Second of all, granted that you can buy illegal guns by using the black market. Good for the ban on handguns to those that are 18+! That just means they need to try harder to find people who are willing to sell guns to them illegally, and chances are they'll have a tough time finding illegal guns. Also, despite the fact they (columbine shooters) bought illegal guns....guess who sold the AMMO needed to execute innocent people? Walmart. After Moore's film on 'bowling for columbine', Walmart decided to stop selling handgun ammunition. I'm not sure about past laws in Columbine regarding ammunition but these kids should have never gotten ammo without showing sufficient proof that they were certified in shooting handguns. But then it's Walmart we're talking about here. They aren't gun professionals or an organization under the eyes of gun control watchdog group (if there's one) so if they see an official form of ID then they will complete the sales transaction and sell the kids bullets. One of them was 18 so obviously that person was able to purchase ammo without having to show proof that they have a legal gun.
Again, here in Virginia an 18 year old can buy a handgun privately. Legally. There is no epidemic of 18 year old gun-toting serial murderers. I know plenty of people in their forties that I wouldn't trust with a sharpened pencil, and I've worked with 18 year olds that I have literally trusted with my life. 21 is not a magic number.
And as far as illegal guns go, there are plenty just north in DC.
Forth of all, then they shouldn't be carrying concealed at all. There should be a law set in place where they require people with gun permits to complete their qualification requirements every 6 months or something as a positive reinforcement to those that wishes to keep their gun permits by visiting the shooting range often to stay in good shape before qualification day. Again, what are you talking about problems that aren't happening? I still need an answer to the first question regarding problems being asserted by me few lines above.
Before you go reflexively passing laws that you're convinced we should all live by, you need to prove that there is a need for yet another law. You're saying that people without significant training shouldn't be carrying concealed, but you've yet to even hint at why that is, let alone convince anyone. Do people make better ethical decisions because of training? Do they become less likely to lose their temper or use violence or the threat of violence to settle arguments? What events have taken place that have you so convinced that the government has to mandate stringent training requirements?
Fifth of all, absolutely. There is only one way to stop them and that is having a person with a concealed permit being available to protect innocent citizens by being there at the right place at the right time. I have no idea, statistically speaking, on how many people carry a concealed gun on them at all times in public places so if a massacre should take place (which I definitely do not wish to take place), then we all better hope there's someone with a concealed gun that will step up to the plate and handle things from there. If not, hopefully everybody will be able to hide in places & wait for law enforcement to respond to the incident where they neutralize the suspect & come to the rescue of those hiding from the gunman(s).
This is why we train, and this is why we carry.
Everywhere.
Sixth, that is great that you're overqualified with your training where you are clearly capable of handling such gun whether it's a handgun or a rifle. As you said earlier, police usually fire their handguns during qualifications. I was reading about an article a long time ago, and this officer who retired stated that he had never shot his gun more than two times throughout his 25 years of law enforcement so obviously it is very rare for officers to engage in incidents that includes shots being exchanged back and forth between officers and shooter(s). I do think officers should be proactive and try to visit the shooting range when they're off duty so they can keep their shooting skills in tip top shape. However, we all know they have second jobs if they're part time officers, or they have families/lives to handle so it can be difficult to take time out of their lives to take a trip down to the shooting range & on working on their shooting skills.
No such thing as "overqualified". Police officers are notoriously bad shots (most, not all). So if you're okay with police officers going to the range twice a year when they're ACTIVELY looking for trouble twelve hours a day, you should be fine with granny not going at all if all she wants to do is get from her car to her house without being mugged. Sure, police officers should all be IDPA shooters and master tacticians, but they're not. And shockingly, the government does NOTHING about this! Where's the outrage?
Lastly, I was talking about a Utopia where the world is a perfect place with laws that everyone agrees on. No laws will ever be perfect when it comes to guns, and the world will NEVER become a perfect place for everybody to live in because we have greedy people that's looking out for their companies', families, or their own interests rather than the society in general.
