This question assumes that I believe there should be a minimum qualification on an enumerated right. Once you start qualifying rights they aren’t rights anymore. I believe that once you reach the age of majority and you are entrusted with a vote you should have all your rights.
Does that mean you believe even those who have absolutely no training should be entrusted with carrying a gun?
The minimum I would recommend is (obviously) basic marksmanship/Safety, Shoot and move training, some serious FoF training including some no win situation training and some weapons retention training.
Let me point out that the minimum level of training that you "recommend" is costly, time consuming, and can be out of reach of many common ordinary folks simply because of those two considerations. Should such folks not be "allowed" to carry a gun?
If you ever are involved in a gunfight it’s going to be the most serious minute of your life. Stack the odds in your favor as high as you can
Part of my response is within the post above in
blue...
Yes, the middle of a gunfight is a very serious moment in life... deadly serious (no pun intended) yet I wonder how many of the folks who shot and killed criminals came close to meeting your recommended "minimum"?
https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm
Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives
Monday, 29 September 2008 00:00 Written by Administrator
Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives
A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict
-snip-
* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).[6] And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."[7]
-snip-
The following is not directed at Eidolon but are general comments...
Now to be clear. I am not knocking training. What I am taking exception to is what happens to the right to bear arms when folks think there should be a "minimum" level of training because it is that kind of thinking that brings about criteria that is "required" to be met before being "allowed" to exercise the right to bear arms. And it is that kind of thinking that created the current carry "permit" system. After all... a "permit" is merely the State's "permission" IF a person meets the minimum training level considered "acceptable". And once a "minimum level of training that is acceptable" is adopted it is very easy to keep increasing the difficulty of the criteria... not to mention continuing to increase the costs until the very poor are priced right out of the entire system.
And there are many folks who are already so poor just the cost of getting a carry permit is out of their reach so the truth is the government's carry "permit" system discriminates against an entire segment of the population based upon the lack of financial resources.
So what level of training should be "acceptable" before folks are "allowed" to exercise the right to bear arms by carrying a gun? I have a better question...
Who... whether that be an individual.. a group of individuals... or even a government.. is so superior that they are qualified to decree what are "acceptable" "minimums" to decide who should, and more importantly who shouldn't!, be "allowed" to defend their very lives by exercising their right to bear arms?
