Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ArrogantBustard
Is that your idea of proof?

I told you to bring proof, not blather.

Why do you think the NRA rejected his rules?

Because they are UNSAFE !!!


35 posted on 03/02/2011 10:30:18 AM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]


To: UriĀ’el-2012

I told you to bring proof, not blather.


37 posted on 03/02/2011 10:31:39 AM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: UriĀ’el-2012; ArrogantBustard
Why do you think the NRA rejected his rules?

Because they are UNSAFE !!!

U - I've been following your antics through several threads now. AB has asked multiple times for proof for your statements and all you come back with is stupid "yo-mamma" like quips. They're not as witty as you seem to believe, and without proof you're just chewing up bandwidth that could be better spent as white space on a blank page.

You put forward a factual proposition that (1) the NRA used Cooper's rules in the past, (2) ND's did not decrease after implementation of those rules (a meaningless statement without knowing what rules existed beforehand), (3) NDs did decrease after implementation of the new NRA rules, and (4) by implication the decrease was due to the implementation of the new NRA rules rather than some outside cause. You have also put forward the legal proposition that promotion of the Cooper rules exposes one to liability because those rules are unsafe.

Taking the last one first, leave the lawyering to lawyers because you clearly have no clue. In any negligence action the standard of care will be reasonableness based upon accepted standards of care within the particular trade or industry. Given that the Cooper rules are widely accepted as safe and valid expressions of the general concept of "don't shoot yourself or anyone else without intending to do so", I am confident that no credible expert would be willing to go on record at trial stating that the Cooper rules are not a reasonable standard of care.

As for your general factual misrepresentations, your conclusion that NRA dropped the Cooper rules because they were measurably unsafe is brand new to me. The story I've heard is that the NRA developed its own rules as a matter of internal politics to distance itself from Cooper's gunsight operation. I have never seen anything suggesting that the NRA's formulation of the exact same concepts are any more or less safe than the Cooper rules. Well, except for gun counter hangers who have too much time on their hands but that's another matter. Is that where you got your ideas? 'Cause you can hear pretty much everything at a gun counter.

Last, you've made empirically verifiable statements regarding comparable ND rates under persons trained under two sets of rules. If you're going to do that you need to have real data to back it up. Anecdotes or even your own internal subjective suppositions just won't cut it. Without that, your annoying font is just a meaningless collection of unfounded personal beliefs, and I applaud AB for calling you on it. Repeatedly.

54 posted on 03/02/2011 11:05:03 AM PST by FateAmenableToChange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson