jtward01 said:
It's a matter of degrees. People who apply for a CWP do so with the expectation of carrying their gun not only at home or in their vehicle, but in public, including densely populated public spaces - shopping malls, sports stadiums, etc.
The horror! The
horror!
Less than 1 percent of all gun homicides involve innocent bystanders. (Source: Sherman, Steele, Laufersweiler, Hoffer and Julian, "Stray Bullets and Mushrooms," 1989, Journal of Quantitative Criminology)
Just about everyone -- even the antis -- is aware that hot lumps of dense material moving at a high rate of speed exit the muzzle of a gun. This knowlege prompts them to exercise what they deem sufficient caution in the handling and use of firearms.
By and large, people are not fools. The ones that are fools are a much greater danger to others with any number of more common and more powerful devices or artifacts, like forklifts, automobiles and drugs.
jtward01 said:
It is simply my opinion that before a person is licensed to carry a firearm in such locations they should be required to demonstrate a basic knowledge of firearms safety, concealed carry and deadly force laws, and a reasonable proficiency with their weapon.
As the police are trained in gun-handling, perhaps?
About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person. About 2% of shootings by civilians (all civilians, permit holders or not!) kill an innocent person. That's on a per-shooting basis; we are not comparing raw numbers, we're comparing the rate of innocents killed per shot. Police are about five and a half times to kill an innocent person when they shoot. (C. Kramer and D. Koppel, "Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws," Independence Institute Issue paper, Oct. 17, 1994)
The trend of accidental deaths due handguns, from 1981 - 2001 is steadily downward,
as the number of permits issued and number of guns sold to the public has grown!
jtward01 said:
Whether that knowledge and proficiency is gained through formal training with an instructor, informal training from a friend or relative or simply by studying and practicing on their own I don't care.
But you
do care to make such training
mandatory for anyone to carry a personal firearm -- and that unfairly limits who may carry. It is a violation of the civil rights of such persons.
If you are so very concerned, get yourself certified as an instructor and offer free classes in the care and handling of handguns! Encourage others to do the same. Put your shoulder to the wheel and be the change you want to see in the world. Demanding others conform to your opinion, wanting that opinion to be made law and enforced at the public expense, is mere armchair quarterbacking.
jtward01 said:
I don't care about the person's age, color, religion, income, social status or whatever. I'm simply concerned with their ability to employ their weapon in a manner that will give them the best chance at fending off an attacker while minimizing the danger to those around them.
The
first thing they need in order to employ their weapon in a manner that will protect them
is to have a weapon! That's what your plan will stop them doing -- especially if it were to be made law.
Perhaps you should worry about the much larger danger to the public from a group that on a per-capita basis kills 286 times as many people as do gun-owners. Every year, some 400,000 innocents fall prey to this scourge; one in six of the members of the group in question will be the cause of at least one death, as compared to 1 in 56,666 gun-owners.
What is this blight? The practice of medicine. Your own doctor, statistically speaking, is enormously more a risk to your life than the clumsy newbie you watched stumble though her shooting test. (Medical death stats from Dr. David Lawrence, CEO Kaiser Permanente; gun deaths are CDC 1993 data).
Even the nurses are dangerous: according to the Chicago Tribune (September 10, 2000 article), nurses nationwide kill around six people a day, some 2,000 a year. Yet you ingore the actual carnage to focus on a potential harm from civilians who carry guns, a fear not borne out by the numbers.
An imaginary fear does not trump anyone's civil rights. I really thought that had been settled back in the 1960s. Guess not.
--Herself