Handgun Holster, what are they used for? (in canada)

Status
Not open for further replies.
maetsack said:
How many times do I have to explain "appeal to authority" and it's still the last thing he throws over the fence???
I feel like I could jungle my keys and half of these guys would drop everything and stare. :)
Click to expand...

Jingle*

And do tell us, what makes you more qualified than some of the other members here?
 
Last edited:
maetsack said:
So we offer holster certification to our members (some of which are shift workers) at no cost, but because we ask you to demonstrate proficiency at certain skills over a reasonable period of time or at your own pace, we are elitist.
There is zero point in continuing this discussion with you.
Click to expand...

No, you are elitist because of the stringent requirements based off of personal opinions not based in fact.

If the Canadian Gov't allows me to challenge my test for my RPAL, and the police agency I work for allows me to carry a gun in a level 3 holster, loaded, with no more than a little supervision, then why are you requiring people to have 3 RSOs sign off of them, at the convenience of the RSOs?
 
yohann160 said:
There is something profoundly wrong in an acronym that tells a noob to point a gun in his face in order to check if its unloaded. Incidentally, the same guy who taught the us the acronym during my gun license class also got into an argument with me about mag capacities: he didn't believe me when I told him the Lee-Enfield and M1 Garand we allowed 10 and 8 shots respectively. He dismissed it and said I was mixing hunting rifles with military assault rifles.

f:P:
Click to expand...

Your instructor should know better but the fact is the Canadian Gun Scheme is quite convoluted and unnecessarily complicated.
I hope you were joking though when you said that observing the bore is done in order to see whether the gun is loaded or not.

If that's what your instructor taught you then he should not be teaching the course.
 
For sh!ts and giggle, I'd like to explain "appeal to authority" as simply as I think possible (last time, I swear). This is a logical fallacy that states the attacker is attacking the person making the argument and NOT the argument itself by either invoking an authority that disagrees or challenging the authority of the person making the argument. I realize I'm playing a little loose with the definition, but I'm trying to keep the pace moving.

Consider this example, a student and teacher are looking out the window and the student says "The sky is blue". The teacher responds by saying "No, the sky is green."

The appeal to the authority attack says the student is wrong cause he lacks the authority and the teacher is right cause he possesses the authority. It does not address the logic of the argument in any way, rather merely WHO is making the argument.

If I say "safe holster training does NOT end with ACTS/PROVE/whatever" and your response is "Well ex-SAS, ex-Blackwater, Johnny Stiffcock disagrees", you have FAILED COMPLETELY to defeat the argument. You have presented nothing and failed to even addressed it. I can't stress this enough - you are FAILING here! Don't fall into this trap of stupidity. It makes you look like an idiot!

I hope this helps the next one of you who wants to go down this road.
Neither my, yours, or Johnny Stiffcock's credentials matter if you do not have a logical reason to refute an argument.
 
GuiltySpark said:
Appeal to authority or not it's pretty unconvincing to talk about ones credentials in an internet discussion while refusing to acknowledge what those credentials are.
Click to expand...

And thank you for proving my point, AGAIN !!! Seriously, thanks. Textbook.
I can always count on you GuiltySpark :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom