Female gun instructors in hot demand

[Lurks Often]

http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/24/smallbusiness/female-firearm-instructor-gun/index.html?iid=HP_LN



Oh noes, the horror of it all!

I'm confused, I keep being told that owning guns is something that only old, white men do and that the number of gun owners is decreasing

[HockeyMom]

1. Promoting gun ownership to women

They figure the more women they see using/teaching guns, the more likely women will want to also. Advertising ploy.

[gejohnston]

3. there was a time when

a single, often widowed, mother taught their kids how to shoot. Women shooters have always been there, especially in my part of the world.

[Lurks Often]

4. Wrong

I know a lot of women shooters, most are just more comfortable learning from another woman. Kind of "if she learned to shoot, then I'll be able to do it too" mindset

I have also found that new women shooters show more progress wqhen first learning then the average man

[HockeyMom]

54. Having worked in both business and education

I guess I am a very strange woman. I would rather work for and be taught by a male than a woman.

[Eleanors38]

2. This old white guy likes the new trend!

[Starboard Tack]

5. Who do you think they need to defend themselves against?

Guys with guns, of course. And most of them are old white guys. I seriously doubt that many women are thinking of shooting other women. Have fun out there y'all. If I were a woman, surrounded by a population of gun toting guys, I'd definitely be armed. Glad I don't have to make that decision.

[gejohnston]

6. seriously?

less than 20 percent of violent offenders use guns.

And most of them are old white guys.

really? I thought you were better than that. Leave the race baiting to the likes of Ted Nugent and Al Sharpton, you are better than that.

[Lurks Often]

7. Nice of you to want them to be helpless victims

So if they're small, frail, elderly or handicapped they should just accept being helpless.

[Jgarrick]

9. "If I were a woman, surrounded by a population of gun toting guys, I'd definitely be armed"

Given that, may we now count on you to advocate for increased accessibility of concealed carry, or (dare I hope) Constitutional Carry?

[Starboard Tack]

14. No! Advocate for increased accessibility? Are you kidding?

I will never endorse Constitutional Carry. I will lways endorse "carry if you really need to" and live with the consequences. Anyone who carries without a damned good reason is, imo, living in a distorted sense of reality. Anyone who carries because they have received credible threats or live or work in dangerous places and situations, or are particularly vulnerable for other reasons, should do so with extreme caution and full accountability.

[Jgarrick]

15. In post #5 you said you would carry if you were a woman; apparently, you *do* wish to increase

The accessibility of concealed carry to roughly half the adult population...and since the last thing we want to do is discriminate on the basis of sex, does it not follow the such access should be granted to the male half of the population as well?

[Starboard Tack]

16. Nice try, but we both know that's not what I said.

What I actually said was " If I were a woman, surrounded by a population of gun toting guys, I'd definitely be armed."
See the difference. Note that the subjunctive clause includes the qualifier "surrounded by a population of gun toting guys".

I'm sorry, but this is an area where I definitely would discriminate on the basis of gender. Females tend to be physically weaker and more vulnerable than males. They are also the natural prey of testosterone driven males. The very types of males who happen to love their guns.

Note in the article, that females are seeking other females to train them in SD. One can only wonder why? Could it possibly be a matter of trust?

To all the NRA supporters out there, I say "Be careful what you wish for!"

[Jgarrick]

17. So you don't think that women in America are surrounded by gun toting guys, given that there are

millions of men with concealed weapons permits?

If not, why did you bring it up?



To all the NRA supporters out there, I say "Be careful what you wish for!"

More women carrying concealed? I do wish for that.

[Starboard Tack]

18. No, I don't. I think most women avoid those kinds of men.

And those who have the misfortune to live in gun infested parts of the country, have every right to protect themselves from violent men, especially family members. Of course, I know all of you here are stout, law abiding fellows who would never be violent towards a woman and you carry your guns to protect your womenfolk from the rampant hordes of would be rapists and killers.
I have the good fortune to have left your lovely country for more verdant pastures, where the only people carrying weapons do so for a very good reason.

[gejohnston]

21. the most gun infested parts of the country

you mean like Wyoming, Vermont, and just about every other rural area that has lower crime rates than Europe? Or do you mean place with "sensible gun control" like Chicago, Oakland, DC, Newark?

[Starboard Tack]

27. No particular state.

Could be a town, a neighborhood, a home, or a whole country. Places where people think carrying a gun will protect them from the evils of this world. Places where people think carrying a gun is progressive, civilized and smart. In other words, places where people have given up on society and have embraced a jungle mentality.

You well know that I'm not talking about Wyoming or Vermont or any particular state, but rather a state of mind. These people who think it's smart, all part of family fun, to carry guns whever they go, are the enemy of society. They are the enemy of gun owners who keep guns for sport, for hunting and yes, for home defense. Because it is a so-called right, doesn't mean it must be a habit, or an obsession.

[gejohnston]

31. don't buy it

Places where people think carrying a gun is progressive, civilized and smart. In other words, places where people have given up on society and have embraced a jungle mentality.

It is neither, although sometimes smart, but never stupid. Or at least creates civilized behavior. It isn't giving up on anything, it is simply realizing certain realities:
bad things do happen
evil exists
wrong place/wrong time can happen to anyone
cops don't magically appear when called
the police exist for the benefit of the State, and have no legal obligation to do anything for you

What is a "civilized" society? To me "civilized" means that "we have the right to enslave and slaughter others who savages and barbarians and not civilized like us." Like I said, it is a term used by Europeans, Japanese, and Chinese to slaughter and enslave their neighbors. No, I'm not letting the US, Canada, and Australia off the hook in their treatment of aboriginals. Of the three, Canada was the only one that did not have slavery at one time in their history. Most of the Australian slaves came from Ireland.) We call the Romans and ancient Greeks "civilized" even though both societies were more dependent on slavery than the Antebellum South, practiced infanticide, and paid to watch slaves try to kill each other in arenas. Yet the Romans were scared shitless of my Pict ancestors who were the first Europeans to use the crossbow and knew how to use them, when they didn't pop out of the fog and fight face to face wearing only blue paint. While many progressive ideas are good, some not so much. See Eugenics. Since you are not a fan of SYG, see SYG which entered US common law in California in 1895.

IOW, they are just two other bullshit words that don't do anything. I don't think I even give them enough credit for being cover phrases.

One more thing, is this the model of "civilization"? This arrogant asshole should be stripped of his bodyguards and his gun.

[Starboard Tack]

33. I didn't really mention "civilized", except to describe the mentality of some who carry.

My question to you is, why do you not carry? I suspect for the same reason as most of us.

[gejohnston]

45. I don't know why others don't

I don't project my assumptions on to other people.

Since I spend most of my time home, my chances of being in the wrong place in the wrong time goes from very slim to almost nonexistent. Still a calculated risk. It always struck me as odd that while it is pretty easy to legally carry in places where you wouldn't need it (Wyoming, Vermont) and almost impossible in places where you would (Newark, DC, Chicago). Wyoming has one thing in common with Japan and Korea, I'm safer in the shittiest neighborhoods in Rock Springs or Casper than I am in the best neighborhoods of DC and Chicago. My biggest problem would be the tie dye Kochs who don't do well in the Red Desert Basin.

I do carry when I'm out in the sticks.

[Starboard Tack]

50. Well, I don't carry for exactly the same reasons

And most folk I know do the same. There's no need, because the chances of being in the wrong place at the wrong time are slim to none. But that leaves the "slim" part, which seems to motivate some of our brethren to be packing at every available opportunity. The "just in case, 'cos you never know" crowd. And some of them want more of us to carry. What's with that? Does it make them feel more secure, in some sense, to know that others have bought into the madness, so maybe it isn't madness anymore? Or are they genuinely afraid to the point that they think the odds are not so "slim"?

[gejohnston]

79. they also have a valid point

there is a possibility that I may regret that decision. Imaging being a student at VT, being locked in with no place to go or hide, Yet when you look out the window, the cops are just standing around doing nothing.
When I camp or backpack in the better growing areas, I definitely carry more than a .22 because of the tie dye Kochs.

[Starboard Tack]

82. Everybody has a valid point.

It's more about how you want to live your life. I find it unimaginable to live in such daily fear, that I feel the need to wear a concealed gun "just in case". What kind of society is that? And to encourage others to follow suit, what kind of hope for the future is that? Teaching your little kids the importance of the "double tap" and considering it all part of "family fun". Talking in euphemisms, like "Personal "protection Device", like it's a fucking umbrella, or a spare tire. Comparing road accidents and swimming pool deaths to gun deaths. Those people have no respect for guns or people. They are locked into their fantasy world.

I don't know what would've happened at VT. I had a friend there, who survived and the last thing she would've wanted would be more guns on campus. Nobody knows. And to use such a tragedy as a justification for carrying on campus , or anywhere is fucking sick.

[Jgarrick]

22. By what standard do you consider a state to be "gun infested"?

[Starboard Tack]

28. See post 27 above

[Jgarrick]

34. So a "gun infested" place could be a "whole country". Given that (per capita) the US has more guns

than any country on Earth, you must then consider the entire US to be gun infested. You've also asserted that any woman who lives somewhere that is gun infested should be able to be armed (and presumably carry her handgun concealed, since it wouldn't do much good if she didn't have it with her when away from home).

As far as I can tell, you've now endorsed the arming of over half the adult population of the United States. While you have a bit of a ways to go (we'll have to work on your admitted preference for sexual discrimination on this subject), all I can say as a pro-RKBA person is...welcome to the fold!

[Starboard Tack]

36. You are fairly new around here and not familiar with my position

So let me enlighten you. I do not "endorse" the arming of anyone, without good cause. Having the Constitutional right is NOT good cause.
OTOH, I have no objection to gun ownership, in principle. Gun ownership is not, in itself, a problem. Gun use is the problem.

On the gender issue, I would say that men are much more prone to assholery than the fairer sex. Most human predators are also men. Of course, they don't need guns to prey on women and children, because of their physical superiority.
So, what is the solution for those who want to protect themselves against predatory males? You and the NRA, of course, recommend CC. More gunz, more sales, even more gunz 'cos everyone else has them. Right? No, dead wrong! Putting more gunz on the streets will not deter assholes from being assholes. It just ups the ante.

I don't blame any woman who feels the need to be armed with a firearm, though I would always advise against it. The odds of a positive outcome are extremely remote, while the odds of a tragic outcome are extremely high. There are lots of viable options available for SD, that are less lethal and less likely to be used against the victim.

[gejohnston]

44. slight correction

Most human predators are also men. Of course, they don't need guns to prey on women and children, because of their physical superiority.

most human predators are specifically males 17-25 (which is why Europe saw such a sharp crime drop after World War One, a lot of males those ages were killed off.) Once you hit 40, not so much. Most child abusers are women.

[Starboard Tack]

46. Some good points there GE

I guess that's why we give those young bucks guns to go kill other young bucks. Pretty fucked up world when you start thinking about it. I agree that after 40, guys tend to mellow somewhat. I think that is in evidence around here. But the male is still the natural predator, especially when it comes to females. And when females are predatory, they may be scary at times, but are rarely dangerous.
Not sure where you get the info on most child abusers being women. Definitely true that more mothers kill their infants, and many neglect them, but here we are talking about predatory abuse. I seriously doubt many mothers shoot their offspring. Fathers and sons, though....Marvin Gaye.

[gejohnston]

47. few small children are shot by parents

they are usually beaten to death.

[Starboard Tack]

52. True that, but off topic

[Jenoch]

60. " Having the Constitutional right is NOT good cause."

Do you find it at all ironic that the reason the 2nd Amendment was enacted in the U.S. is because of your King George III and his actions 220+ years ago?

[Starboard Tack]

62. You presume that I side with King George.

I do not, but the irony is he was also your king.
The constitution was a good thing and is a fascinating document. The 2A has become somewhat of an aberration, especially for single issue voters.
The irony is that the gun lobby still uses this simplistic reasoning, based on historical events from 240 years ago, to buttress it's fear mongering and greed.

Reasonable men act reasonably. They own guns for valid reasons and use them sensibly. They would do well to listen more to their womenfolk, who tend to possess more common sense.

[Jenoch]

68. Your last paragraph describes me.

I did not presume you were in support of King George, I presumed you are British.

The BOR was enacted closer to 223 years ago than 240 years. None of the amendments from that time have been changed. Heck, it's still illegal to quarter soldiers, that's on King George III as well.

He was not really my king, my ancestors did not arrive on U.S. soil until the late 19th and the early 1920s. Of course I suppose that might mean your ancestors also were not British subjects at that time.

[Packerowner740]

19. I agree with everything except this statement

"Most of them are old white guys"

[Starboard Tack]

23. Well "old" is a relative term

Do you agree that most are white men?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. Better than 90% of rapists are unarmed, only 3% to 5% of them are armed with a gun.

That means a woman who arms herself has the advantage in 95% of the possible encounters with a rapists; for the other 5% she's on equal terms.

Sorry that upsets you.

[Starboard Tack]

25. I t oes not upset me in the least.

My point is that women have every right to be armed and often, every reason to be. Men, not so much. Do you think women arm themselves because they are afraid of other women? Maybe in the rarest of cases. Men are the ones to be afraid of in this world, especially men with a propensity for violence and men who think violence is the answer to problem solving.
Keep up the good work.

[Prophet 451]

8. Why female instructors in particular?

I'm all in favour of people getting instruction since it's likely to include proper safety practices but I don't understand why instruction from a woman would be better or more desireable than instruction by a man. Am I missing something?

[Lurks Often]

10. See my post#4, additionally

A woman instructor is more likely to have firearms that suit the generally smaller female shooter and will have a better insight into holster selection, since due to the differences in female anatomy, what works for a man, won't necessarily work for a woman.

[Prophet 451]

11. Good points all

Thanks.

[S_B_Jackson]

12. Many female newcomers to shooting sports prefer female instructors....

there's the whole Men are from Mars (too authoritarian) / Women from Venus dynamic.

Emily Miller's adventures in getting her firearms permit in Washington DC is somewhat instructive to why this would occur...Link to Story
Hey, whatever makes the new shooter feel most comfortable in obtaining competent instruction into the sport, I'm all for.

[Skeeter Barnes]

13. Emily's instructor should have told her to keep her finger off the trigger until the sights are on

target.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

26. We have a former cop at our office, and he's constantly encouraging all women to buy a gun and

take shooting lessons.

He's one of the few cops that wants to arm the entire planet. Most know better. This guy is a NUT. He's into motorcycles and has wiped out so much, he's already had 7 surgeries and is in constant pain. He has a collection of guns (naturally). He thinks he's a big dude, but he's practically an invalid.

In any case, he tries to put the fear of God into us - we'll be raped, we'll have our houses broken into, we'll be overtaken on the street, we'll be this, we'll be that, we'll be the other.

After a long time of this, 1 girl has decided to buy a gun. He went with her, she bought one, she's training to shoot. She hates the damned thing. When she goes out drinking, she takes it with her and is horrified it will be taken from her and used against her.

The rest of us aren't interested.

I also know a couple who are armed to the teeth. He's VERY proud his wife has her own gun and has taken shooting lessons. One Saturday while they were out, their house was broken into. Many things were taken. That was about a year ago. That gun sure helped! lol

[gejohnston]

29. actually, most street cops

and even Interpol's secretary general thinks armed citizens are a good thing.

One Saturday while they were out, their house was broken into. Many things were taken. That was about a year ago. That gun sure helped! lol

there was a study (funded by the DoJ) in the 1980s by criminologists James Wright and Peter Rossi that found there is a specific reason the US has fewer "hot burglaries" aka home invasions than other countries. Criminals are more afraid of getting shot at the scene by the victim than they are of the police. The robber in this case likely cased the place to wait for them to be gone, so maybe it did them good because it was a burglary instead of a home invasion. You use your gun to defend you, not so much your stuff.

After a long time of this, 1 girl has decided to buy a gun. He went with her, she bought one, she's training to shoot. She hates the damned thing. When she goes out drinking, she takes it with her and is horrified it will be taken from her and used against her.

If she is drinking while carrying, that is a felony in most states. While the "will be taken away and used against you" was common gun prohibition propaganda in the 1970s, criminologists debunked the myth so many times, Brady et al don't even bother with it. Has it happened? Maybe. Have there been cases of an unarmed victim taking the weapon away from the attacker and using on them? Actually, yes.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

30. "actually, most street cops thinks armed citizens are a good thing." Riiiiiiight. Getting shot at

is their life's #1 goal.

[gejohnston]

32. the average citizen are not going to shoot at them

Do you seriously think the average person is going to open fire on a cop just because? Seriously? Please spare me the dogma.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

63. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

On Wednesday, Gov. Nathan Deal signed Georgia's Safe Carry Protection Act into law. Many gun proponents love House Bill 60, but it will create unintended problems for law enforcement, local governments and the citizens they serve. Although changes in the state's gun laws were meant to strike a balance between the rights of gun owners and the government's interest in protecting its citizens, unintended consequences may follow that don't make anybody safe.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/24/opinion/summers-georgia-gun-law/

Here's a clue. People in general do not have the IQ of a pinhead. Attempting to promote the idea that law enforcement will have it better and that they are actually happy and encouraging widespread gun ownership as we have now, first requires the supposition that people are dumb as a box of rocks and will believe it.

[gejohnston]

78. ohhhhh awwww appeal to authority and condescending arrogance

rolled in one post.

On Wednesday, Gov. Nathan Deal signed Georgia's Safe Carry Protection Act into law. Many gun proponents love House Bill 60, but it will create unintended problems for law enforcement, local governments and the citizens they serve. Although changes in the state's gun laws were meant to strike a balance between the rights of gun owners and the government's interest in protecting its citizens, unintended consequences may follow that don't make anybody safe.

Yet he failed to make a single valid point. Perhaps he thinks like this guy.

Although no other state has any problem with similar laws. New York and California goes even further than these guys. There is no compelling State interest in what a church allows or doesn't. Frankly, everything he said is political bullshit. But if you want appeal to authority:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-westgate-interpol-chief-ponders-armed-citizenry/story?id=20637341&singlePage=true

Here's a clue. People in general do not have the IQ of a pinhead. Attempting to promote the idea that law enforcement will have it better and that they are actually happy and encouraging widespread gun ownership as we have now, first requires the supposition that people are dumb as a box of rocks and will believe it.

Let me guess, you are not part of the general population and if everyone started thinking exactly like you, they would be smarter than a pinhead. Perhaps there is a treatment for this condition.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

91. Oh for Chrissakes. Forever posting the pro-NRA nutjobs as justification for wacko ideas!!

Craig, who served on the Los Angeles police force for 28 years, explained at a press conference on Thursday that it takes "an act of Congress" to get a concealed weapon permit in Los Angeles, and he compared that to his recent stint in Maine, where they freely distribute those permits. "I changed my orientation real quick," Craig told reporters. "Maine is one of the safest places in America. Clearly, suspects knew that good Americans were armed," he said.

Actually, it's not that simple, and Craig's statement reeks of misinformation. Yes, Portland, Maine, does have a lower murder rate than Los Angeles, but it actually registers a higher rate of rape, burglary and theft than LA. In fact, the crime rate for robbery, burglary, theft, and rape is higher in Portland than the national average, contradicting Craig's claim that Portland is one of the safest places in America.

Surely, there are fewer crimes in Portland than in Los Angeles, but that's largely a function of the vast difference in size. Portland has only 66,000 people while Los Angeles is a city of 3.8 million.

"I think at its core, his position is an emotional one, based on the idea that people feel safer when they have guns," Robyn Thomas, director of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, told the Detroit News. "But studies have shown more guns don’t deter crime," Thomas said.

Maybe Chief Craig, who seems to have some good ideas on community policing, is acting out of emotion too since he revealed last year that he had been nearly carjacked in Detroit. Still, it's one thing for people on the street to form inaccurate conclusions based on emotional responses. But it's another when an African-American police chief in the Blackest city in America comes to the same conclusion without all the facts.

Fortunately, Craig is not calling for Detroit to repeal its gun control laws, but his comments on gun ownership come at a time when the murder rate is actually dropping in many of the nation's biggest cities, including Detroit. Yes, despite some high-profile cases in the media the past year, the murder rate in Chicago actually dropped 17 percent, fell 25 percent in Philadelphia, 16 percent in Los Angeles and 20 percent in New York City, even with fewer stop-and-frisks. The murder rates in those cities haven't been that low since the 1960s.

Even in bankrupt Detroit, the number of murders fell from 386 in 2012 to 333 in 2013. And that's with the city's current gun control laws. Last year at this time, critics were blaming the city's gun control laws when Detroit's 2012 crime rate had spiked higher. But now that the crime rate has fallen with the same laws in place, will they blame the laws for the drop as well?

The truth is Chief Craig's comments on gun ownership sound perfectly logical until you examine them. Surely, criminals are probably less likely to attack someone who they know is armed. But is arming everyone really the solution or will there be unintended consequences? And is the presence of guns really the cause of the lower murder rate in Portland than in Detroit?

Despite what gun advocates claim, a recent international study of 27 developed countries found the United States had the highest rate of gun ownership per capita and, not surprisingly, the highest rate of gun-related deaths. This doesn't prove that guns need to be regulated but it does challenge the notion that guns make us safer.

http://www.bet.com/news/national/2014/01/06/commentary-why-detroit-s-new-police-chief-is-wrong-on-gun-control.html

[gejohnston]

98. two ways to tell someone has no idea what they are talking about

Last edited Sun Apr 27, 2014, 11:25 PM - Edit history (1)

The first is piecing together tidbits irrelevant and questionable information from an advocacy group into a less than coherent argument. Critical thinking 101 don't take talking points from LCPGV, Bloomberg, or the NRA at face value. The second way is copy and pasting said argument. The studies he cited were not done by criminologists and were not published in peer review criminology journals. That means the validity is questionable. Picture a criminologist doing publishing a study on the evolution of small pox and publishing it in a criminology journal.

"I think at its core, his position is an emotional one, based on the idea that people feel safer when they have guns," Robyn Thomas, director of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, told the Detroit News. "But studies have shown more guns don’t deter crime," Thomas said.

LCPGV is an advocacy group that opposes gun ownership. Besides, it is a straw man. What Craig really said was "the police are responsible for the State and public at large. You are responsible for your individual safety" which isn't radical given the number of SCOTUS decisions saying exactly that.

Maybe Chief Craig, who seems to have some good ideas on community policing, is acting out of emotion too since he revealed last year that he had been nearly carjacked in Detroit. Still, it's one thing for people on the street to form inaccurate conclusions based on emotional responses. But it's another when an African-American police chief in the Blackest city in America comes to the same conclusion without all the facts.

Just because some TV talking head says it is "based on emotion" doesn't mean anything given that the article is emotion and misinformation. What does Craig's race or Detroit's racial make up have to do with the subject at hand?

Fortunately, Craig is not calling for Detroit to repeal its gun control laws, but his comments on gun ownership come at a time when the murder rate is actually dropping in many of the nation's biggest cities, including Detroit.

Does Detroit have any gun laws other than the State of Michigan? Murder has been dropping nationwide. BTW, Michigan has had "universal background checks" since 1925.

Yes, despite some high-profile cases in the media the past year, the murder rate in Chicago actually dropped 17 percent, fell 25 percent in Philadelphia, 16 percent in Los Angeles and 20 percent in New York City, even with fewer stop-and-frisks. The murder rates in those cities haven't been that low since the 1960s.

That is true nationwide.

If that's the best you can do? Please. I put reason before dogma. Normally I don't waste my time with dogmatic bullshit, but I couldn't help it this time.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

103. "Here's a clue. People in general do not have the IQ of a pinhead."

If so few are capable of governing themselves how fewer still are capable of governing others?

[IronGate]

39. Yes, most street cops don't have a problem with the lawful citizen being armed,

it's the upper police management that has a problem with it.
Every street cop I know, and I know a lot of them through my interaction with them due to the nature of my job, knows that it's not the lawful citizen with a firearm that's the problem, it's the unlawful citizen with a firearm that's the problem.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

64. OMG. ROFL! Oh rats, I forgot I was in the gun forum where such ideas are sold in the

hopes they will somehow fly. Ciao.

[IronGate]

65. Believe what you will,

however, I interact with street cops every day I'm at work and I know what they think.
Do you?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

67. Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. nt

[IronGate]

69. In what capacity?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

70. I really don't know how that's going to make a difference. Do cops change their

opinion depending on whom they're talking to?

[IronGate]

71. Just asking.

I've dealt with thousands of street cops in the course of my employment and my sense is that the majority of them have no problem with the lawful citizen legally carrying a concealed weapon, it's the unlawful citizens that they have a problem with.
The ones who are mostly opposed to concealed carry are the upper management, whom I like to call the cop-o-crats.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

72. Hmmm... why on earth would they want to risk their lives more than they already risk them?

If you can give me a believable reason for that, I might find your premise more believable.

[IronGate]

73. What risk?

Cops know that those that take the time and spend the money to get the CCW, the citizen isn't likely to draw down on them and engage them in a gunfight and most CCW'ers I know, and a lot of my collegues carry off duty, are lawful citizens who are extremely polite and do what they can to avoid a confrontation.
Cops are aware that it's not the lawful citizen they need to worry about, it's the criminal element who doesn't care about the CCW laws and will carry illegally and will more likely engage the police in a gunfight.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

74. Either you discuss things like a grown up and stop pretending, or this conversation is over nt

[IronGate]

76. Like a grown up?

You're the one dithering and wringing their hands and spouting nonsense, and acting like a 4 year old, and, you still haven't said how you interact with police in your job capacity.

But, you're right, this conversation is over because you're pretending to want to listen to reason, without really wanting to.
Bye bye.

[oneshooter]

104. Sounds to me like she runs the cafeteria downstairs.

She sees a lot of cops in the line.

[IronGate]

105. No doubt.

She still hasn't answered my question of how she interacts with cops in her job capacity, instead, she accuses me of acting like a child.

[Eleanors38]

86. Most cops I've talked to recommend citizen armament.

Cops only have to fear a suspect or known criminal, not the average armed woman or man; I mean, why should the latter attack a cop?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

90. I don't want to discuss inane assertions. nt

[blueridge3210]

94. Then why post on a "discussion board"? (NT)

[Sarah Ibarruri]

95. You must've thought my last comment was directed at the op of this thread. nt

[Eleanors38]

99. "Assertion" to you, Reportage to me. It's not the biggest deal...

since measures for my own defense are ultimately on me, no matter the outlook of LEO members. They do a good, tough job of solving crime and trying creative community policing, but they are not legally charged, try as they might, with protecting me.

[Lurks Often]

35. Two anecdotes do not equal data

Your post has nothing to do with the article, which is about the increase in demand for female firearms instructors. Your post simply serves to show your inherent bias and fear of firearms, while at the same time reinforcing your misplaced sense of superiority. How very condescending of you.

[Starboard Tack]

37. Yeah! How dare a female come in here and pretend to know anything about guns?

Heck, and all she's got are damned anecdotes about other women and a fucked up ex-cop who wants to arm women who don't want to be armed. How dare she come in here with her female perspective on a female issue? How dare she speak out against bullying and male assholery? Doesn't she know where she is?
You done right there, Mr Lurks. Put her in her place, dintya? Yeehaw!

[Lurks Often]

38. Thanks for the laugh

but her comments had nothing to do with the article. Is discussing the article too hard or is it because it doesn't conform to how YOU want things to be?

On edit here is actual data for you, of the 761+ registered shooters at End of Trail, almost 20% were women.

http://www.winterrange.com/2014results.html

[Starboard Tack]

40. You're welcome. Laughter is always the best medicine

I try to be entertaining while getting a point across.
Her comments may not have suited your take on the article, but they were definitely on subject and within the context of women learning to shoot. I know, they tend to get emotional over such things, poor dears. Good job there's a "hot" market for female instructors.
I'm sure this feeds a lot of fetishes and fantasies of many man gunners.

[Lurks Often]

41. Ah yes, the standard anti gun correlation between sex and firearms

Project much?

[Starboard Tack]

48. Actually, I don't project much. Neither am I in denial.

If you think there is no correlation, then you are seriously out of touch with your species.

[Lurks Often]

51. The only one I see in denial is you

no gun owner I know equates guns with sex or vice versa. I only ever hear that correlation from the anti-gun crowd.

[Starboard Tack]

57. Well, first of all, I'm not part of the anti-gun crowd, or any crowd for that matter

Just because no gun owner you know doesn't equate guns with sex, doesn't mean it ain't so. If my view of the world depended on people I know, and I know a lot, then there would be less than a dozen guns in the world and nobody would dream of carrying. Basing your world view on your inner circle is denial of reality.
I don't think for one moment that your gun is some sort of substitute for erectile dysfunction. Nor do I think that your interest in posting the OP is in any way motivated by any sexual fantasy. But, I have seen enough gun porn on the internet to substantiate my earlier comments.
I have nothing against guns, just gun-foolery.

[Lurks Often]

85. You go ahead and keep denying if it makes you feel better n/t

[Straw Man]

55. Wrong on both counts ...

... and not one to be calling others "out of touch."

[Starboard Tack]

59. You just out there sniping, Straw Man

or do you want to have a conversation?

[pablo_marmol]

43. "I'm sure this feeds a lot of fetishes and fantasies

of many man gunners."

Presumptuousness and prejudice noted and dismissed.

[Starboard Tack]

49. Note, I said "many", certainly not all.

If you disagree, then you are not well informed on the subject.

[Straw Man]

53. Yet ...

If you disagree, then you are not well informed on the subject.

... you have nothing but your blinkered and severely limited experience to offer in support of your contention.

[Starboard Tack]

58. Definitely not blinkered.

All our experiences are limited, my friend. I would say mine is less limited than most, but I haveno interet in getting into a pissing contest.

[Straw Man]

61. You make sweeping generalizations ...

... about the motivations of gun owners, yet you say you know very few gun owners. I would call that both blinkered and limited.

[Starboard Tack]

66. What generalizations?

I know lots of gun owners. Where did I say I only knew a few? I have known gun owners all my life, including friends and family. I have also owned guns. I make no generalizations. They are all individuals.
Now, do I know any who carry a gun everywhere they go? No, unless they have to for their work. How about you? Do you hand with a bunch of guys who carry everywhere?

[Straw Man]

75. Here's one.

I'm sure this feeds a lot of fetishes and fantasies of many man gunners.

How many gun owners do you know? How many do you interact with on a regular basis? How many have "fetishes and fantasies" about women and guns?

[Starboard Tack]

80. How many is many for you?

Let's go with a million, maybe less than 2% of gun owners in the US, but a million is many in my world. Heck, maybe it's 10 million, but probably somewhere in between.
That's not what I call a generalization. Generalizations, for me, men at least 50% to have any worth.
Nope, I just said many. Nothing "sweeping" about 2-10%.

[Straw Man]

84. How many is "many"? More than 2%, certainly.

Let's go with a million, maybe less than 2% of gun owners in the US, but a million is many in my world. Heck, maybe it's 10 million, but probably somewhere in between.
That's not what I call a generalization. Generalizations, for me, men at least 50% to have any worth.
Nope, I just said many. Nothing "sweeping" about 2-10%.

In fact, more than 10%. The raw number is meaningless, but you knew that.

Less than 10% of any target population cannot be characterized as "many," unless your intention is to cast a wide net while preserving "plausible deniability."

[Starboard Tack]

89. Ah, so less than 10% would not constitute many for you.

That means many must be more than 10 million. Are there many who carry their guns around concealed?
I guess they are statistically insignificant, like the mere 30,000 who die by gun annually.

[Straw Man]

93. When someone uses a word like "many" ...

... and then quibbles about what number that actually constitutes, I question that person's good faith in the discussion.

The fact of the matter is that you have no idea how "many" of the aforementioned "testosterone-driven" gun owners are out there. You used a word that was intended to convey that it is a large number. Now you're back-pedalling.

Stand by your generalizations or recant them. Stop weaseling.

[Straw Man]

77. Here's another.

Females tend to be physically weaker and more vulnerable than males. They are also the natural prey of testosterone driven males. The very types of males who happen to love their guns.

So you think that men who "love their guns" are also "testosterone driven" and prone to abusing women. On what do you base this particular observation?

[Starboard Tack]

81. Not all men who love their guns are testosterone driven

I said that testosterone driven men are likely to fall into the category of gun lovers, especially if they sexualize their gun fantasies. Not as uncommon as you may think.

Again, there is no "sweeping generalization" here. Just an observation of the culture I lived in for almost 4 decades.

[Straw Man]

83. Oh, please.

I said that testosterone driven men are likely to fall into the category of gun lovers, especially if they sexualize their gun fantasies. Not as uncommon as you may think.

You deal in broad-brush slurs, couched in weasel-wording that you think allows you a pretense to objectivity. "Are likely to"? "Not as uncommon as you may think"? Could you possibly be any more non-committal?

Again, there is no "sweeping generalization" here. Just an observation of the culture I lived in for almost 4 decades.

Except that you didn't live in the culture that you are attempting to characterize. It's clearer with every post that your familiarity with actual gun owners is minimal at best.

[Starboard Tack]

88. So you only have personal attacks and nothing else

Been nice not having a discussion you were never interested in to start with. Great attitude you' have there

[Straw Man]

92. Wrong again.

Not personal: rhetorical. I analyzed your style and found it wanting. I explained why your discourse is not credible. I'm sorry if that hurts.

[pablo_marmol]

97. So if I disagree with your bigoted, presumptuous

"many man gunners fetish" theory it logically follows that I'm ill-informed -- even though you know nothing about my experience with fellow shooters.



If you insist on digging yourself in deeper with every post, kindly rent a backhoe and move the job along, will you?

[Starboard Tack]

100. Oh, you're quite a card. You should do a stand up routine with such cutting edge humor.

Not bigoted, hint, you might want to look the word up. I make no sweeping generalizations. The word many does not mean most, but it means more than a few. Look it up while you have the dictionary out. I know nothing about you. You may be very well informed or completely ignorant. I have no idea.
I'm sure you've had wonderful times with your "fellow shooters". And that there was nothing erotic about your experience.

Doesn't mean there aren't a whole bunch of them out there, or all the gun porn wouldn't be so prolific. Maybe you good ol' liberal shooters don't hang in the same places. I've seen and met plenty, YMMV.

[pablo_marmol]

101. Do you really think that you're fooling anyone with this silly soft shoe? Really?

Obviously, we all know what the definition of many is. Of course you know that. We also all know that there are millions of guns in the U.S. You know that. So clearly even if only a very small percentage of gun owners fits your "fetishist" criteria that would translate to 'many' "fetishists." What you were obviously implying with your use of the word 'many' is that a good percentage of gun owners are fetishists - which you obviously cannot provide evidence for. Either that, or you feel some bizarre, pressing need to state the obvious. I'm going to guess it is the former, based on other things I've read from you.

Do you really think that you've created plausible deniability with this little tap dance? Seriously? You're not just disingenuous - you are transparently so.

[Starboard Tack]

102. Soft shoe? Really? And Pablo, I'm not here to fool people.

If you doubt me about the extent of fetishism among gun owners, feel free to Google "gun fetish".
Fact is, there are some out there who use sexuality to market anything from cars to guns. You don't have to be a student of Freud to understand this. Millions of dollars are spent advertising and marketing firearms and associated products. If you think there is no appeal to the fetishits out there, then you are either being disingenuous or have lived a very sheltered life, at least in terms of guns.

I notice you are a fan of Freddie Forsyth, also one of my favorite writers. Check what his opinin is of your wonderful 2A. I'd provide a link but am limited by droid.

Just curious, but do you carry a gun around yourself?

[pablo_marmol]

42. One day when I was at the indoor range where I shoot

there was an instructor guiding a family of three through what was obviously their first session at a range. Husband, wife, and what looked to be a 15/16 year old daughter.

Mom was clearly terrified - and she was missing the backing target cardboard as often as she was hitting it. I would have moved away from them had it not been for the solid design of the range and the attentive instructor that was with them.

Dad was better, but still clearly noticeably scared of the semi-auto pistol he was firing and performing at a level that seemed to be somewhat less that average for a first-timer.

Daughter was attentive and fearless, and having a great time. She kept almost all of her shots within 12 inches at about 15 yards, and improved steadily with each round she fired.

One of the most ugly things that the pro-restriction movement has done has been to attempt to convince women that if they try to defend themselves with firearms that they'll "have them taken away from them". Funny how folks who rail against violence directed at women - and chauvinism of all types - can do a 180 when it comes to those evil gunz.

[HockeyMom]

56. My husband taught me how to shoot 40 years ago

as a Newlywed. I finally realized that I was only doing this to please HIM. I did not like it at all so I stopped. A woman teacher would have made no difference at all. I could care less if females are shooters or instructors.

[Eleanors38]

87. Clubs like A Girl and a Gun, and Austin Sureshots..

will meet the demand. These 2 womens' shooting outfits have 3 very active chapters between them. I know the Sureshots has build-your-own AR-15 parties. No doubt, women who become well-versed and experienced will turn to instruction, esp. with the job situation being suckie.

[Lurks Often]

96. Pistol permit instructors can make pretty good money in the course of a class

CT requires an 8 hour class with live fire. Most instructors charge about $100 per person and class sizes seem to be around 10-15. Of course the instructor is responsible for supplying the firearm(s) used for the class, the ammo and the targets.

More advanced instruction goes up from there and the shooter normally supplies the ammo and firearm.