Read the first page. Incompetent shooters are by their very nature a problem. No one needs to be shot, no one needs to die. Removing incompetent shooters from the pool protects us all.
Did, and saw that your requirements for competence means cleaning a new gun before firing it. Now, your other concern was hitting your target. Like I have said before, police tend to be worse with this than perps, so I would think you should be on some kind of bandwagon to get these police off the force to protect all of us since they are more likely to fire their weapons than any civilian is. So basically this is just your opinion and not even a real problem. Why do you think they did not require accuracy?
Or how about knowing to cleaning grease out of the bore is a good idea? Perhaps some basic no how before acquiring a concealed carry permit? I thought we established that comparing apples to oranges was a red herring and not worth further discussion? Of course, incompetent people with deadly weapons isn't a problem until someone dies. Why do they not require accuracy? Because of fallicially minded people who believe that the government will take their guns and execute them in the street if, heaven forbid, people are required to demonstrate proficiency in firearms before carrying them in public.
Well, not sure what you are saying here because fallicially is not a word. Talk about a red herring fallacy.
Wolverine, I like the idea of getting competent, but who decides this? Inevitably some crazy(or a group of crazies) will be on the judgement panel and will be deciding whether or not you are crazy. See where I'm going with this? I don't think we need to go down that rabbit hole. It is a dark and malevolent place where there is no rest or reason. That being said, I'll admit that being a marine veteran has its advantages. However I have seen marines-infantry marines mishandle their weaponry in a gross fashion. I have just noticed that the infantry marines police this problem extremely efficiently and it doesn't continue for long. One thing that is wise to do is to get instruction from multiple people, they hall have things that work...and some that don't. Learn what you can, find what works for you and toss what is ineffective or dangerous. Yes people of all calibur and class can have a negligent discharge. It doesn't mean that we require yet another length of legal junk shoved up our arse. It is simply best left alone. Let natural selection do its work, it is harsh but it is by far the most effective cleansing agent we have, barring divine intervention. I'm not saying that being untrained is the answer, not in the slightest. I am saying that training is not a surefire cure though. Because as I stated earlier, even infantry marines screw it up. Training only reduces the frequency of error. Personally, I would rather err on the side of freedom. So a few innocents and a nimrods may die, this is a price I'll gladly pay so that the gov doesn't have yet another hoop for this dolphin to have to jump through.
Understood, you're the second to point this out. I shall thank the fine public education system for my writing proficiency, but endeavor to improve in spite of it. Fallacies aside, do you see what I am getting at? We make laws, people break laws. Usually the offenders are the minority. So why penalize the majority with a mandate that may or may not be effective? Just thinking out loud.
Quoting fact is not the same as creating fallacy. The right to bear arms is comes as the first law of all gun laws and I don't recall any problems with "training" before now. As many weapons as we have in this country and there is still not a problem should be a very big clue to your idea of instituting something that is not needed. Incompetent people with deadly weapons? You mean automobile owners?
This is perfect articulation of the topic at hand. But addressing the comment, we do teach our children how to drive. Why not with weaponry as well? I see the idea as only a good one. Again, the devil's advocate... There are those I wouldn't trust with a shopping cart, let alone a car. For these same reasons I would hope they wouldn't own weaponry out of fear for the safety of the surrounding populace. But I wouldn't dare pass a mandate stopping them. Some people's gift in life is that they have a pulse and can fog a window, and not much else. There is nothing more terrifying to me that a herd of energetic morons who think they are doing the right thing. Sadly these herds exist on both the right and the left spectrum of politics.
You hit on what I outlined before, that training is not a problem. Most people seek training if they have not handled a weapon before. Many get training at home, a smaller percentage in the military. In other words, most, if not all, people get some kind of training. What the OP is upset about is that there was someone in his class that was not as good a shot as he was. The non problem is not due to lack of training.
CCW is not included in the right to keep and bear arms, DC vs. Heller. Irrelevant. Not all of those firearms are carried, not all of those firearms are drawn, not all of those firearms are fired. They are included.
We are not penalizing the majority, we are looking at the minority and sawing "You cannot carry with deadly weapon in public until you practice more".
As long as one is still allowed to carry a gun, I suppose restrictions on concealment are not too invasive. Just hope these restriction do not get silly. Wearing a T-shirt that says "I am carrying a gun" should be enough if you are carrying a gun. People should not have to by ellaborate gun straps/holsters just to hold the gun in plain sight. Not only is these invasive and ridiculous, but it may also make others in public feel less safe than if the gun was just out of sight. It could also create a danger that a thief might try to grab/steal the gun from the holster if it is in plain sight. I just hope concealed carry restrictions are not just a prelude to restrictions on carrying rifles.
That is why most states have passed conceal carry laws the last 20 years. Take a state like Wisconsin. Turns out that carry was allowed by the Wisconsin constitution even though police would arrest you for disturbing the peace, that is, until they eventually lost in court. Now Wisconsin passed a conceal law so you are not forced to open carry only. The fact is that the right to bear arms has nothing to do with training like the OP thinks is needed for everyone else but a basic right to protect ones person and property. Training is incidental.
Reality is, CCW has not yet been covered by the right to keep and bear arms. In fact, there were serious doubts as to whether or not it would be covered. Have you even read DC Vs. Heller?
That is correct. It is a State issue and that is why each State has a different law. In some states, the only license you can get is for conceal carry. The only other option if they did not provide for CC is open carry which in some cases is governed by State constitutions. That is what just recently happened in Wisconsin. Of course, in one State you cannot carry at all. The great State of Illinois. You can see how well that has quelled violence.
The right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution and the right to provide for self and national defense is an unalienable right. I never said CC was an unalienable right so I don't know where you get that from, but some State constitutions protect the right to bear arms as an unalienable right so the legislature has provided the way they would like that to happen, in some cases, CC, in others, just a carry license with no requirement for CC, like where I live and in others, no law, like Vermont where you can open carry or CC.
Um..... nope. SCOTUS disagrees. Every right is subject to restrictions, those restricts remove the inalienable status. All rights are subject to restrictions. Preventing incompetent shooters should be one of those restrictions.
Eh...what constitutes a deadly weapon? I know that in my hands I can brutalize a person with a stapler, knuckles, footlocker... The list is endless. A weapon is an ambiguous term that is entirely unknown until physically manifest. If I am confronted for whatever reason, my environment is my weapon. Rocks, microwaves, chairs...- All are projectile/melee weapons in my hands, deadly weapons. I'm no Rambo or anything. But people will always kill each other, even on accident. It is a fairly self policing problem. We need not make a law against it. For example, if some no-brain fool shot my son on accident, it would be the last accident he ever made. Problem solved. Government involvement? Well I guess I would call an ambulance or a coroner depending on the harm caused to my son. Or I could dispense with the aforementioned cathartic justice, subdue him and let the officers take it from there, they will inevitably deliver him to a stay in prison where his sphincter's virtue becomes greatly compromised. I am okay with either. In my opinion I wouldn't even have driver's licenses or any of that nonsense. I would however find someone to teach me how to drive and learn accordingly. Which is exactly what I did. This is yet another invasion of personal sovereignty by the hands of the state if something were to pass. Let parents be parents, students be students, and teachers be teachers. As mentioned before, many will seek training of their own accord. Mandating seems to be fruitless for the citizen, but fruitful in the ways of fines for the government.
In England, a book is considered a weapon if used to defend oneself and a person will get the "book" thrown at them for using one for self defense.
Heller was particularly narrow but the core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense. What the gun control crowd latches onto is this in the majority decision as a justification for all sorts of limiting laws: "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
