I don't even have any proof of that. I've seen lots of overeducated people think that a piece of paper with a certification on it gives them license to pontificate about the widest array of stuff. Barak Obama, for instance, has a paper from Harvard and once lectured on Con Law, and he believes that now gives him the right to rewrite both the constitution and the definition of marriage.
Since: (1) you're dead wrong about the law,
(2) spouting theories about the history of the NRA rules of gun safety that contradict what I've consistently heard from NRA folks for a number of years,
(3) what you are saying makes absolutely zero sense (common or otherwise),
(4) you have consistently failed to provide any proof to any of your assertions other than your dogged claim to be a certified instructor of NRA instructors, and
(5) you write everything in a really annoying font,
I'm going to place you in the category of the slightly-trollish-gun-counter-opinion-holder who has extrapolated his theories out well past the boundaries of reason or experience.
No offense intended but the factual positions you take are simply not supportable. If the NRA had actually done a study to show that their version of the rules of gun safety produced markedly safer shooters than the well-known and widely-accepted Cooper rules, don't you think that the gun boards would be discussing the merits of that study in the same frequency as the Marshall-Sarnow stopping power data, John Lott's more guns less crime data, or the relative merits of the .45ACP v. the 9mm?
The only way such data could exist and not be discussed is if it is held in a super-secret, bomb-proof vault underneath Waples-Mill Rd and the NRA is sitting on it because they know that to reveal something that groundbreaking would save lives in the short term but ultimately cause the downfall of western civilization by showing that Jeff Cooper was wrong about something. Occam's razor -- you're asking me to believe that someone did this study (I doubt it -- putting together the control group would be a logistical nightmare, and probably only the military could get human subject approval for something like this, and doing the regressions to control for external factors would likely be impossible), and that somehow not only I, but also the entire community of internet gun board discussants, missed this study. I simply cannot imagine an alternate reality in which (a) this study exists, and (b) it is not discussed widely throughout the gun board-o-sphere.
I, and AB, both have expressed a willingness to be proved wrong if you provide any proof of your assertion. That, too, is an indicator that you are dealing with reasonable folks on the other end of this conversation. And yet, you consistently refuse to provide that proof.
Another indication that you are probably a 18-year-old kid posing as a knowledgable writer on firearms issues is that you insist on using weird html to format your posts. Your font is hard on the eyes and not very cool. Alternatively, I'm also looking at the word count comparing my posts and AB's posts to your responses. I'm fairly certain that neither of us truly believe we can sway your opinion, but at least in my case I really hate to see anti-knowledge spread recklessly throughout the internet. So far, your opinions in your font are anti-knowledge, and I'm writing both for the exercise in logic and to balance your anti-knowledge with well-thought-out responses. But the balance of payments resembles that between the US and China, and therefore I don't see any reason to deal further with your puffery.
Charlie Sheen; I'm outing you !You make as much sense as drug addled Charlie Sheen.
Here, I’ll hold the nail, and when I nod my head, you hit it with the hammer.
Damn, I wish I could organize my thoughts enough to write as well as you do. Excellent post.