What level of training, as in rounds fired, would someone say, is sufficient to go chamber hot?
Competency isn't based on rounds fired.
Is a box of 50, when you first get a gun enough? Is 50 a week enough? More?
The problem, is not one thing causes ND's. It is a combo of circumstances that cause them. Baby crying, phone ringing, bills over due, fight with spouse, fight with neighbors spouse, kids, traffic, weather, job, jobs, stress.
That is not the most ridiculous list of things I've ever seen blamed for NDs. However, it comes close.
I guess we could ask the second in command at the 3 largest police dept in the state what caused the bullet hole in the ceiling of their dispatch office. Maybe the answer is there. Or maybe the 20 year police chief of another town, that has shot himself twice, in 20 years.
In many of those cases, we don't need to ask. The answer is incompetence.
Don't forget the LEO in Iowa who shot his sergeant. (And, I'll note, didn't even get a written reprimand in his file, if I recall correctly.)
All NDs are not the result of incompetence. Some are temporary aberrations resulting from a sequence of mistakes. However, the ones you listed ARE from incompetence, which is something else entirely.
I note that the LEO who shot his sergeant thought he had an empty chamber. He was wrong. Thinking to yourself "I always have an empty chamber" is insufficient to stop NDs.
When I see someone going condition 3, or condition 4, I do not see someone who is unfit to carry, I see someone that is thinking of all possible outcomes, and works what could happen, into their training, and into their life.
I see someone who is making their own choices based on their priorities.
I'll note that their priorities do not include being able to quickly use their firearm for self-defense purposes. And that's fine---it doesn't have to be their priority.
However, most people who carry firearms have self-defense as a priority, and thus choose differently. Knowing that someone carries condition three (carrying condition four is talisman thinking, really, as it effectively means that in a self-defense situation, you have a handweight) tells me about their self-defense priorities.
On a personal level, it tells me about their gun-handling competence level, too. IMO.
In the video clip below, I call the mindset, the Rambo mentality. No reason to have a condition 0 rifle, in a chow line, on a military base, except it does make for interesting movie viewing.
Yes, yes, we want to make decisions about people based on how movies portray them.
This mindset, in popular culture, trickles down into the people that watch such shows, and it influences their actions. The child shot with a dropped gun at a Halloween party, is such a outcome. Why does someone need a round chambered in a pocket pistol at a child's Halloween party?
That makes no sense. Unless, of course, somehow you have any idea whatsoever that movies influenced that person's thinking?
I'll note: They probably felt they needed a round chambered because that is how they carried. And there were carrying because that was habit for them. There isn't anything special about that, and the idea that you think someone should be criticized for deciding to carry tells me a lot. Granted, I already knew that.
Criticized for not carrying in a competent fashion, that resulted in harm? Sure. Criticized for having a loaded carry firearm? Give me a break.
Back to the subject of Open Carry of long guns, do the open carry folks think it prudent to carry a rifle Condition 0 or Condition 1?
Why would anyone carry an AR in Condition 0? And plenty of people in the military carry ARs ALL THE TIME in Condition 1.
Going back to the original picture---why in the world would you think that was Switzerland? When just about every caption for that picture mentions that she is Israeli?
