Well, in that case, http://www.cafepress.com/orderofthestick/2111621 .

As I mentioned above, I can count the times I’ve stepped onto a range with a handgun on one hand, but I spent 2 hrs on the range each time. The limitation on my visits were due to the pressure of my other hobbies combined with a lack of ammo (it’s been a bit short) and no range close to me. I am not any kind of serious gunnie – ask someone who participates in a shooting sport such as cowboy action shooting or practical shooting how much time they spend on the range.

And that 90 hrs of training the cops do is neither all on the range nor every year.

But my main point was that 90 hrs of training ISN’T NECESSARY to give someone adequate shooting skills for self-defense purposes. It takes a couple of hours to teach someone how to shoot to the accuracy level necessary for self-defense.

I happen to be an NJ resident; and could easily lay my hands on the qualification requirements for NJ law enforcement – I doubt the NY quals are substantially more rigorous, the NJ requirements are semi-annual qualification and aren’t terribly difficult – see http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/pdfs/dcj-firearms.pdf pp 9-35 – 9-44 inclusive for the 2 handgun qual courses. (I believe the last time I was at the range, one of the guys at the far end was going through his handgun quals). I wouldn’t want to go through that course cold, but I’ve shot most of those courses of fire and done better than the 80% on-target requirement. I doubt I’ve fired much more than a thousand rounds of handgun ammo in my life; and my actual formal instruction consisted of some summer camp riflery (.22 rilfes at 5-10 yds) and an NRA Basic Pistol course.

My point was not that the average PA LTC holder trains 90 hrs a year (though it wouldn’t surprise me that many do – plenty of people serious about their hobbies spend that much time and more on them); but that 90 hours of training is *unnecessary*. Basic marksmanship to the point of being able to pass the basic police quals can be taught in a handful of hours; even leaving time to teach the basics of firearms and the 4 Rules. Handgun marksmanship adequate for self-defense is EASY. And cops don’t have to pass a very difficult test to qualify – which is good, because they have a LOT more to learn than just the handgun.

But we have topped that. Thank you Mark. You have put this sad chapter behind me. And if you follow that link, you can see, if you think I’m nuts, you should be thankful you’re dealing with people like me, right now, through the political process, rather than that crowd.

As has been mentioned before, it is a rare talent to look deep within another’s mind and discern what was really meant by a statement. Some even feel it’s impossible. All I ask is that you rein in your exceptional ability in this area, and simply respond to what I say, as opposed to what I might have said, what somebody else once said, what you may wish I’d said, etc.

Finally, it’s unusual to enclose a phrase in quote marks — as in “one last time” — when the source you appear to quote never used the phrase or anything like it. Where, in your many travels, did you encounter that practice?

Furthermore, it doesn’t *take* a whole lot of training to be an adequate shot. I shot my first handgun a year ago this weekend, and can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I have stepped foot into a range. I can group within 2 inch radius reliably at 5 yards, and at 25 yards against a human torso/head target I can put all the rounds I want into the head and/or the heart/lungs. Sure, I’m not training under stress – but neither are the beat cops.

My wife had never TOUCHED a gun before my first handgun experience, and has a similar level of accuracy. (I had a fair amount of summer camp riflery).

And while I haven’t trained in a stressful situation with a firearm, I’ve done both high school wrestling and college fencing, as well as paintball – all of which are (imperfect) combat sims. I know my reactions to stress and surprise.

God forbid I’m ever in a situation where I would need to defend myself or my loved ones with a gun, but I am confident of the necessary skills. I dont’ say this to brag – far from it. Many (most) of the gun owners posting here are far more skilled than I am – a few have even defended themselves with a firearm (all by display as far as I know). The level of training necessary to be safe and effective with a firearm is LOW, the level of effort required to maintain is low. The level of physical fitness required is VERY low.

If you admit to a right to actual self-defense; then you have to admit to the right of an individual to be armed with a firearm. Nothing else levels the imbalance of physical fitness.

Look, I am fairly educated, both formally and informally, and have lived all over the nation, in red and blue states, urban and rural. I have been all over the world and have met and interacted with a diverse array of humankind. I am pretty tolerant, too, unless folks do something to warrant intolerance.

Mark, you’re not sorry. You’re a fucking prick. And as far as I am concerned, you can just go away.

My apologies to everyone but you.

Well Mark, congratulations. Your resolution lasted more than 24 hours! That is pretty good these days. And I agree that it would be a waste of your time to engage in discussion with people of unhinged mind. After all, we’re all nuts. So long. We’ll miss you.

In other words you’ve been thoroughly trounced in this comment thread and have realized it’s best to run away now before you dig a deeper hole for yourself.

I’ll be damned if I wade through them all to count them, but it can now be quantified!

And how!

At 194 current replies to Sebastian’s original post, you must understand when I preface my comment with [TLDR].

Your argument and “research” are both pointless. The Second Amendment doesn’t exist for the sole purpose to provide the opportunity for citizens to stop mass murder sprees.

The Second Amendment exists as a reinforcement of a naturally existing right to self preservation, be it against criminals of a petty or tyrannical nature.

If you don’t like it, there are numerous countries that would love to have a statist lapdog like you. In our time of crisis, the US has no need for your kind.

I am not advocating concealed carry in isolation, or creating a false distinction. I am merely pointing out the fallacy of your position. Perhaps it is you who do not understand my argument, not me.

Gun control is an entire argument based upon a false distinction. Namely, that the tool causes the behavior and so we must necessarily regulate the tools.

If I pick up a Stradivarius, do I become a concert violinist? It is the finest of the violins, therefore I should be a fine violin player by playing one, right? How about a Steinway? By playing one, Chopsticks would sound better for having been played by me on one. If I pick up a set of Snap-On tools, will my propensity to commit great mechanical repairs improve? Will carrying a megaphone make me a better orator?

NO?

Why not? Obviously, carrying a gun on my person makes me more likely to commit mayhem, doesn’t it?

If not, leave me the hell alone and keep your laws off of my guns. Because the gun does not make the criminal any more than the fine tools of the trades above made great performers or mechanics or orators.

“there were 5,154 motorcycle deaths in 2007 — the highest number since the federal government began tracking deaths in 1975. That was a 6.6% increase from 2007 and represented 13% of all fatalities nationwide.”

In the meantime, firearms fatalities are trending downward over the same period, and are a fraction of the motorcycle deaths. There’s no constitutional right to ride a motorcycle; there is one to keep and bear a firearm.

I’m not (decidedly not) advocating the banning of motorcycles – but:

“Motorcycles are more mainstream than ever. Since 1998, there has been a 34 percent increase in the number of motorcycles – estimated to be about 8.8 million motorcycles – in use in the United States.” (data from http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcycle-news/motorcycle-owner-survey.htm regarding 2004 survey)

Every one of those deaths was caused by a trained and licesned driver, and every one of them was unnecessary (unlike every one caused by permittees).

“Are you, by advocating expanded concealed carry privileges, demanding the right to secretly carry a hidden, loaded handgun to a meeting with the President?”

This sort of thing has no place here.

The danger exists because of a person who has a gun. So if concealed carry is forbidden to everyone because a handful of people might slip through the cracks in the screening processes then it must follow that gun ownership should be forbidden because it’s the gun/person combination that presents the risk not the gun/person/outside-the-home combination.

To a skeptic, additional training is just a rhetorical device. Even if there was additional training, skeptics will then demand less training. Their agenda is to end the program entirely. Criticizing the training, to them, is just a means to that end.

Any of this sound familiar?