Where is the empirical data to show that people from states with less stringent training requirements are less safe than people from states with more stringent training requirements?
If you are going to put restrictions on a person right to bear arms, it seems you should be able to point to more than theory. It is really not clear to me what reasonable amount of training would prepare a person for armed self defense. I suspect so much training would be required to make a measurable difference that virtually no one would get a permit. Certainly a little live fire like Nevada requires does nothing substantial.
Liberal concealed carry has been shown to have a deterrent effect on crime. If you have fewer guns in the hands of citizens, you will have more crime. So let’s see some empirical data showing that the increase in crime (because fewer citizens carry) would be worth the relatively trivial problem of permit members misusing their guns.
Given that there are like three million permit holders and the VPC could only come up with 51 who misused their weapons and were charged with homicide in a two year period, we seem to be arguing about a problem that really does not exist. While I am of course obligated to say that even one death is too many, 51 out of 6 million is trivial. Check out this article, which nicely puts the VPC's study in perspective: http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minne...ights-Examiner
Some people seem to have the instinct that we should appease the gun haters by burdening ourselves with cumbersome rules. This is a road to nowhere. The gun haters hate guns. The only thing that will make them happy is if all gun owners are made felons. All restrictions do is reduce the number of people who exercise their right to bear arms, and therefore the number who are willing to vote to protect the right.
Too many hunters have the same problem. They think if we place tons of rules on hunting, and eliminate the 'bad' types of hunting like baiting or hunting with hounds, the anti-hunters will be appeased. All it does is diminish the number of hunters, reducing our voting clout, and the anti-hunters can never be appeased because they want to eliminate all hunting. They may say they want only reasonable restrictions, but when you ask them what individual restrictions they favor, they favor all of them. The same goes for the 'reasonable gun control' crowd.
Does anyone really find it surprising that the rise in public support for gun rights has happened at the same time that concealed carry was liberalized? They are trends that reinforce each other; as the number of people packing increased, those people would of course want to protect their rights. And their acquaintances would be comfortable with people packing, and maybe think about packing themselves. It has been a viscous cycle for the gun haters (if a virtuous cycle for the Republic).
If an onerous training regimen is required, only the gun nuts will pack. And our cause will be broken. We are only going to protect our rights in the long run if packing and having guns is something normal people do.
Of course stringent training requirements will also impact those most heavily who are busy and poor. Yes, it will disproportionately deter women and minorities from getting permits. It will just be the white male gun nuts packing, a part of the citizenry with diminishing political clout.
Most people who get a permit will never use it. A small percentage of people with permits will brandish their guns. An even small number will actually fire their weapons. A very small number of them, a statistically trivial number, will misuse their weapon, regardless of how much training they are required to have. The VPC will of course trumpet these few cases.
But amost all of the people who have permits will vote in support of the right to bear arms. And all of them are deterring crime.
The experiment in liberalizing concealed carry laws has been an astounding success. The lesson is that law abiding citizens can be trusted to act responsibly. In my state (Utah), famed for its lax training requirements, thousands of citizens can carry their guns to work, church (except the Mormon ones), grade schools, high schools, the state capitol, bars, restaurants, sporting events, college classes and public parks. Given the large number of permits, the number of problems we have had has been shockingly low. The VPC can trumpet the small number of incidents that have occurred, but regardless of what amount of training occurs there will always be incidents to blow out of proportion. Meanwhile, the number of permit holders keeps increasing and the state legislature keeps liberalizing the state’s gun laws. Liberal concealed carry leads to liberalized gun laws.
That is exactly why Shumer and company are terrified by national concealed carry. The virtuous cycle will begin in California, New York and other places where concealed carry has been restricted.