[JohnKSa]

Given my understanding of the founding documents and history of this country, my personal understanding of "Morality" and its role in history, I respectfully choose to "leave it" when framed as it has been here; and by that I specifically mean that I still value additional training for myself over time, yet disagree strongly with your stated "moral obligation" to do so.

Ok, then, WHY do you value additional training?

And speaking of "Morality" Tamara states:
Quote:
Isn't separating the "legal" from the "moral" one of the whole points of this thread?

That's the point I was making as well. This thread isn't about raising/imposing legal standards on people, rather it's about the self-imposed obligations that result from understanding the implications of owning/carrying a firearm.

Legal restrictions are imposed on people from the outside to regulate their behavior.

The obligations that the OP is talking about should be imposed from the INSIDE as a result of that person understanding the ramifications of owning and carrying a deadly weapon for the purposes of self-defense.

I would say that even if this was not the OPs original intention, although read the first six words of the OP:

The OP mentions mandated training (as it pertains to privately owned/carried firearms) to point out that even when required it is minimal and also to highlight the fact that if we all act responsibly that there's no need for state mandated training at all.

The point of the second paragraph in the OP is to move AWAY from state mandated training--"there's no reason for the state to get involved in the training issue".

The whole idea that started this thread was that we should each, as responsible firearms owners/carriers SELF-impose training standards on ourselves with the standard being that we should get as much training as we can. That state imposed training standards for private carry when they are required at all don't meet the higher standard that we as individual responsible firearms owners should each impose on ourselves.

My only disagreement with the original thesis is that government training is worthless.

That's not in the original thesis. The original thesis states that government training as it applies to private ownership and carry of firearms is minimal and is oriented not towards enhancing the skill of the individual to handle difficult situations but is rather oriented towards preventing the individual from being a danger to others. It points out that the value of this particular type of training is limited but it does not state categorically that all government training is useless nor does it even go so far as to state that this particular type of government training is worthless.

It also starts off by noting that it's only provided in some states in which statement is implicit the fact that it's not required/provided in other states. I suppose in that case it could be stated that it's worthless as it's difficult to argue that it has value when it doesn't exist.