That all depends on the state you're living in. A three hour class and a detailed background check works for some. And in many cases, if you can legally buy a handgun, you have already met the majority of requirements to carry it concealed.

__________________
For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
Thomas Jefferson

Sorry, didn't see this earlier.

TH is correct. Some states require more training than others. Some none at all. While some do not even have CCW permits because they feel anyone can carry ccw without it.

This all goes to what I was saying earlier about training. Also, in some states you have open carry laws. Sometimes this is restricted more in different counties. But you get my point.

Bottom line.

No I do not think that the gov should get involved in school affairs. Too much government intervention is a bad thing. And students can choose to go to a college that is not gun free. But that can come at a loss to the student because of educational issues, money, distance from home, etc.

I know they need to stop focusing on the citizen, and start focusing on the criminal. Give incentives for people to get training. I do not know of anyone (myself included) that would refuse extra training for a tax break on buying the weapon.

The only problem would be coming up with, implementing, and funding the training program. Yes you could simple certify current CCW instructors, but that class is still expensive ($195 for a two hour class in NC). So the tax break would have to outweigh the cost of the class. That would be tough, to figure out. Or put a cap on how much the class can cost. But then again that would probably be too much government involvement for many (but definitely less involvement than having them simply ban firearms).

__________________
Jones:- We're going to teach them climbing, abseiling, canoeing, archery, shooting...

Interviewer:- Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible isn't it?

Jones:- I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the range.

Interviewer:- Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
You're equipping them to become violent killers.

Jones:- Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute but you're not one are you?

So what do you consider an appropriate number of children shot in classroms to be?

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

ZERO. Which is why I push training and hitting criminals. While still backing the citizens right.

But we all know that is an unrealistic number.

__________________
Jones:- We're going to teach them climbing, abseiling, canoeing, archery, shooting...

Interviewer:- Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible isn't it?

Jones:- I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the range.

Interviewer:- Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
You're equipping them to become violent killers.

Jones:- Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute but you're not one are you?

This combination is the reason why school shooters can rack up such high body counts:

1. He won't care if he isn't 21 so the law won't stop him.
2. The majority of his victims won't carry because of the gun free zone.
3. They also won't carry because they need to be 21 leaving as you said the majority unarmed.
4. The majority being opposed to guns will also not want to carry.

This leaves a perfect pool of young vastly unarmed victims for any shooter and is why school shooting happen.

Gun-free zones have little or nothing to do with WHY crimes happen. First of all, people who do mass-shootings/school shootings are either suicidal, or mentally unstable, they could care less if students were armed or not they would do it anyways. Obviously someone who wants to die isn't going to care about any law in the book. You could make the capital punishment getting run over with a steam-roller and hes not going to give a @!%#.

Yes, a CCW holder MIGHT help reduce the death count, but its not going to deter a shooter who is crazy and suicidal and wants to die.

I guess this is the main difference between the US and Canada. The provinces have no juristiction over gun control in Canada. All done at the federal level. This is good and bad in some ways.

We can travel accross the country knowing that all the laws on firearms are uniform. So someone can bring their tactical guns anywhere and not be afraid the pistol grip is going to violate some random assualt weapon ban along the way.

The funny thing is if Manitoba or Saskatchewan were allowed to make a assualt weapons ban and impliment them, it would be physically impossible to transport your assualt weapons from B.C. to Quebec for example, because the provincial boundaries go all the way up North (and there are no highways that far North). So lucky for us, this isn't possible.

The bad thing is obviously if one province wants more or less gun control, its not possible. The provinces can do a bit here and there in the role of administering justice. Some have refused to enforce the registration requirements and issue documents quickly to make it easy for gun owners, while some like Ontario frequently do things like delay firearms transfers to inconvience gun owners.

What I notice in the US is that laws differ all over the place. Kind of weird, like some Canadians can actually get CCWs in a few states, but most won't let them. The ridiculous thing is that once you get it in one state, you can use it in some of the ones you were denied from. Gives you a headache after a while.

__________________
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." — John Stuart Mill

I have my submachinegun for:

A: Self Defense, To kill any person who invades my home and threatens my family. An Uzi is a particularly effective tool for close quarters combat.

B: Shooting in local matches.

C: As an investement that has quadrupled in value.


You worry about what is in your home, and let me worry about what's in mine.

Ever notice how some gun owners are opposed to registration because they don't want the government to know what guns they own (in case of banning and confiscation); yet, they come on the net and tell us what guns they own. As if the government is incapable of tracking down any of us.

Again, why should they have more rights than any other citizen?


Creating a gun collection shouldn't bestow any extra rights to anyone.


And not all of those were criminals. The desire for freedom is strong.



The do away with it, and go to American style freedom,as your western provinces want.

There a factor if you went to a school were the majority of your students held firearms on there person going on a mass shooting would be futile. And just becasue a person is mentaly unstable and wants to shoot someone you can't assume he wouldn't calculate his risks and chances involved.

A good amount of CCW holders would reduce the death count. If it weren't a gun free zone

just makin sure were on the same level