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

[NineseveN]

I've been participating in a number of threads on different boards regarding the process to get a CCW/CHP/CFP/whatever, and I wanted to get a Pennsylvania-centric feel for the matter.

The question is, do you support mandatory training or other such requirements to get a license to carry a concealed weapon or do you support "Vermont carry" where anyone that owns a firearm can legally carry it for legal purposes?




With that frame of mind, I'd like to set a few things along the straight and narrow:

Many states have no testing or training requirement at all, the streets do not run with blood because of all the lowly untrained CCW people. I live in PA, where absolutely no training is required for a CCW and we issue as many as or more than most places; we have no problems here from untrained people killing others in the streets wit negligent discharges or fits of temper and rage.

Someone who will carry a firearm without taking it upon themselves to get educated beforehand won't get much from mandated training anyway. Kind of like when you have Biology (or whatever) in high school. You were forced to take it, you probably passed, but can you tell me which fish species can climb trees or what Glucagon is and what it does? Without Google? My point exactly.

A large part of retention and application has to do with maturity and respect (for yourself, the person administering the material, the subject matter etc...) and without that, all of the training in the world won't make you a safe firearms owner.


But of course, the above is simply my opinion and not rooted in any demonstrable set of data or fact…well, okay, I’m lying. The following data is from the CDC website http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html, it shows gun deaths per 100,000 for the majority of the “shall issue” states. Data is from 1999 to 2004.

States that require some form of training (according to packing.org): 28
Arizona -16.11
Arkansas -15.22
Colorado - 11.25
Connecticut - 5.08
Florida - 10.73
Idaho - 12.26
Kentucky - 13.05
Louisiana - 18.38
Maine - 7.45
Michigan - 10.68
Minnesota - 6.38
Missouri - 12.31
Montana - 14.83
Nevada - 17.51
New Hampshire - 6.14
New Mexico - 16.16
North Carolina - 12.94
North Dakota - 7.86
Oklahoma - 13.37
Oregon - 10.64
South Carolina - 13.53
Tennessee - 14.79
Texas - 10.85
Utah - 10.13
Virginia - 11.01
West Virginia - 13.60
Wyoming - 14.64

Average -12.11


States that DO NOT require training (according to packing.org): 8
Alaska -17.60
Georgia - 13.18
Indiana - 11.17
Mississippi - 17.09
Pennsylvania - 9.88
South Dakota - 8.63
Vermont - 8.74
Washington - 9.16

Average - 11.93


Yeah, you read that right, states without training requirements see less gun deaths per 100,000 than those with. The difference is only 0.18, which is small and largely insignificant. Just for curiosity’s sake, let’s look at unintentional firearms deaths per 100,000.

States that require some form of training (according to packing.org): 28
Arizona - 0.31
Arkansas - 0.72
Colorado - 0.15
Connecticut - 0.09
Florida - 0.13
Idaho - 0.46
Kentucky - 0.81
Louisiana - 0.81
Maine - 0.16
Michigan - 0.13
Minnesota - 0.11
Missouri - 0.37
Montana - 0.57
Nevada - 0.19
New Hampshire - 0.17
New Mexico - 0.57
North Carolina - 0.33
North Dakota - 0.18
Oklahoma - 0.49
Oregon - 0.28
South Carolina - 0.55
Tennessee - 0.75
Texas - 0.28
Utah - 0.10
Virginia - 0.22
West Virginia - 0.50
Wyoming - 0.54

Average - 0.37


States that DO NOT require training (according to packing.org): 8
Alaska - 0.26
Georgia - 0.27
Indiana - 0.33
Mississippi - 0.86
Pennsylvania - 0.23
South Dakota - 0.64
Vermont - 0.31
Washington - 0.14

Average - 0.38

A difference in average of 0.01 deaths per 100,000 is statistically insignificant. The data shown here leads one to the conclusion that there is very little, if any difference between states with and without training requirements for concealed carry. While this information does not directly relate to CCW/CHL/CCP holders (I have no source for such data), I would expect it to follow the same general trends.

Now, since we do not see blood in the streets and rampant negligent shootings where no training is required, there is no problem to solve. Since training is a solution, you need a problem. If you have no problem, you need no solution.


Aside from the practical application of the data above, there's a difference between a right and a privilege. There should be absolutely zero requirements or hoops to jump through for a free citizen to own and carry a firearm; that’s how a right translates into a free society.

Some people will follow with the "yelling FIRE in a crowded theater" argument to demonstrate that certain restrictions are necessary and apply to are inalienable rights. And based on that idea, they will say, that there is no absolute freedom of speech because you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, so the whole firearms rights issue is moot. They’ll say that you may have firearms, but there are restrictions, just like there are restrictions on the speech you are allowed to engage in. But the example of yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater is a flawed argument as misuse or abuse of freedoms is not exercising them. The freedom is for one to be able to engage in free speech, but misusing that for unlawful purposes is not protected under the First Amendment. The same parallels can be drawn with firearms.

According to the Second Amendment, we have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms. That does not mean that we can use them for unlawful purposes such as robbing a bank (against the law with or without a firearm), firing into a public crowd for no reason or shooting others without sufficient grounds for self-defense (also already against the law). This “fire in a crowded theater” example simply does not work because apples are being compared to oranges. You are free to say ‘fire’ all you like. You can even exclaim it in a crowded theater, so long as there truly is a fire and your intent is to inform the moviegoers for their own safety (a legal purpose), not to cause a riot or a panic when no such condition exists, thus breaking the law. You are not free to use that word, or any other to commit a crime or endanger others. You may not use provocative speech to incite a riot. You may not use the freedom of speech as a tool for treason against the government. The same as, one should be allowed to keep and bear arms to their heart's content, so long as they do not use such objects for nefarious purposes. The restriction is in the misuse of the freedom, not in the freedom itself.

Futhermore, consider that if you support freedom only for yourself and those you deem to ‘deserve’ it, and only insofar as the limits that make you feel better about it, you’re not very pro-liberty. You may be “pro-gun” per se, meaning you’re not against the inanimate objects known as firearms, but you’re certainly not pro-Second Amendment if you think for one second that founders intended the government (of all entities), the majority or even you to get to decide who can and cannot or should and should not keep and bear arms. Clearly you don’t understand the intent of the Second Amendment, it’s not there to protect guns, it’s there to protect the people and their individual right to keep and bear arms as a means to fight tyranny when it attempts to circumvent the essential basis of this republic; freedom. It’s not about guns, it’s about freedom. The sooner you reconcile with that, the better off you’ll be.

With that in mind, let's see what others think.

[Member0001]

Personally, I like the Vermont way of thinking. So long as you keep yourself cool and laid back, no hassles. I might get flamed for this, but such as life. I also think that in rural areas people should be allowed to carry in the open. I own an Eagle leg holster for my M-1911A1 .45 ACP. I wish I lived somewhere I could use it and not worry.

This is just MY OPINION.

[Agent Ronin]

About the Vermont Philosophy.

As someone who maintains residency in both Vermont and PA (spend about 2 months a year in VT) its a totally different world from most of PA. Centre county and other rural areas are about the same in terms of "feel"

But my observations about Vermont. Locals are FRIENDLY, they look out for each other and most communities are the "everyone knows your name type" The largest city, Burlington doesnt even feel like a city to me. I love PA as much as i love VT. But i just wanted to point out there two totally different worlds.


BTW, interesting thread

[billamj]

Vermont all the way. Any time that the government puts restrictions on a right it becomes a privilege.

[TonyF]

Futhermore, consider that if you support freedom only for yourself and those you deem to ‘deserve’ it, and only insofar as the limits that make you feel better about it, you’re not very pro-liberty. You may be “pro-gun” per se, meaning you’re not against the inanimate objects known as firearms, but you’re certainly not pro-Second Amendment if you think for one second that founders intended the government (of all entities), the majority or even you to get to decide who can and cannot or should and should not keep and bear arms. Clearly you don’t understand the intent of the Second Amendment, it’s not there to protect guns, it’s there to protect the people and their individual right to keep and bear arms as a means to fight tyranny when it attempts to circumvent the essential basis of this republic; freedom. It’s not about guns, it’s about freedom. The sooner you reconcile with that, the better off you’ll be.

With that in mind, let's see what others think.

I hesitated to reply to this thread because rightly or wrongly, I feel I've been stigmatized as being aligned with the notion of mandating training in order to obtain a LTC.

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 voted "I don't know" which has been my position all along.

I decided to reply after re-reading your post.

In particular, " ......... you’re certainly not pro-Second Amendment if you think for one second that founders intended the government (of all entities), the majority or even you to get to decide who can and cannot or should and should not keep and bear arms. Clearly you don’t understand the intent of the Second Amendment, it’s not there to protect guns, it’s there to protect the people and their individual right to keep and bear arms as a means to fight tyranny when it attempts to circumvent the essential basis of this republic; freedom. It’s not about guns, it’s about freedom. The sooner you reconcile with that, the better off you’ll be".

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.

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.

[NineseveN]

I hesitated to reply to this thread because rightly or wrongly, I feel I've been stigmatized as being aligned with the notion of mandating training in order to obtain a LTC.

I don't know about any of that, and besides, this is an entirely different discussion than what you're referring to (at least, I presume it is), so we can start with a clean slate.

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. 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? 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.

I voted "I don't know" which has been my position all along.

I decided to reply after re-reading your post.

In particular, " ......... you’re certainly not pro-Second Amendment if you think for one second that founders intended the government (of all entities), the majority or even you to get to decide who can and cannot or should and should not keep and bear arms. Clearly you don’t understand the intent of the Second Amendment, it’s not there to protect guns, it’s there to protect the people and their individual right to keep and bear arms as a means to fight tyranny when it attempts to circumvent the essential basis of this republic; freedom. It’s not about guns, it’s about freedom. The sooner you reconcile with that, the better off you’ll be".

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.

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.

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.

Taken from Wikipedia as I don’t feel like copying text out of Commentaries on the Laws of England or my PDF on the Dredd Scott ruling, the sections below are authentic as I recall them:

The earliest published commentary on the Second Amendment by a major constitutional theorist was by St. George Tucker, also known as The American Blackstone. He authored a set of law books in 1803 that annotated Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (discussed at length later, under Colonial Rights), for American use, and that formed, in many cases, the sole legal written works read by many early American attorneys.[23] Tucker, the leading Jeffersonian constitutional theorist, was widely read, even by those who rejected his interpretation of the Constitution.

On the Second Amendment, he wrote, in two footnotes: "[fn40] The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government." "[fn41] Whoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England. The commentator himself informs us, Vol. II, p. 412, "that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws."[24] Blackstone discussed the right of individual self defense, in a separate section of his treatise on the common law of crimes. Tucker's annotations for that latter section made no mention of the Second Amendment, but cited the standard works of English jurists such as Hawkins. For two radically different views of Blackstone on the Second Amendment, see Heyman, Chicago-Kent, and Volokh, Senate Testimony.

Further, Tucker writes of the English Bill of Rights, that,
The bill of rights, 1 W. and M, says Mr. Blackstone, (Vol. 1 p. 143,) secures to the subjects of England the right of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree. In the construction of these game laws it seems to be held, that no person who is not qualified according to law to kill game, hath any right to keep a gun in his house. Now, as no person, (except the game-keeper of a lord or lady of a manor) is admitted to be qualified to kill game, unless he has 100l. per annum, &c. it follows that no others can keep a gun for their defence; so that the whole nation are completely disarmed, and left at the mercy of the government, under the pretext of preserving the breed of hares and partridges, for the exclusive use of the independent country gentlemen. In America we may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty.[25]

Tucker also wrote of the British,
True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to Protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.[26]


In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) (the "Dred Scott Decision"),[30] the Supreme Court indicated that: "It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union . . .the full liberty . . .to keep and carry arms wherever they went." This may indicate that the right to carry arms was considered to be universal for citizens of the United States, though it is not clear that the terms to 'carry arms' and to 'bear arms' were considered synonymous. The term "to keep arms" may have been considered distinctly different than to "carry arms". Both actions may have been considered to be protected for "citizens in any one State of the Union". These comments were obiter dicta (i.e., non-binding).

The Dred Scott Decision contains additional significant wording.
"More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
The Supreme Court is clearly using the phrase "privileges and immunities of citizens", as a term to describe the rights of citizens that are protected by the United States Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment.

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.

[knight0334]

One problem with the data/statistics given in original post is - how many of the deaths per 100K people were actually caused(justified or not) by those legally carrying firearms?? Those the only ones that matter in a debate to whether training should be a requirement..

If you have 5 death by guns per 100K, but none were from those who were CCW's - the, but rather to they were caused be murder/mayhem - then the 5 deaths have no bearing on CCW or the training requirement.

I'd sooner trust a law abiding person with NO training, then a well trained criminal. If Honest Joe accidently shot me while trying to defend himself from Bad Guy Bob, my beef would be with the creep that made him shoot. And thats where everyone else's beef should be - the source of the problem, the criminal.

Pennsylvania has around abouts 600,000 permits issued. ....probably one of the highest, if not #1, state in the land with the number issued. We have close to 12.5 to 13 million people in the state, which puts us at about one permit for every 20-22 people. Now ask your self, "How many times have you heard of a person, that was lawfully carrying, use or shoot carelessly and caused an innocent to get hurt?" I bet you can only come up with a handful of both actual and rumored events at best.

The way things are supposed to be acrossed this country is how Vermont does it.

[NineseveN]

I completely agree knight0334, I gave the worst-case scenario acting as if all the CDC recorded deaths were CCW holders. The CDC "unintentional" statistics did exclude homicide, suicide, legal intervention (LEO/Military), violence-related and undetermined intent, but again, no one seems to track CCW-holder incidents, so the worse-case scenario is what I presented. In all actuality, given the low crime rate (negligence counts as a crime) of CCW holders, it's likely only a mere fraction of the numbers I posted.


If I can find data showing the number of hunting licenses sold in this state each year from 1999 to 2004, I can put up some other interesting numbers as well.

From what I have been able to find thus far:

Hunting Injuries
1999 - 83 (0.68 per 100,000)
2000 - 69 (0.56 per 100,000)
2001 - 62 (0.50 per 100,000)
2002 - 68 (0.55 per 100,000)
2003 - 57 (0.46 per 100,000)
2004 - 56 (0.45 per 100,000)
Total - 395 (0.53 per 100,000)

Hunting Deaths
1999 - 4 (0.03 per 100,000)
2000 - 3 (0.02 per 100,000)
2001 - 2 (0.02 per 100,000)
2002 - 3 (0.03 per 100,000)
2003 - 4 (0.03 per 100,000)
2004 - 4 (0.03 per 100,000)
Total - 20 (0.03 per 100,000)


Keep in mind, this represents a subset of an average population of about 12,320,790 residents of PA, so it's no wonder that the numbers are lower. In this case, we can directly correlate the number of firearms injuries and deaths to hunting because the PGC keeps tabs on that data. I bet if I ran the number of CCW permits each year against the number of deaths and the number of hunting licenses each year against the hunting fatalities, the numbers would be closer than many would think. Again, that's assuming that all firearms-related deaths in this state involve CCW holders, which is impossible. Hunting has mandatory safety courses, CCW permits don't.

Interesting read:
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...a=461&q=158315


Based on this data and the trends, there is strong evidence to suggest that mandatory safety training doesn't really make much of a difference. These incidents don't occur because of what someone doesn't know, they occur because they're negligent, you cannot educate negligence out of someone as negligence is basically defined as a failure to exercise the degree of care considered reasonable under the circumstances, resulting in an unintended injury to another party (i.e. you should have or did indeed know better).

[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.

[JustinM]

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.

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.