[TonyF]

In fact at no time in any thread have I ever stated being in favor of mandatory training. What I have done is expressed concerns that there are a great number of people carrying who have poor gun handling and marksmanship skills and that it is only a matter of "when", not "if" an innocent bystander gets shot or even killed by an incompetent with a firearm.

I actually agree wholeheartedly with that first sentence, but without some form of data to support the rest of the position, I fear it's anecdotal.

My basis for that statement derives from two generalizations.

1. That the number of LTC continues to increase.

2. That just about every student we see in our courses who have not had any prior formal training exhibit poor gun handling and marksmanship skills.

While I acknowledge I have no *tabluated* or *compiled* data to support my position, I would argue that it is hardly anecdotal.

It's a valuable insight coming from a trainer such as yourself, but if this were an actual issue that panned out in reality, why aren't we seeing it materialize?

I'm sure there are reasons. However, ND's do in fact occur. We recently discussed one such instance on this board having to do with a patron shopping at home depot (IIRC) and experiencing one while using their restroom.

My theory is that in the event of an ND, if nothing more than property damage results, then it isn't very *news worthy*.

My own theory is that self-defense uses of firearms where one actually fires the firearm in question are considerably rare events, and FBI and other crime statistic data suggests that the ranges are close-contact distances (inside 7 yards IIRC) and the number of shots fired is less than any current semi-automatic service pistol holds in one magazine (an average of 5 shots I believe). If we were to see actual discharging of a firearm in self-defense situations rise, or the contact distances were to become greater, or even if the number of shots fired expanded, we might see a corresponding rise in the level of collateral damage as you suggest.

This supports my point about *when" not "if". As the number of citizens being issued LTC's increases, the chances of ND's resulting in the death or injury of innocents will increase, statistically speaking. And again, my concern isn't solely related to citizens using a firearm in self defense. It's also non self defense gun handling incidents such as the one at home depot.

Specifically, the notion of myself or my loved ones becoming "collateral damage" in the context of protecting the 2A is one thing.

However if it's due to someone with an LTC who is not exercising "extraordinary care" then that's another matter altogether.

I want those of you with children to ponder for a moment how *patrioitic* you'll feel if your child falls victim to an ND by someone with an LTC who doesn't know the muzzle from the breech.

That’s a valid concern, but it’s an emotional argument, rooted only in a ‘possibility’ of danger that hasn’t yet materialized in the real world. The same argument could be used to campaign for disarming Law Enforcement Officers on the basis of their reported poor gun handling skills (i.e. “I’m the only one professional enough” and other such ND accounts) or excessive uses of force, but these arguments fail at their inception because they’re using an invalid tactic in relevant discussion by shifting the focus from the root of the matter to a more personal appeal. Sure, if LEO’s did not have firearms, they wouldn’t accidentally shoot themselves or others and they wouldn’t kill innocent people out of negligence or malice, but their ability to enforce the law would be severely diminished to the point of irrelevance; and enforcing the law is the primary reason that Law Enforcement exists in the first place.

True. But there are many other variables in the LE argument. One is that of sovereign immunity.

Similarly, sure, if less untrained citizens had firearms, there might be less negligent discharges and less potential for collateral damage (this is debatable as again, LEO’s are generally well-trained and they have more than their fair share of ND’s and lapses in judgment, suggesting that training itself is not an actual solution), but that this would in effect, provide a vehicle for the further transferrance of the Second Amendment from a right to a privelege.

I strongly disagree that LEO's are generally better trained that civilians. Not in my experience. I have personally witnessed LEO's from Pittsburgh P.D. with horrible gun handling and marksmanship skills. The only ones who have adequate skills are those who pay out of their own pocket to attend private sector training.

One of the best kept secrets from the public is that most LE agencies are only interested in "qualifying" their officers for reasons of liability. They then have the fall back position that "gee, he passed the last qual course" in an effort to avoid liability.

It’s quite clear that the founding fathers intended for one to be free to and to keep and carry arms wherever they went without interference or limitation from the government.

I'm not disputing that.

To address the Founding Fathers and their reasoning, I've stated before that some two centuries later they would never have presumed that safe and proper gun handling, passed on from father to son, would become problematic in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

That’s a valid issue on the surface, however, if we really look into the premise of this argument, it is directly comparable to the arguments against free speech and the internet in regards to decency standards or political influence, or against protections from unreasonable search and seizure and suspension of due process and the so-called “War on Terror”. The founders had just lived through a period of peril and uncertainty during a difficult a treacherous war of rebleiion, the reason that the anti-federalists campaigned for the Bill of Rights was not in absence of a knowledge of danger or trying times, it was with a distinct and intimate knowledge that for a republic to be successful, individual liberty must be held to a higher regard than perceived safety at any cost.

I do not doubt that the founders of this nation were not prophets, what I doubt is that seeing as how their sentiments almost overwhelmingly favored individual liberty over perceived safety or security in the aftermath or their most perilous times, that their opinions on the Bill of Rights and how it applies to the individual would be any different today than they were in the 1700’s. True, they might be concerned to see that knowledge of arms has not been passed down from father to son in recent generations, but I can almost guarantee that they would be infuriated and outraged over the notion that the erosion of the rights that they labored, fought and lost their countrymen and loved ones to be able to preserve to us largely came in the name of “safety” or under the guise of “security”, and largely at our request no less.

I don't disagree.

But when we talk about security vs. liberty we're generally discussing enemies both domestic and foreign.

This still doesn't address the fact that the Founding Fathers could not have possibly fathomed that in the present, our culture would be so changed that gun handling and marksmanship would not be passed on from father to son.

They never envisioned a time when "I" would have to be concerned that another of my fellow citizens puts *me* at risk not because of tyranny or oppression but because he / she doesn't know the breech from the muzzle (e.g. is incompetent).

You and others are narrowly defining the terms of LTC and RKBA from the perspective of the fears of the Founding Fathers. I'm simply suggesting there is a *new* threat emerging, that of a greatly increasing number of incompetent gun handlers carrying in proximity to you, me and our loved ones.

What I'm not suggesting is that something *be done* so I'll reiterate that I voted "I don't know". I would at least like you (and others) to acknowledge that the likelihood of ND's are only going to increase as more and more citizens exercise their RKBA and seek issuance of a LTC.