I'm rethinking my whole stance on guns

I've always been someone who has a pretty conservative stance on guns and gun rights.
I'm a firm believer in the second amendment, and in the view that additional gun laws are for the most part not needed for two reasons: 1 - if existing laws were enforced, most current problems with guns in society would be solved and 2 - restrictive gun laws only affect law abiding people. By definition, criminal elements are already violating laws, so telling the guy who is already committing a robbery or murder that he is also breaking the law by carrying a gun will have no effect whatsoever. I mean, no one is going to go "Let's see. I'm going to rob Goliath National Bank today, but oh wait! That new gun law makes it illegal for me to take my gun. I'll just take the knife instead. Whew! Glad I remembered that!"

However, I also find myself astounded by some aspects of Utah's Concealed Firearms permit.

First, I absolutely disagree with the practice of issuing permits to non-residents that never set foot in the state. Utah's permit is more widely recognized than any other state permit, so it has become the de facto 'national' permit since the average citizen cannot get a federal permit.
However, the current law allows an out of state instructor to sign off on the certification, allowing people who have never been to Utah and have no plans to come to Utah to have a permit issued by the State of Utah. This uses up resources paid for by the taxpayers of Utah, and allows some less than scrupulous instructors to get away with rubber stamping applications instead of ensuring that the applicants have a thorough understanding of Utah law regarding firearms & the ability to handle weapons properly.

Secondly, I would like to see Utah set some standardized curriculum and weapons qualification criteria. Under the current law, the instruction an applicant receives is entirely dictated by the instructor, and the quality of the education varies greatly.

The need for these changes is strongly illustrated by not just one, but two recent incidents where a concealed firearms permit holder accidentally discharged a firearm in a restaurant here in Utah.

In the first incident, the permit holder was using the restroom at a Carl's Jr. when his pistol slipped out of the holster and discharged when it hit the floor. The round blew up the toilet he was sitting on, cutting him, but other than that there were no casualties. Except the toilet itself, which Carl's Jr held a funeral for a few days later.
If this idiot had been carrying a proper weapon, this wouldn't have happened. I've been telling anyone who will listen for at least a month that if it had been a SIG or Glock, the accidental discharge couldn't have happened. Those guns have a firing pin intercept that will not allow the firing pin to contact the round unless the trigger is actually moved, even if the gun is dropped.

Now, just today, a new idiot was at the Olive Garden in Provo eating lunch when he reached down to 'adjust something' on his gun, and it discharged. In this case, the gun in question was actually a SIG, and appears to be a SIG P228. I have intimate knowledge of the inner workings of a SIG P228, and there is NO WAY that it could have discharged without the trigger being pulled. Period. This guy was just a freaking idiot.

I am finding myself in favor of enhanced training for people who desire the privilege of carrying a firearm concealed in public. The current standards are too low.

My suggestions:
- Standardized training curricula and qualification. Instructors should be teaching from a state produced manual, and should extensively cover safety procedures, safe behaviors, and proficiency tests.
- Expanded curricula. Currently, instructors are required to give four hours of instruction. It doesn't say what needs to be instructed. I think that the minimum should follow along the lines of the Hunter Safety program which if I remember correctly runs closer to 16 hours of classroom instruction. That should be the bare minimum. It should not be more difficult to get a big game hunting license than a concealed firearms permit. (It is currently much more difficult to get a big game hunting license than a concealed firearms permit)
- In State Certification. I believe that if someone wants to take an approved course out of state, fine. But I think that applicants should be required to travel to Utah to take both written and practical tests.
- Enhanced fees for out of state applicants. The state currently subsidizes these permits, meaning that the fees charged don't cover all the costs associated with the program. I feel that this is okay for residents who are paying taxes, but I think that out of state applicants should be charged fees representative of the actual costs to the state. We already do this with hunting & fishing licenses, school tuition, and other benefits. This is a no brainer.

These suggestions may not have prevented the accidental discharges which happened in the last two months, but I do believe that it would pare down the numbers of people who get a permit and just don't take the responsibilities of carrying a loaded gun seriously. That can do nothing but help keep these wing-nuts from doing stupid things - or at the very least make them hear the safety messages a few more times.

Who would have thought that Conservative Ted would have such liberal ideas!