I can understand and respect your thought process. They're concerned about poorly trained people posing inordinate risks in sensitive locations so you offer, "OK, what if we can show you they are well-trained and safe people?"sf340b wrote:"(Not trying to start a Lone Ranger fan club)"
Just trying to get a little closer to the original term of "shall not be infringed".
I thought the additional training would alleviate some of the anti's fears.
This will, in my opinion, backfire. If it takes that level of training to carry in churches, then what does that say about those who didn't go get that training? And should those lesser trained people be allowed to carry in this situation or that one? All of a sudden, the higher level of training is considered the minimum and anything below that is substandard. Look at the Utah CFP discussions and how many people who believe we should have constitutional carry also say that the 4hr Utah class is insufficient for teaching the 10-15hr Texas info. People who believe in constitutional carry--who say there should be no educational requirement to carry--also say that TX residents should not be allowed to carry only a Utah non-resident permit because those people won't have sufficient training. The 10-15hr TX class is their minimum standard now that it is in place, and these are CHL advocates who believe there should be no educational minimum standard. And well meaning CHL advocates like you are willing to increase that standard in order to seek a compromise.
But it won't be successful in seeking a compromise because their issue isn't one of facts. There's no evidence that there's a problem with poorly trained people putting lives at risk. They just FEEL awkward, scared, worried, intimidated, or whatever else they feel and raising standards on paper isn't going to do anything to change their feelings. The same is true about the Utah CFP issue. There's no factual issue at play about people having insufficient training and shooting up the town or about a string of gun crimes by those who could not legally get a TX resident permit but could get a Utah non-res permit, or by those from out of state coming in with other states' permits and raising our gun crimes levels. Why then are we discussing increasing burdens? Because of a particular hypothesis that it could happen, joined with emotions, and that's it.
Charles has posted data before about the extraordinarily low rates of CHL holders having their licenses revoked or committing gun crimes. What I would like to see is a complete challenge of the underlying beliefs that are taken for granted. If we compare apples to apples, accounting for whatever disparities in demographics there are, or whatever it is that honest statisticians do (can a statistician not be in the business of propaganda? I'll save that conversation for another day...), and we look at each state's level of requirements, availability of licenses, restrictions on licenses, and the gun crimes committed by licensees, IS there a governmental interest in promoting greater requirements? If so, does it reach a point where those requirements have adverse effects? If not, why are we hindering citizens as much as we are already without a positive governmental interest in the regulations? The premise that more education will move us from unsafe to safe is one that on its face is not, in my opinion, a compelling one based on the facts that are currently available. If the facts showed that to be the case, I believe the government could only, if they were to act responsibly and in accordance with the law (can a politician not be in the business of... nevermind) then reduce the regulations that it is currently placing on its citizens' constitutional rights.