Why are some gun owners afraid of permitless concealed carry?

[88GT]

Call me nitpicky but the statement in bold is wholly incorrect.

The only thing granted by the Constitution are the specifically enumerated powers given to the three branches of government it also creates.

Rights exist (explicitly in the Declaration and, more importantly, implicitly in the existence of the 10th Amendment) without regard to their mention in [strike]the Constitution or the Bill of Rights[/strike] any document whatsover because they are an inherent part of our existence.

The right to drive a car does exist without the Constitution, and no grant is necessary. The state gets away with licensing it and making it a de facto privilege due to the fact you do it on "public" roads.

A 10-year-old is perfectly within his rights and legal driving dad's pickup around the back 40 all day long, and it probably happens quite a bit.

The sad part is, by allowing the state to license carry, it has become a privilege just like driving.

.

Just call me nitpicky.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

In some cases I support punishing mis-use, in other cases, I favor preventing mis-use... And I know the government can't watch all people, all the time (contrary to the tin-foil-hat crowd's belief), so it's up to us to watch ourselves.
Sometimes that means watching our image as much as watching anything else...
Granted, this may sound a bit prejudiced, or that I'm profiling, but I went to my first 1500 in August, and there were just individuals that "stuck out" so to speak, and I didn't think a lot of it, but I did pay attention to some of these people, and from what I OBSERVED (not just assumed), some of my assumptions were entirely correct, and some were way off-base...

There are people carrying firearms that I'm not comfortable being around because of the manner in which they handle them or whatever, but how do we keep firearms out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them without infringing rights? Who determines who should have them?

If you're caught drunk driving, you lose your liscence whether you hurt someone or not... That pro-ctive. With guns, you usually don't lose that liscence until someone HAS been hurt, or threatened, I consider that reactive...
We can punish misuse after someone is injured or dead, but we can't prevent misuse in the first place? (With firearms)

I still feel I'm having problems typing my thoughts out well...

IMO, the whole issue of "proactive" vs "reactive" punishment is, in fact, the difference in philosophy of whether people have freedom and are held responsible for their actions - not their thoughts, not what they say, not what could have happened - what actual physical, tangible harm they do to others. In a society that truly believes in individual freedom, there is no punishment or (official) censure for any activity that can't be demonstrated to have a quantifiable negative impact on another person.

Want to drive 80mph in a residential area? Fine, but if you kill or injure someone, you're responsible for their care, or the support of their family, or their lifetime income if you kill them.

Want to eat greasy hamburgers, smoke six packs of cigarettes a day, shoot up heroin/cocaine, and drink a quart of vodka? Have at it chum; just don't expect anyone else to pay your health care or bury you.

Want to carry a Thumper as a sidearm? No problem, just make sure if you have to shoot someone with it, you don't injure any innocent parties, or you'll be paying for their injuries, etc.

Want to scream "Fire" in a crowded theater? Fine, until someone gets trampled in the rush to the Exits. Their condition is your fault and you get to pay restitution to them or their heirs.

Any type of "pro-active" punishment is nanny-state smothering. Conversely, any "slap-on-the-wrist" punishment for harming another person (except for one which includes reparations to the injured party) is condoning the punished conduct and encourages its continuation.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

i don't mean responsible gun owner like the majority of us on INGO, i am talking about the gang bangers and thugs that plague most urban areas that would be running around with their guns swing because they think it makes them hard, as if we don't have enough of that already, it would be 10x worse.

Can you show anyplace that shows that? 3 states allow unlicensed oc/cc and I'm not sure how many allow unlicensed OC(I think 27 including the previous 3). Heck in WI OC is the only way to carry. How many of those have gang bangers and thugs running around "with their guns swing"?

It's not right because gun carrying criminals don't have to do this but maybe the state could issue a temp license and require a reasonable amount of hrs. of gun safety class and/or training at a range before a person can carry into the public. After completion, they can obtain the full ltch. jat.
Just like getting a pilot license but of course not as many hours of training.

That is actually worse than we have now. You can get an unlimited ltch without any training. It sounds like your advocating having to get the hunting and target ltch first. I hope your not serious but I think you are.

Great ideas. What about for people who have to have a permit before even going to a range. There must be thousands who won't risk getting in trouble by leaving the home with their firearm without the ltch.

Advocate for removing the restriction to have a ltch to transport and unloaded firearm. Or for the need to have a ltch altogether. Until then they can get a hunting and target ltch for I think $15 for 4 years. Or an unlimited/personal protection.

 

[Praetorian13]

I think it's pretty stupid that we have to pay for the right to bear arms. Can you really consider it a right if you have to pay for it?

Next thing you know we will be paying our government to voice our opinion

 

[Prometheus]

Well, Bill of Rights, Promethius (spelling? ) and Kirk bring up points I have thought about today. I went running after work and thought it through. In all honesty, they presented their case with the most determination and eloquence, backed with fact, as opposed to folks who scream, insult and consider anyone who doesn't believe their views as stupid. I can only hope and pray that people like the three mentioned talk to anti's first instead of knee jerk reactionaries. They are persuasive in the art of logos, instead of the pathos I am innundated with daily by emails, blogs and boards.

I believe I have misthought my views, more succintly, I have been swayed in my views based on the evidence brought to me by the three mentioned. Constriction or denial of rights is wrong, period. In my thinking, I was sacrificing liberties for safety, which is unacceptable in case and point.

So, that being said: I will admit the "wrong", but I pose upon INGO to help me with the dilemma: What is the way to promote safety that WORKS, but tramples no rights?

In 24 hours I'll hit you up on rep, I'm fresh out

The best way, IMO to promote safety is by teaching people how to actually shoot and FIGHT with their weapons.

As a RM you see people fire off 10 magazines into a man sized target at three yards, land half their rounds and act proudly about it. While I was never that bad, when I first started shooting, assuming I hit somewhere on the target, I was happy. I wasn't wreckless with my firearms handling skills, but I wasn't great either.

After having had the training to be able to hit what I'm aiming at (not the target, but actually a spot on the target), deploy my sidearm in a safe yet efficent and timely manner and land consistant reliable hits, I learned proper safe handling techniques as a natural by product.

That is the long way of saying, we get people the safety skills by appealing to their desire to shoot like a "tactical ninja". Sort of like Mr Miagi teaching the Karate Kid how to fight by wax on / wax off. Let's face it, the NRA safety course is L A M E. I'd go so far as to say super lame. It taught me nothing about how to actually safely handle a firearm. The 4 golden rules of gun handling are designed for 5 year olds. At some point as we mature in age, we can step it up to the next level IMO. I had to take that class in FLA to get my FLA CWL. How many people think that is all the training they need.

We need to lead by example.

While I'm not exactly a fan of Nash Piazza <sp> and his marketing ways at Front Sight, he IS inexpensively teaching tens of thousands of new shooters ever year how to FIGHT with their firearms and in doing so is instilling proper gun handling techniques in the process.

We need local "front sight" type places all over the country.

We need the good shooters to preform well at the range and ... I don't want to say "shame" but rather encourage the crappy shooters to get better and do that by enticing them with dreams of being (insert whatever is going to appeal to them).

We see from many states that require "training", including live fire classes for their permits, that state mandating training programs just don't work.

We also have to accept that the lowest common denomenator does exist and there isn't anything we can do about, legislatively speaking.

Thank you for your kind words and kudos for taking a logic and reasoned look at my opinions. I appoligize if I sometimes come off as harsh, I am extremely passionate about my unalienable Rights. I honestly feel if more people understood how deeply they are connected to who and what we are, they would be too.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

The problem isn't that you're wrong in your assumptions about the need for a collectively smarter society. The problem is that dumbing down the laws for the lowest common denominator puts an unfair burden on those of us who don't need it.

I chalk this up to public schooling & everyone becoming used to & agreeable with the idea of being stuck behind the slowest-idiots. I firmly believe public schooling, as it has become since WWII, is one of the pillars of America's downfall.

 

[Eddie]

I chalk this up to public schooling & everyone becoming used to & agreeable with the idea of being stuck behind the slowest-idiots. I firmly believe public schooling, as it has become since WWII, is one of the pillars of America's downfall.

Yep. Remember that old joke where the two guys are running from the bear and one tells the other "I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you!"? With No Child Left Behind the two guys are required to run at the same pace; the pace of the slowest.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Yep. Remember that old joke where the two guys are running from the bear and one tells the other "I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you!"? With No Child Left Behind the two guys are required to run at the same pace; the pace of the slowest.

Don't kid yourself, in some ways the quality of education has been declining since the oldest of us here were children. My step-mother happened to go to the same grades school that I did when she was growing up (even had a couple of the same teachers). She had a better education when she left grade school than I did. Likewise, my wife's mother attended Catholic schools, as did my wife, and her mother got a better education than my wife did. Based on the classes taught my son, his college education was just about equivalent to what I learned in High School. Not only is "Education" a racket; it appears to be a racket for dummies.

 

[rambone]

There are people carrying firearms that I'm not comfortable being around because of the manner in which they handle them or whatever, but how do we keep firearms out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them without infringing rights? Who determines who should have them?

As a firm believer in freedom, and a staunch opposer of gun-control, I give you this answer: You Don't. Nobody determines such things. There will never be a utopia on earth where dangerous situations are preventable by giving the government power.

Firearms are tools, just as are nail-guns, machetes, power saws, mosquito foggers, gasoline, chainsaws, screwdrivers, claw-hammers, and so on. Any man worth his salt could find an object in the room he sits in that could be used for murder. Then again, all these things have proper uses too. The proper use of a firearm is self-defense.

So in my opinion, anyone free to walk the streets should be free to buy a gun at a hardware store. They (anyone) could easily kill you with dozens of other items too. Don't ban the tools. Teach people self-defense. And those that truly deserve imprisonment should be held longer. A person returning to society should regain their rights. Abolish all gun control and let go of your chains.

Not comfortable around someone? If they aren't doing anything wrong, then you have no right to do anything other than be alert. Lots of people make me uncomfortable. Something that makes me more uncomfortable is tyrannical government and being controlled all the time.

Well, Bill of Rights, Promethius (spelling? ) and Kirk bring up points I have thought about today. I went running after work and thought it through. In all honesty, they presented their case with the most determination and eloquence, backed with fact, as opposed to folks who scream, insult and consider anyone who doesn't believe their views as stupid. I can only hope and pray that people like the three mentioned talk to anti's first instead of knee jerk reactionaries. They are persuasive in the art of logos, instead of the pathos I am innundated with daily by emails, blogs and boards.

I believe I have misthought my views, more succintly, I have been swayed in my views based on the evidence brought to me by the three mentioned. Constriction or denial of rights is wrong, period. In my thinking, I was sacrificing liberties for safety, which is unacceptable in case and point.

It takes a strong person to admit when they are wrong. That is very rare to see around here in the constant debates with the government-control types. A big +1 for you.

Working at a range, I often find myself "burned out" trying to teach safety constantly to those who dont listen or cannot listen. I find myself constantly correcting people that I have succinctly put the rules into their heads. CONSTANTLY surrounded by people that point guns at me, mess with guns when people are down range, etc... I have even had an NRA instructor mess around with guns when we called cold!

Common sense? Something needs to be done. What is a realistic sanction upon stupidity? None, when liberty is called into question. Realistically, if one really thinks about it: When I ask someone to act responsibly, I am technically damaging their rights. Safety or liberty? I want liberty, but what is realistic approach to safety?

So, that being said: I will admit the "wrong", but I pose upon INGO to help me with the dilemma: What is the way to promote safety that WORKS, but tramples no rights?

I agree with the notion of education being important. People need to remove the stigma from the firearms and understand that normal people use them too, not just cops and robbers. Guns becoming the societal norm again would do wonders for educating and de-stigmatizing people to gun culture and gun awareness.

I would be utterly against mandated government training, but if it makes your establishment feel safer, then your boss could make a house-rule asking that people take the optional training course offered at his range (or equivalent) before using his range. The popularity and effectiveness of such an idea remain to be seen. It may drive away customers. Also as you noted, even trained NRA instructors fail to follow the rules sometimes. So, would these measures help or hurt the cause? Perhaps offering store & range discounts to those who have completed training? Any idea other than something mandatory by law is worth pondering.

Why should we even have firearms convictions at all? It assumes there are laws that than legally limit the usage of firearms. I can't think of a one that would stand alone on the firearm itself. And all the others would be crimes with or without the firearm present.

Awesome for pointing that out. Punishing people for possession of contraband items is silly and anti-freedom.

 

[billybob44]

Permit for CC

On the other end of this scope: if the crooks could carry concealed legally, then most LEO's would not know the good guys from the bad guys??
Kind of like making Hemp legal just to have less people arrested??

 

[infidel]

On the other end of this scope: if the crooks could carry concealed legally, then most LEO's would not know the good guys from the bad guys??
Kind of like making Hemp legal just to have less people arrested??

Pretty easy.... The bad guys would be the ones using the firearms in crimes.

You think our LTCH's prove that we are good guys? Cops don't know that until they run our information. Those little pink pieces of paper are so easy to copy a 7 year old could do it. Also, just because you obtained one legally, doesn't mean that you are no longer allowed to have it. What if you just got out of prison for a felony, but still have your paper? The paper doesn't prove anything...

 

[Vic_Mackey]

This.

Unfortunately, I am one of those folks that believes in a permit. Scream and yell all you want, but it's me. Realistically, given alot of the gun owners (not shooters) that I have met or seen, I would also be more comfortable with them going to a class as well.

Its like anything else technological or potentially dangerous: I am shocked as to folks and their "knowledge" of firearms. Would I want a 6 year old driving a car? No. But without training and "direction" (such as classes or permits), an adult will have the same mindset and lack of knowledge of the firearm's capability or safety instruction. Having folks ask the ROs I work with stuff like "this thing takes batteries?" when the slide is ajar (out of battery). Also, folks posting videos on youTube of their wife setting off a gun and either having it slam into their head or having it aimed in a poor direction.

Darwinism IS NOT a good idea sometimes, particularly if lets say your children are playing in the yard when some hilljack accidentally shoots off a round b/c he didn't bother to read the manual. The good ol days of folks learning to shoot properly from parents are gone, replaced with "I gotta have a gun befo' Obummer gets rid of 'em". Simple situation laced with someone who never knows what a gun is capable. For the one person that comes to a range and actually gets help in learning to shoot and maintain and safety from me, there are a thousand who wont, cannot or are egotistically opposed to getting help.

Folks can scream at me about regulation of common sense and human behavior. I understand. But the days of common sense are over. Some regulation in regards to carry and purchase (such as background checks) are necessary in my mind.

Now, that is my opinion. Realistically, I would love nothing more than all gun laws gone, period, no more laws on weapons. But, with the average intellect level and general common sense going into the gutter, then some things have to be done.

I bet I will get innundated with neg rep or things like "libtard" or "I bet you are for gun control aren't you" and other knee jerk reactions. The above is my opinion, based on a very narrow view and a very narrow worldview. Take it with a mountain of compressed salt and treat it as such.

+1 +1 +1
dammit I wrote this big long backup statement, and it logged me out and I lost it. So here is the gist: You take vision tests and all kinds of stuff to make sure you can safely operate a motor vehicle, why is it that people get so profoundly irate when common sense dictates that people should have similar if not more testing to carry a firearm?
Okay, so lets say there is no tests, no permits. Now you walk down the street and an idiot playing with his new "toy" has a ND (i like how the word negligent fits with the whole concept here) and blows you or your wife's/kids brains all over the place. Or he drops it out of his pocket and a kid gets ahold of it. And that's another thing, if everyone wants to do away with permits and training, then why the hell is it so wrong for a angry 13 year old to have a gun? hell let's give the guns to schizophrenics and rapists and murderers while we are at it. Look at the horror stories posted on here about indoor ranges. imagine all those fu**tards running around the streets because a lack of (i dare say) control. Even though some of them do, that's beside the point

I have found that the one's who get so fired up about it and feel threatened by the very notion of training, is because they think and/or know that they would NOT be able to pass such tests. I'm not saying that the awesome men and women on INGO are incompetent, the majority of us have LTCH's. But most people I have this conversation with where they are against it usually have a disqualifer that would prevent them from obtaining a LTCH with training. And that's fine by me. I'm of sound mind and judgement. My eyes are 20/20, and I know for a fact that I would pass training.

 

[mrjarrell]

+1 +1 +1
dammit I wrote this big long backup statement, and it logged me out and I lost it. So here is the gist: You take vision tests and all kinds of stuff to make sure you can safely operate a motor vehicle, why is it that people get so profoundly irate when common sense dictates that people should have similar if not more testing to carry a firearm?
Okay, so lets say there is no tests, no permits. Now you walk down the street and an idiot playing with his new "toy" has a ND (i like how the word negligent fits with the whole concept here) and blows you or your wife's/kids brains all over the place. Or he drops it out of his pocket and a kid gets ahold of it. And that's another thing, if everyone wants to do away with permits and training, then why the hell is it so wrong for a angry 13 year old to have a gun? hell let's give the guns to schizophrenics and rapists and murderers while we are at it. Look at the horror stories posted on here about indoor ranges. imagine all those fu**tards running around the streets because a lack of (i dare say) control. Even though some of them do, that's beside the point

I have found that the one's who get so fired up about it and feel threatened by the very notion of training, is because they think and/or know that they would NOT be able to pass such tests. I'm not saying that the awesome men and women on INGO are incompetent, the majority of us have LTCH's. But most people I have this conversation with where they are against it usually have a disqualifer that would prevent them from obtaining a LTCH with training. And that's fine by me. I'm of sound mind and judgement. My eyes are 20/20, and I know for a fact that I would pass training.

-1, -1, -1.
What part of "Shall not be infringed" or "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms" don't you get? Can I see your posting permit? Did you take the test that allows you to post your speech on the internet? Did you take the test that allows you to worship in the right way?

Sorry, but rights should never be subject to qualifiers.

 

[rambone]

+1 +1 +1

-3

You take vision tests and all kinds of stuff to make sure you can safely operate a motor vehicle, why is it that people get so profoundly irate when common sense dictates that people should have similar if not more testing to carry a firearm?

As you obviously already know, the government is so good at weeding out the bad drivers. Driver's Licenses are nothing more than an extra TAX on every citizen. Not to mention an added excuse to log their photograph, as well as take a facial scan or fingerprint scan in some states. Do you really feel surrounded by competency while driving on the roads? LOL!!

Okay, so lets say there is no tests, no permits. Now you walk down the street and an idiot playing with his new "toy" has a ND (i like how the word negligent fits with the whole concept here) and blows you or your wife's/kids brains all over the place. Or he drops it out of his pocket and a kid gets ahold of it. And that's another thing, if everyone wants to do away with permits and training, then why the hell is it so wrong for a angry 13 year old to have a gun? hell let's give the guns to schizophrenics and rapists and murderers while we are at it. Look at the horror stories posted on here about indoor ranges. imagine all those fu**tards running around the streets because a lack of (i dare say) control. Even though some of them do, that's beside the point

People playing with guns on the street? That's how you imagine a world that honored the 2nd Amendment? bahahaha!!!

An angry 13 year old? Is he more dangerous than an angry 21 year old? How is the government supposed to revoke & renew rights based on the change in your moods? Better yet, why/how can the government revoke rights guaranteed by the constitution? The 2nd Amendment has no age limit! There are scores of examples of kids defending their families with firearms.

Schizophrenics, rapists, & murderers? Don't forget veterans with PTSD, people with depression, people who have been expelled from school, people who have ever been suicidal, people who have have been fired from a government job, people who can't get a girlfriend, people who didn't graduate high school, people who have narcolepsy, elderly people, people who work with children, people who go to anti-tax rallies, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Creating these special "classes" of people is pure, straight-up Gun Control. Pick your favorite dictator throughout the last 100 years, and I guarantee you will find that he did the same thing to keep his slaves safe too. If a person is free to walk through the streets, he should be granted 100% of his rights. Any good ex-con can get a gun without Government permission anyways. Gun Control laws do nothing except infringe on the Constitution and on Liberty. They pave the way for tyranny.

If felons after serving their time are truly dangerous, then maybe their sentences should be longer and they should not be turned loose on society. You can't run the outside world like a prison though.

I have found that the one's who get so fired up about it and feel threatened by the very notion of training, is because they think and/or know that they would NOT be able to pass such tests. I'm not saying that the awesome men and women on INGO are incompetent, the majority of us have LTCH's. But most people I have this conversation with where they are against it usually have a disqualifer that would prevent them from obtaining a LTCH with training. And that's fine by me. I'm of sound mind and judgement. My eyes are 20/20, and I know for a fact that I would pass training.

Well, welcome to INGO. As we (most of us) believe in the 2nd Amendment, you will find that here we oppose Gun Control for reasons other than our inability to pass a government test. I can pass your tests and I am 1000% against the idea of forced training in order to exercise my rights.

I'm glad your eyes have 20/20 vision. Use them to see the forest for the trees. Gun control is evil and ineffective.

 

[Eddie]

+1 +1 +1
dammit I wrote this big long backup statement, and it logged me out and I lost it. So here is the gist: You take vision tests and all kinds of stuff to make sure you can safely operate a motor vehicle, why is it that people get so profoundly irate when common sense dictates that people should have similar if not more testing to carry a firearm?
Okay, so lets say there is no tests, no permits. Now you walk down the street and an idiot playing with his new "toy" has a ND (i like how the word negligent fits with the whole concept here) and blows you or your wife's/kids brains all over the place. Or he drops it out of his pocket and a kid gets ahold of it. And that's another thing, if everyone wants to do away with permits and training, then why the hell is it so wrong for a angry 13 year old to have a gun? hell let's give the guns to schizophrenics and rapists and murderers while we are at it. Look at the horror stories posted on here about indoor ranges. imagine all those fu**tards running around the streets because a lack of (i dare say) control. Even though some of them do, that's beside the point

I have found that the one's who get so fired up about it and feel threatened by the very notion of training, is because they think and/or know that they would NOT be able to pass such tests. I'm not saying that the awesome men and women on INGO are incompetent, the majority of us have LTCH's. But most people I have this conversation with where they are against it usually have a disqualifer that would prevent them from obtaining a LTCH with training. And that's fine by me. I'm of sound mind and judgement. My eyes are 20/20, and I know for a fact that I would pass training.

I think others have already covered the major points of your post. I want to address the last sentence. You say that you are confident that you would pass any test so you don't oppose being tested. What if some politician decides that you have to pass an ink blot test to get your permit. There are two questions: 1) Who did you vote for in the last election and 2) what does this ink blot look like. Are you certain that you are going to pass that test? This is why tests are infringements.

 

[.452browning]

im not positive about the rest of the country, but when i see someone with a LTCH from indiana it can tell you a few things about that person without ever speaking to them. you know they are a legal citizen of the US, they are not a convicted felon, they do not have a violent crime charge, they pay their taxes and child support, they are not mentally insane, apparently the state of indiana is voucing for this person stating they may carry a weapon, etc, etc....now i imagine they could have done any one of those things after obtaining the LTCH, but i would give'em the benifit of the doubt. it doesnt bother me to have a small laminated piece of paper from the ISP saying im allowed to carry, and i dont bother paying a $100+ fee to protect my life and my loved ones.

 

[rambone]

im not positive about the rest of the country, but when i see someone with a LTCH from indiana it can tell you a few things about that person without ever speaking to them. you know they are a legal citizen of the US, they are not a convicted felon, they do not have a violent crime charge, they pay their taxes and child support, they are not mentally insane, apparently the state of indiana is voucing for this person stating they may carry a weapon, etc, etc....now i imagine they could have done any one of those things after obtaining the LTCH, but i would give'em the benifit of the doubt. it doesnt bother me to have a small laminated piece of paper from the ISP saying im allowed to carry, and i dont bother paying a $100+ fee to protect my life and my loved ones.

Some people don't mind being ruled by a king. Doesn't mean that system is constitutional or how free people live.



If you are not an official citizen, should you not be allowed to protect your family?
If you have served time in prison, should you not be allowed to protect your family?
If you didn't pay your taxes, should you not be allowed to protect your family?
If you are behind on child support payments, should you not be allowed to protect your family?
If you are mentally insane, should you not be allowed to protect your family?
If the government does not "vouch for you," should you not be allowed to protect your family?
If you don't have $100 to spare for a LTCH, should you not be allowed to protect your family?


Seems to me people should keep their constitutional rights no matter what situation they are in. I don't support letting those families go defenseless because the Gun-Grabbers found an excuse to exclude them.

 

[darinb]

man this is heated thread. Lots of interesting perspectives. Personally I wouldnt be opposed to doing some sort of training class to get a permit. That training may be the only training some people will ever get. I do like the fact that permitless carry takes out economics out of the equation since not everyone can afford the permit/training. I know of a female friend that is a single mom that couldnt afford a gun but had one given to her but she couldnt afford the permit cost. In her situation she needed a gun to protect her family from the crazy ex when outside of her home but teh cost hindered her. Everybody has different situations,abilities,etc and I just dont see any real way to make things fair and safe and everybody have their way. I am just thankful that our state even allows carry.

 

[ATM]

I dont want them carrying a gun fro self defense unless they get some sort of training.

And some don't want you carrying a gun regardless of training. It's still your right.

They would either get the gun taken from them

Anything can be taken from anyone.

or shoot somebody

There are already punishments in place for this.

or themselves.

The ultimate accountability for their free choice to forgo training.

 

[CarmelHP]

There are a lot of Quislings and Zumbos around here.