I'm trying to point out what I consider to be a flaw in the way he approaches this issue. If that's not valid, please tell me why it isn't. I'm open to that.

Zhawke I stopped reading when you were making disparaging remarks. Yes you received some, but in the past I have found your posts to be worth reading because you could get past them. You seem much more defensive. Maybe get past that and I might be willing to read your comments. Thanks!

Ashley wrote: Zhawke I stopped reading when you were making disparaging remarks. Yes you received some, but in the past I have found your posts to be worth reading because you could get past them. You seem much more defensive. Maybe get past that and I might be willing to read your comments. Thanks!

Ashley, the reason I'm getting more "defensive" is because there are some who strive to put me, and to keep me, there. I, quite simply, am getting more than a little tired of being forced into that posture all the time, and may have reacted in a manner I wouldn't normally react. It's tough to have that kind of patience sometimes. And I'll try to not do so quite so much in the future. With those who give respect, I will certainly try to return it. Rick is a prime example of this (there are others, too, but he's the one who comes immediately to mind). He respects me and I respect him in turn.

Thank you Zhawke. I really do enjoy reading your thoughts. We don't/won't agree on everything but I do value your opinion when you aren't going after some one personally because of their attacks. Many times you have managed to rise above it and stay on point and why I am willing to read.

I'm wondering what pragmatic approach (other than shooting the scumbag) would have saved these two people.

(CNN)—A former CNN reporter was wounded three times Tuesday night during a deadly shootout with a man who allegedly tried to rob him and his wife in a New Mexico motel room.

Chuck de Caro and his wife, former Headline News anchor and CNN correspondent Lynne Russell, were on a road trip and spending the night at an Albuquerque motel when de Caro killed the man during what Russell called an attempted robbery.

The couple explained there was nothing of value in the bag, Russell said, but the man lunged at them and "went around the bed and then opened fire on Chuck. There was a firefight inside the room."

De Caro was shot once in the leg and twice in the abdomen.

He fired all the rounds in the first handgun, then picked up the other and shot the man, whom police identified in a statement as the "offender in the altercation." He was found in the parking lot and later died at a hospital, CNN affiliate KOAT-TV in Albuquerque reported.

www.cnn.com/2015/07/01/us/new-mexico-motel-shooting/

Too bad the victim didn't have more rounds in the first gun... lucky he was good enough to grab the second and finish him off before the dirtbag killed them both.

So I have to ask, is there any other scenario that could have saved these two people given the circumstances?

How do safety rules and safe gun practices reduce gun violence? That sounds "idealistic" instead of "pragmatic".

Identifying "crazies" and preventing them from murdering others is the pragmatic solution.

ZHawke wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote: Regarding his self professed "gun expert" status, the military qualification for expert status requires greater than approximately 87% hits, not under time pressure. At Front Sight, the largest firearms training school located near Pahrump, Nevada, distinguished graduate requires 90% or greater hits under time pressure. Then malfunction drills must be performed under time pressure as well and only remove points if not completed properly and within the allotted time. I have achieved distinguished graduate several times and shot at that level, only to fail myself back to graduate status due to malfunction drills. I do not call myself a gun expert, no need to get the ego stroked as he seems to need. If someone wants to truly be considered expert, try the Combat Master test and see how good you really are.

I was going to let this one go, but, given the tone of some of your other posts, I felt it necessary to address this.

Trying to discredit Jim Wright's "self-professed gun expert status" while promoting yours as being better goes to ego as far as I'm concerned. It does no one any good in discussions like these, especially given the fact all Jim Wright was trying to do was offer some of the professional experience he has that would even allow him to put forward anything like this.

If your efforts to discredit Jim Wright by somehow "proving" your qualifications exceed his isn't ego driven, I really don't know what is.

Again, none of this thread was intended to prove anyone's points, experience, or rules for gun safety are intrinsically any better or worse than anyone else's. For some reason, that appears to be your focus, though, and I would, with all due respect, ask that you reconsider that.

I too was willing to let your ignorant post go, but you won't let it die.
Using whatever search engine you choose, search "Jim Wright gun expert." Note that the only references are his own words from his blog, so no one else considers him a gun expert.
Example: I'm Batman, no wait I'm Superman. There it is in print, so it must be true.
Next search "Jim Wright gunsmith" and note the only references are his blog again. An actual gunsmith is a highly trained individual that was either educated at The Colorado School of Trades or similar, or trained under the oversight of a known gunsmith that would be a member of the guild or such.
So now we have two areas with no results that should be easily proven.
The primary two references for "Jim Wright gun anything" are the Daily KOS and Forward Progressives, both far Left leaning publications, so it is also political which you said it isn't.
Now if you want to present Jim Wright as the "DOD double super secret squirrel, go for it. But since I knew people that did weapons testing for the DOD, I'm not putting much on that either.
Now a final opportunity for you ZHawke, time to either put up, or shut up. I will provide proof of far more than what I posted here for my qualifications in public, but you need to not post for a year when I prove these things, or I will do the same if I can't. DEAL?