To answer your first question, Dan, no. I don't have any statistics to show that other states with more lax CHP requirements have more stupid, careless, accidental, or embarrassing firearms deaths or injuries. And, as I said, I'm not saying that reciprocity wouldn't be good for those who choose to carry, or the rest of society for that matter. I'm just trying to make a point that there will be some issues to work out, and in working out those issues, we could come up with something worse than what we have now. I'm not sure what you mean about my argument being the same as that used by the small towns that were trying to keep 430 from passing. They didn't want higher standards to apply to people carrying concealed in their towns; they didn't want anyone carrying in their towns, period. Think of it this way (and I'm not sure if this is a good example): When I go out to the Izaak Walton League rifle/pistol range, I know that everyone there (unless they are not authorized) has had some training on the rules for the range and that they have demonstrated to some extent to a qualified range officer that they know what they are doing. Now, I compare this to our CHP classes/tests in that it is pretty lax and certainly isn't going to guarantee that no one is going to get shot by accident while on the range. In fact, I still see a number of people who don't use particularly good practices when it comes to the safe handling of their firearms. On the other hand, I've been to pubic sight ins and to public shooting ranges where there is absolutely nothing requiring those who come there to shoot to have any kind of training whatsoever. I generally don't shoot there when other people are around because I don't trust them to know enough not to point that loaded gun at me or to stop shooting when someone is down range putting up a target. No, I can't say that I've ever known anyone to get shot at the trap shooting sites at Branched Oak or Pawnee. But, if I have the choice, I'll go to the club where it is much more likely that anyone else shooting there has at least heard of gun safety.
Finally, when it comes to the second amendment, or simply the right to defend oneself with whatever means one has, I realize that even a blind, illiterate, with DTs and no thumbs has as much right to defend themselves as I do. (No offense meant to the visually impaired, the uneducated, alcoholics, or amputees.) Though I might want to stay a safe distance away from them if they were armed, I don't know that I have an ethical argument to deny them that right.
