"Dave Bugg" wrote in
news
Joseph Meehan wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Joseph Meehan wrote:

She's a Pinkerton. You trust your safety to a Pinkerton with a gun,
but you refuse to trust yourself with a gun? What does that say
about you?

It says I am not currently well trained in the use of guns,
especially hand guns. The last time I had a gun in my had was in
the army during the Vietnam war. That was a long time ago and at
that time, while I scored well with the M12, M16, 3.5 rocket
launcher and M60 I barely qualified with the 45 hand gun. I was
also not trained in the type of situations that would be most
likely in the US where defining the target with a very high degree
of accuracy and being able to single out just the threatening
targets meaning I might end up doing more damage to a innocent
person that a real threat. And quite frankly I would not want to
be responsible for someone's death even if they were threatening me.

I'm not well-trained in flying a 747 but that doesn't mean I
wouldn't TRY if the choice was between me doing my best it up and
crashing for sure. Trust me, it doesn't matter whether one is
well-trained. Even the
well-trained can die. But a possibility of living, small as it may
be, is a far, far greater good than the certainity of death.


Why is it that so many of the so-called civilian uses of guns to
protect others have turned out to be someone who has been
professionally trained?

It hasn't. Just where did you come up with that itty bitty nugget of
disinformation?


Probably Brady Campaign;formerly known as Handgun Control,Inc.

BTW,I've read of many elderly using guns to defend themselves,and they were
NOT professionally trained.

A Q for Meehan;since I have done military service,does that mean I have
been "professionally trained"?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net