After reading this thread through, a couple of times, does everyone understand what the OP is really proposing?
lwestatbus: What you are advocating, whether you realize it or not, is in fact, a form of militia training: Citizen Response and Reaction Training. I'm actually surprised that Tennessee Gentleman didn't catch that.
However, I'm actually all for it - As long as it is State sponsored and fully State funded. Under the current anti-gun atmosphere within academia, I just don't see it happening.
I think I'm about to write something... No. I know I'm about to write something some, if not many of you, won't like. The older and more informed I become, the less tolerant I am of civil rights violations.
No person should have to jump through hoops, in order to exercise to his/her civil right to carry for self defense. Open carry must be legal if the State is going to regulate concealed carry. Why? The right we are talking about is the basic fundamental right to exist. If we are not allowed the necessary and proper tools to insure that right, then the right is indeed infringed.
Guns are in fact, the great equalizer. I think it's safe to say that. But guns alone are not the answer. Training is the counterpart to guns. "That every man be trained in the use of arms," is how one founder put it. I also believe that if such is made mandatory, then the State needs to pay for it.
People should not have to relinquish their right, simply because they choose an education or choose to teach or choose to work or choose to shop.
For those that want to abrogate my civil right (in the name of private property) to have the means to protect myself, then those people must assume all liability, both civil and criminal. Moreover, these folks need to have in place some sort of proactive protection. Simple liability does nothing to protect me, before the fact. That's the kind of "common sense" gun laws I would like to see.