Security and Gun Control - Part 7

Yesterday got us to the point where I  argued that police and paid security could not provide full security for everyone. That for bad guys to be effectively countered some subset of the population needed to be armed.

Let's talk about that subset. This is where our personal biases really start to play. To jog your memory here is the list from my previous post.

Biases:
1. Come from a big city instead of the country.
2. Come from foreign countries where guns are viewed differently for many reasons.
3. Never were around guns growing up (vs familiar with guns).
4. Military background instead of civilian.
5. Rich vs poor
6. How guns were used around them (primarily associated with crime or hunting or war, etc.)

These experiences and backgrounds will inform your thought process. Unlike the assumptions section, there is nothing right or wrong, better or worse about any of these. They simply are. This is the part where we need to be particularly sensitive of each other.

If we agree that some group of nonprofessional civilians is required to augment professional security forces to ensure widespread safety and security the only question now is how to regulate who is in that group, what they can carry, and where.

Let me start out by saying that I do not believe a one size fits all solution will work for everyone everywhere in the country. Each state and region needs the flexibility to find a set of rules that works for them. I am going to break each of these sections up into city and rural because they are different environments that require different rules.

City
In the city there are, by definition, a lot of people. This means that for any given space you need proportionally fewer armed people to provide some security because there are lots of people there. In a store with fifty people in it a 5% carry rate would mean there are 2-3 armed individuals to respond to a threat.

Additionally, there is generally more risk. There are more people around, more opportunities for collateral damage. More risk. As such I think it is more important for those individuals who do carry weapons to have a higher level of training.

The key is that there not be "gun free zones" anywhere. To provide solid protection from dobadders there has to be a meaningful risk of getting into a firefight anywhere they may want to attack. For anyone who has played paintball, air-soft, or been in a real shooting war you know it takes about 0.5 seconds to be dead. It's not a fun thing when it is a life or death situation.

My proposal is something along these lines: Any non-felon can carry a concealed handgun with a concealed carry license anywhere in that jurisdiction. The only locations that can prevent lawful carry of arms MUST provide adequate armed security (not one cop in an entire high school). This includes government buildings, schools, churches or any other location.

To obtain and maintain that license each individual must take an initial training course that includes enclosed space tactical training and real marksmanship standards. They must also complete yearly tactical and accuracy proficiency training and testing.

This ensures that anyone who is carrying a gun around knows how to use it and it reduces the risk of collateral damage. I think this provides a good balance of safety for everyone.

Rural

In the country and less developed areas the rules do not need to be as strict. Also, there are going to be fewer people around so the percentage of armed individuals needs to be higher to ensure criminals feel threatened. This necessitates that the regulations be more lax to increase the carry rate.

Therefore, I would require a similar though possibly less strict initial training course, and not require follow-up proficiency checks.

Both
I would strive to keep the licensing process as inexpensive as possible to prevent it from disproportionately preventing members of poorer communities from carrying. To the point of providing need based scholarships for the initial and subsequent training.

On the topic of open carry, I think that is a choice of the local jurisdiction based on cultural standards and what they feel works best for their community.

We can never be completely safe. The best we can do is ensure that there is significant risk to anyone who wants to do take the lives of those around them.