Standards for CCW or RKBA? Please read the whole thread before voting!

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by TonyF

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.

I hope I did not offend you with the use of the term “Anecdotal”, but your observations, regardless of their actual value, do fall within the definition of “anecdotal evidence”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

I’m not discounting your entire premise based on that, I am just noting that your observations are anecdotal and should be recognized as such. No offense was meant.

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*.

I can agree there, however, we cannot quantify events that are not recorded and validated, so hinging one’s argument on those (either for or against) really doesn’t help. Not that I think you in particular are doing that, but it is a tendency in the firearms community for people to put way too much stock in “there’s one story that” or “I know a guy”, and that’s dangerous because such occurrences are not necessarily the norm, and thus not a valid basis to support an argument (again, on either side).

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.

Okay, just to put this part of the issue behind us, I offer the following data:


CCW Permits Issued
1999 – 109,556
2000 – 86,706 :: -20.86%
2001 – 101,206 :: +16.72%
2002 – 101,440 :: +0.23%
2003 – 118,070 :: +16.39%
2004 – 107,285 :: -9.13%
2005 – 101,643 :: -5.26%

Total – 624,263 :: Overall, 7.22% less CCW permits were issued in 2005 than were in 1999. The average change for the time period is 0.32% less permits being issued per year.




Firearms
1999 – 396,709
2000 – 381,441 :: -3.85%
2001 – 318,228 :: -16.57%
2002 – 388,001 :: +21.93%
2003 – 392,132 :: +1.06%
2004 – 392,809 :: +0.17%
2005 – 386,382 :: -1.64%

Total – 2,269,320 :: Overall, 0.98% less firearms were sold in 2005 than were in 1999. The average change for the time period is 0.18% more firearms being sold per year.



Handguns
1999 – 179,272
2000 – 159,457 :: -11.05%
2001 – 155,120 :: -2.72%
2002 – 143,357 :: -7.58%
2003 – 147,719 :: +3.04%
2004 – 146,126 :: -1.08%
2005 – 151,891 :: +3.95%

Total – 931051 :: Overall, 15.27% less handguns were sold in 2005 than were in 1999. The average change for the time period is 2.57% less handguns being sold per year.


Rifles
1999 – 217,437
2000 – 221,984 :: +2.09%
2001 – 163,108 :: -26.52%
2002 – 244,644 :: +49.99%
2003 – 244,413 :: -0.09%
2004 – 246,683 :: +0.93%
2005 – 234491 :: -4.94%

Total – 1,338,269:: Overall, 7.84% more rifles were sold in 2005 than were in 1999. The average change for the time period is 3.57% more rifles being sold per year.



Source:
http://www.psp.state.pa.us/psp/cwp/b...BCOB=0&C=69774
If there is a distinct trend upward as you appear to state, the data we have does not support this and more current data (2006) is not available for it yet.

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

That’s a red herring.

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.

Wait a minute, you can’t have it both ways. LEO’s go through mandatory training, unless this training is specifically teaching officers dangerous and improper gun handling skills, the fact that they don’t generally exhibit better skills than untrained civilians is a statement in favor of my argument, not yours, as again, we go back to the value of training where there is a lack of initiative and desire on the trainee’s part and the facts of what negligence is. If you look at the bold underlined portion of your quote, I specifically submit that this also supports my argument, as LEO’s are no different than civilians in that aspect. Mandatory training does not produce safe gun handling skills or proficiency.

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).

Of an interesting note, if you look at the HRSI (Game Commission) reports, you’ll see that in 1915 through to the 1960’s hunting accidents were more than 6 times as prevalent as they are now. What does this suggest? Well, in 1915, firearms and hunting knowledge was indeed passed on to generations (the trend of that knowledge not being passed on did not seriously start until the most recent generations), yet training has apparently improved in the Hunter Safety course and it started in 1959 in Pennsylvania. This would seem to somehow suggest that safety in the realm of hunting has made an impact. It would be interesting to see when the requirements for wearing blaze orange came into effect and also the number of permits being issued during those time frames to see if that suggestion stands on merit. Of course, considering how basic the Hunter Safety course is, this might simply be a case of refining the methods to identify a target rather than actual proficiency.

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.

When you can put data to prove that, I will certainly concede. I only seeing you say it “will” where I have given data that many of your fears “haven’t”. If the 2006 State Police Report shows more LTC’s and handguns being sold and the 2005 CDC report shows that unintentional firearms death have increased/decreased in corresponding numbers to the increase/decrease in LTC’s, I may concede that there is an emerging correlation. Until valid data shows this, it’s premature and irresponsible to suggest it.

In the FWIW category, I once theorized that the majority of unintentional firearms deaths would be the result of young (under-aged) children that have no exposure or traiing on firearms safety or by relatively novice shooters and hunters. When I found that the number of those incidents is a mere fraction of the total, I realized that this presumption was wrong. Looking at the data that suggests that most incidents are in fact relating to adults closer to their 30’s through their 50’s, I suspect that the bulk of incidents are related to lapses in judgment or acts of negligence, again, things that training does not prevent.


Thank you for the kind debate, I've enjoyed it thus far.

[C-Smull]

Originally Posted by jmateer

I agree 100%. I've been around a ton of Pitt PD cops, and I know 98% of the cops back home. Most of them only shoot twice a year....to qualify. Cops get the bare minimum in training. I had my friend (Police Chief) go over his handgun training they gave him in the academy and I thought it was one of the funniest things I've ever seen, but it's better than nothing. But, as Tony said, the ones that are well trained, are the ones that pay for it themselves. I tried to get some cop buddies of mine to get training, but they feel they don't need it, because they had training in th academy. These are also the guys that constantly talk about stuff like someday having to shoot over a hostage's shoulder to kill the BG, and make fun of me "the civi" for carrying more gear than they do.

I have to agree with both Jmateer and TonyF on this one, I know cops who only do the minimum and cops who pay out of pocket for extra tranning. The same goes for those of us who aren't cops. Which gets me back to the main question at hand. It is our right as cittzens to own firearms it is also our right to carry those firearms wether it be vermont or LTCF and so on. There are a lot of people out there with firearms that are ill trained. Fact is you as a resonablegun owner should take it upon themself to train with there guns not only in classes and saftey course but also on ther own time at a range or even at home. To add to this physical tranning a person should also metaily train themselfs knowing the sings of when should draw your firearm and knowing ther suroundings. And also knowing alternive selfprotection measures to take with out drawing a firearm. And lastly knowing the laws for own and carrying a firearm and all other leagal things that go along with it.

[Brick]

Personally I believe that any kind of standard or training requirement or even licensing itself is an imposition on the individuals rights. Licenses are given by the state to allow a priveledge. Priveledges can be denied at any time for any reason or no reason at all. Rights can never be licensed.

[C-Smull]

Agreed Brick
I do not believe that the state should require tranning and any kind of firearms licenses area privallage. A privallage which should be taken seriously!

[TonyF]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

I hope I did not offend you with the use of the term “Anecdotal”, but your observations, regardless of their actual value, do fall within the definition of “anecdotal evidence”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

No offense taken.

I’m not discounting your entire premise based on that, I am just noting that your observations are anecdotal and should be recognized as such. No offense was meant.

You're apparently a *numbers* man (I mean that as a compliment) so let me put it another way.

I've attended and asissted well over 50 formal training courses with enrollment numbering on average 10 students per class (some more, some less). That's in excess of 500 samples. I'm guessing, but probably at least 75% were untrained and they all exhibited the same tendencies regarding poor gun handling skills at the beginning of the class.

IMHO, I see nothing occuring to otherwise make me think that untrained people have better gun handling and marksmanship skills today than those I've witnessed first hand over the last 10 to 12 years.

That may still not satisfy your penchant for hard data (and I do understand that hard, verifiable data is important), but it does fall within the realm of *reality* as opposed to theorizing.

Not that I think you in particular are doing that, but it is a tendency in the firearms community for people to put way too much stock in “there’s one story that” or “I know a guy”, and that’s dangerous because such occurrences are not necessarily the norm, and thus not a valid basis to support an argument (again, on either side).

I agree completely.

Okay, just to put this part of the issue behind us, I offer the following data:
If there is a distinct trend upward as you appear to state, the data we have does not support this and more current data (2006) is not available for it yet.

The way I look at the data is not whether there are yearly increases, but that each year more people are issued an LTC and thus *cumulatively*, each year there are more people carrying.

Every year there are a number of 20 year old's anxiously awaiting turning 21 so as to apply for an LTC.

That’s a red herring.

Why do you consider the issue of soveriegn immunity a red herring?

Wait a minute, you can’t have it both ways. LEO’s go through mandatory training, unless this training is specifically teaching officers dangerous and improper gun handling skills, the fact that they don’t generally exhibit better skills than untrained civilians is a statement in favor of my argument,

I most certainly can have it both ways. There is *training* and then there is *training*. Most agency training is woefully lacking. OTOH, Gunsite is accredited to teach AZ's CCW class. They do an outstanding job as they go beyond the basic required curriculum. It is 16 hours (two days) in duration culminating with a basic indoor scenario (shoot house) whereby if you shoot a *good guy* target, you fail.

As a further example, I have heard many horror stories at FLETC, the pre-eminent Federal LE training facility in Georgia. If I hadn't personally known those relating their experiences I wouldn't have believed it.

Mandatory training does not produce safe gun handling skills or proficiency.

Again, I fully agree but there is *training* and then there is *training*.

Of an interesting note, if you look at the HRSI (Game Commission) reports, you’ll see that in 1915 through to the 1960’s hunting accidents were more than 6 times as prevalent as they are now. What does this suggest? Well, in 1915, firearms and hunting knowledge was indeed passed on to generations (the trend of that knowledge not being passed on did not seriously start until the most recent generations), yet training has apparently improved in the Hunter Safety course and it started in 1959 in Pennsylvania. This would seem to somehow suggest that safety in the realm of hunting has made an impact.

You're now supporting my argument that training does in fact mitigate AD's and ND's.

Of course, considering how basic the Hunter Safety course is, this might simply be a case of refining the methods to identify a target rather than actual proficiency.

Now you're the one speculating.

In the FWIW category, I once theorized that the majority of unintentional firearms deaths would be the result of young (under-aged) children that have no exposure or traiing on firearms safety or by relatively novice shooters and hunters. When I found that the number of those incidents is a mere fraction of the total, I realized that this presumption was wrong. Looking at the data that suggests that most incidents are in fact relating to adults closer to their 30’s through their 50’s, I suspect that the bulk of incidents are related to lapses in judgment or acts of negligence, again, things that training does not prevent.

I guess this is where we ultimately disagree.

Firearms training has less to do with shooting amd so much more to do with education and negligence can often be traced to ignorance.

Thank you for the kind debate, I've enjoyed it thus far.

You're welcome. I've enjoyed it likewise.

FWIW, you're very well read on this issue and it's obvious you've studied the matter more than most on this board, including me. If you really want to round out you're knowledge base, I'd humbly suggest some *field studies* of new students their first day in a training class.

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by TonyF

No offense taken.



You're apparently a *numbers* man (I mean that as a compliment) so let me put it another way.

I've attended and asissted well over 50 formal training courses with enrollment numbering on average 10 students per class (some more, some less). That's in excess of 500 samples. I'm guessing, but probably at least 75% were untrained and they all exhibited the same tendencies regarding poor gun handling skills at the beginning of the class.

IMHO, I see nothing occuring to otherwise make me think that untrained people have better gun handling and marksmanship skills today than those I've witnessed first hand over the last 10 to 12 years.

See, here’s the problem with using that kind of information, it’s subjective. I don’t know what you’re standards are for poor gun handling skills or safety. Gabe Suarez let one of his students (one he knew well apparently) shoot at a target that Gabe was standing right next to (for what reason I can only imagine). Now, Gabe is, whatever you want to say about him, a well-known trainer. He’s controversial no doubt, but he’s trained at least as many people as anyone else and a lot of people think highly of his courses. Personally, I don’t consider him a safe person, but to his point, gun fighting isn’t safe, train how you fight etc…

But that’s largely just an anecdotal reference on my part. Anyway, back to my point on this aspect of your post.

“Safe” is a relative term. So is “proficient”. Who decides the standards? What is safe? In order to really get some information from your type of situation, one would have to first form a concrete set of definitions for “safe” and “proficient” in a meaningful context of LTC holders. Are the 4 rules not enough? If so, why not? Will training someone that is irresponsible make them less negligent? Why and how?

Here’s what I know of training and testing based on the study of human nature and education; people get out of it what they put into it. I’m sure you’re likely to agree to a certain extent, but here’s where I think we may differ:

You’re coming from the context of someone that (as far as I know) offers training in a state where it is not mandated. The students that you train all want to take the course. They’ve admitted that there is room for them to improve, so they’re receptive to being trained. Your training is not mandated or required in any way, shape or form in regards to civilians with LTC’s. That’s my point of reference.

Studies do show that students (at any level or discipline) retain information better in courses that they desire to take than in courses that they do not. An average college graduate takes probably 32 to 40 courses for an undergraduate degree these days. Many of those courses are not pertinent to the student’s desired course of study; they’re forced to take so-called humanities courses as part of the institution’s aims for a more well-rounded student (in all reality, it’s just a ploy to make more money from admissions and book sales). How much college level algebra does your average Journalism major actually know? If they’re actually interested in algebra, it might be a lot, but if they’re not, chances are they just studied what they had to in order to pass and then they simply disregarded the majority of it.

I’ll use myself as an anecdotal example. In high school and the beginning of college, I wanted a law degree. I didn’t care about math or statistics, I only cared about law classes, English and Latin. I got by in school with mathematic study because I had to in order to keep my GPA up, but I thought I’d never use it and since I was forced to take it, I did what I had to do in order to pass. Now here I am 10+ years later working as an Analyst, not a lawyer. I deal with statistical analysis and mathematics 40 to 60 hours a week in order to get paid. I can tell you that despite having a high IQ, good memory and good grades in math growing up, because I didn’t actually want to retain the information, I forgot most of it. I had to go back and relearn a lot of even some basic building blocks of mathematics over the last few years in order to excel at my given profession. Despite having High Honors and “A” grades in math courses, I just didn’t retain it because I only did what I had to in order to pass. And it’s not my memory, I still remember everything English-related that I ever took in school back to when I could barely write my own name. And it’s certainly not because I don’t have a knack for numbers, I do this stuff in my head these days.

So I find it completely understandable that you’re reporting what you are, again given that the only people that come to you for training do so willingly, I am sure that they improve their skills as much as I am sure that they come to you lacking in skill; otherwise, why would they pay the money? I have friends that are trainers in states that mandate training for a LTC/CCW/CHP, the majority of what they tell me is that the students that actually want to get better learn, those that are just there because the state says they have to be only learn what they have to in order to pass, and these guys know full well that once those students are out of their class, they’ll go back to whatever they were prior to the instruction.

To quote Larry Correia, Utah CCW instructor and part-owner of FBMG Inc. (Fuzzy Bunny Movie Guns – a gun store) and well-respected moderator on The High Road from about a year ago:

“Late to this discussion, but I just volunteered to be called upon as a CCW instructor in this state to testify in favor of Alaska/Vermont style carry before the state legislature. Don't know if I'll be the one that testifys or not, but I look forward to doing so if asked.

Utah has a training requirement. Apparently some CCW instructors are prepared to testify against losing the training requirment. (Why? My guess, loss of income, but justified by the arguments of the pro-mandatory training folks on this thread.)

In my experience from the other side of the table, regardless of what training is required, the responsible will be responsible, and morons will be really well behaved during my class, and then go back to being themselves five minutes after I sign off on their application.

I'm all about training, but it should be voluntary, not mandatory.”

What he wrote about is indicative of the argument I put forth above. I think if you own a firearm and don’t know what you’re doing and don’t get educated on the arm and the use of it (including safety), you’re a fool, I just don’t agree that the government has any right to mandate hoops to jump through in order to exercise a right.

That may still not satisfy your penchant for hard data (and I do understand that hard, verifiable data is important), but it does fall within the realm of *reality* as opposed to theorizing.

It’s definitely real, all I’m saying is that your experiences may or may not be common or prevalent, without actually tracking such data, we really don’t know.

The way I look at the data is not whether there are yearly increases, but that each year more people are issued an LTC and thus *cumulatively*, each year there are more people carrying.

Every year there are a number of 20 year old's anxiously awaiting turning 21 so as to apply for an LTC.

Actually, you’re right, and I failed to acknowledge this in my post (I meant to). With the permit period being 5 years in this state, even though a net increase in the amount of permits issued is very low, it still amounts to a much greater number or permits currently in circulation (because you still have all of the other permits from the last 4 years that are still in use and valid). But again, if we look at the data, if we have an additional 100,000 permits each year, but the mortal handgun injuries do not go up (or even go down instead), we’re still not seeing your concerns materialize. If anything, that makes my case stronger. I see what you’re saying, and we are working with some unknowns here, but the known elements all strongly suggest that my premise is correct.

Why do you consider the issue of soveriegn immunity a red herring?

I guess because I fail to see the relevance on how that plays out with how safe LTC holders are with or without training. I don’t know what you’re getting at exactly, and I can’t fathom how it is relevant is all.

I most certainly can have it both ways. There is *training* and then there is *training*. Most agency training is woefully lacking. OTOH, Gunsite is accredited to teach AZ's CCW class. They do an outstanding job as they go beyond the basic required curriculum. It is 16 hours (two days) in duration culminating with a basic indoor scenario (shoot house) whereby if you shoot a *good guy* target, you fail.

So you’re suggesting Gunsite level training in order to exercise a right? Should everyone with an opinion have to pay for and take a mandatory college-level English composition class or Oration course before they share their thoughts? I mean, who is supposed to pay for this mandatory firearms training? At what point does it become a privelege to you? Again, this is all of course assuming that there truly is a problem. Until a proponent for mandatory training can come up with hard numbers to justify their position, the burden falls on them to prove their case.

You're now supporting my argument that training does in fact mitigate AD's and ND's.

Now you're the one speculating.

I said it’s possible, but if that were true, again, I go back to the mountain of data I already posted showing similar numbers of unintentional gun deaths in states with and without training requirements. And again, with those numbers, we’re falsely assuming a worst-case scenario that all of those incidents can be attributed to LTC/CCW holders. The numbers are surely much, much, much lower than those based simply on the low numbers of revocations of LTC permits in PA each year. If it’s not a justified shoot or one hits an innocent bystander in the process, surely they’re charged and their permit is likely revoked, wouldn’t you say? I know people who have had theirs revoked for less.

Firearms training has less to do with shooting and so much more to do with education and negligence can often be traced to ignorance.

There is a very distinct difference between negligence and ignorance (especially in the legal sense). Negligence is failing to act on information one does have (or should have), ignorance is not having that information. But I do see some of what you’re saying, most people should know, without any training whatsoever, that pointing a gun at someone without cause is a bad idea or that handling a loaded firearm requires caution, attention and care.

FWIW, you're very well read on this issue and it's obvious you've studied the matter more than most on this board, including me. If you really want to round out you're knowledge base, I'd humbly suggest some *field studies* of new students their first day in a training class.

In another FWIW moment, two things:

One: if you were to fight for mandatory firearms training for everyone by a certain age, regardless of LTC or whether or not they own guns or have guns in the home or plan to, I’d be your biggest ally (I’d even compile and feed you data and great talking points on the issue all day long) because that truly would aim to solve a known and quantifiable problem; accidental shootings by those ignorant of firearms (children, young adults, those that have never been around guns etc…). It would also serve to keep the ideal of a state volunteer militia in tact (without the 500lb bozos sipping Budweiser and shooting at silhouette targets in the hills of West Virginia while wearing fatigues). That, to me, is an honest argument and a respectful aim. If the required training was for of all citizens (say in school, maybe high school) and did not serve as a restricting condition to getting a CWP, I would fully support it, and my guess is many others in here would as well. The sticker for me is the restricting condition part on getting an LTC, not the training itself or that it would be required in some form. It should not be a condition to exercise a right.


Two: I would personally love to educate others on the safe use of firearms, but it’s a difficult proposition in a state that doesn’t require the training, it’s a small market so doing it full time and thus getting the experience and ability is a longer road than it is elsewhere. This year, I’ll be working on getting into instructing rifle marksmanship and safety, perhaps I’ll have a better perspective then. I haven’t taken any formal training classes myself (I’ve been instructed by instructors and such, just not in a formal setting), but I certainly recognize the value of training.

[Archiver]

Just wanted to let you guys know I'm enjoying this discussion! Its nice when just 2 members debate both sides of an issue so thoroughly!

[sams819]

TWO PAGES OF DISCUSSION FOR WHAT?
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!!! EVERYTHING ELSE IS MOOT!

[BUCKMARK]

I'm against mandatory training if for no other reason than PRICE.

States that require training for LTC are most often charging well over $100 for that permit. And the price is still very high to renew in those states.

Since when does the right to protect yourself and your family relate to the amount of money you make?

$26 for a LTC in Bedford County is a fair and modest price to pay. $160??? I think not.


From what I have read on various gun forums over the years, this "Mandatory Training" is a joke and consists of being able to show that you can hit a sheet of paper from 7 yards.

I'm all for optional training, and I have taken many courses that were below my ability just for extra range time, and to learn every detail I can from different trainers. I think everyone should take a few classes if and when they can afford it.

Every year in America many untrained, gun ignorant citizens pick up a firearm and use it to defend themselves and their families. I'm not about to tell them they can't due to the fact that they make minimum wage.

[phillyd2]

Originally Posted by TonyF

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.

Tony, Tony, Tony

How many more freedoms must we give up to this tired old scare tactic? At what point will a proud people again stand and say "Enough!"?

How many more freedoms must we sacrifice upon the false alter of "Its for the Children"? Where is the limit? Where does it end? Must all children be bred, live and die in enclosed protective bubbles before we are finally rid of this tyrannical desperate song?

I concede that if all gun owners were trained there would be a percentage of less accidents involving children. So what? Why stop there? Why not mandatory training for knives? bike ridding? eating peanuts? Surely if we really care about "the children" there is no end to the amount of government intrusion we will permit in order to sleep under this illusion of safety?

Its a fools argument to think that if we give up yet another right (mandatory training for example) it will end there. Does any really believe that we are not on a slippery slope where seemingly reasonable restrictions will only be followed by another and then another and then another?

When will our fellow gun owners finally understand that the 2A has nothing to do with crime? When will we finally see that it has nothing to do with child safety? Are we so dense as to not understand that is has nothing to do with hunting, sport shooting, war on terror or any other red herring issue?

The 2A is there for one reason and one reason only: To protect the people against government tyranny. Nothing more and nothing less. Period and end of sentence. Is this concept really so hard to grasp? Do none understand history? Do none understand the evil man can do when their power is absolute? You guys can quote statistics until you are blue in the face and while interesting it has absolutely nothing to do with the real issue.

I would even argue that by conceding that our right to bear arms is about crime, safety, hunting, etc. we are actually doing the work of these who want to reduce our rights. One only has to say Columbine or another school shooting to invalidate any argument to the contrary resulting in a false debate about a false issue. It saddens me to no end to see fellow gun owners fall into this false debate. Only against mandatory training because of price? Would approve mandatory firearms training for everyone? Never before has the old adage of "we have the government we deserve" been more true. My only wish to this group is that instead of the old dribble lip service we would truly care about our children. I mean really care. I mean care so much that we would forfeit our petty interests so to leave our children a truly free country. I know its most likely too late as we have all been brainwashed to "protect the children" so I guess the best we can now do is thank God that those who went before us did not act as we do today. The Children? I feel sorry for every last one of them car seat strapped, bike helmet wearing, over protected and spoiled princes and princess who must even be driven to the bus stop just to make sure their precious noses don't feel the cold of winter. A hell of a generation they will be.

To directly answer your question: we should risk to lose of as many children as it takes to guarantee our freedom against government tyranny. The "Home Depot" guy can kill one or three children because of his stupidity. His "lack of training", if you will. A couple of black trench coat wearing, BMW driving idiots can kill 10 or 20 children because of their evilness. A racist group can kill maybe a few hundred children in a well planned terrorist attack. All terrible to be sure but still well worth the risk because only a tyrannical government that oppressed a unarmed powerless people can kill and enslave millions. What price to make sure this never happens here? Whatever it takes!

I'm with you about training as soon as you drop "mandated but the government" clause.

The above was written by the father of the world's cutest, smartest and best 9 month old girl. I'm not just saying that because she is mine. Really