For CCW, some states do not require any training or license, but most do.  However since there is some risk involved to the general public, ie negligent discharge/missing a target, then there should be at least a minimum standard that should be required and this would be tested while still allowing free exercise of 2nd amendment rights.

I have to disagree with your disagreement.  As an individual, you can exercise your first amendment rights without training or certification.  I could stand at Thomas Square (or other public areas) protesting Occupy and would not need to show any training documents or certifications.  I may not be effective without training and have to obey the laws, but I can do it safely and legally.  Same with publishing or posting on the internet, no training or certifications are legally required.

For CCW, some states do not require any training or license, but most do.  However since there is some risk involved to the general public, ie negligent discharge/missing a target, then there should be at least a minimum standard that should be required and this would be tested while still allowing free exercise of 2nd amendment rights.

You can disagree all you want, but it is really just a simple fact.  How do you think that you learned to speak and read? How do you think that you gained reading comprehension and the capacity to engage in discourse?  Communication takes years of training.  You were undergoing training hopefully from the day you were born when other people were talking to you and communicating with you.  Without that training - you can't really exercise your rights. You would not be able to truly communicate or express a message.  In the event that you can't talk, you would have to learn alternative methods of engaging in discourse to express yourself.  That's like learning to shoot with a different hand =).

Statistics based upon over 20 years of experience with over 8 million CCW holders throughout the United States show that the general public is much more likely to be subject to criminal behavior by a Law Enforcement Officer than they are by a civilian CCW holder. Wonder what test they'll use to disqualify those "dangerous" LEOs?

I call Bullshit. By your standard of CCW criminals are part of your imaginary 8 million.

So, at what point in the process does the government make you take a competency or proficiency test before you are allowed to voice your opinions in public?

Here's your bullshit. Taken from your own quoted article.

"There are no complete and definitive sources of data that will give us an accurate ratio of unjustified homicides committed by police compared to CCW holders.  The numbers are very small and no one keeps a national record of them."

Your article holds no bearing. It's is fluff and bullshit.

Regardless, Some don't have the maturity, nor possess the common sense, to carry.

You don't answer the questions. What is "imaginary" about 8 million CCW permitees? (How many "real"/non-imaginary CCW permit holders are there in the United States, according to you?)
What is my "standard of CCW"? (I don't recall stating one, but perhaps I did...).
What do you mean by "criminals are part of your imaginary 8 million"? (I have no idea what this means... please enlighten me.)

1. So your argument is that because the national data is not "complete and definitive" the data that does exist is completely and totally invalid? In that case virtually all statistical data would be invalid because virtually none of it is "complete and definitive". No one (well, almost no one, apparently) believes that statistical analysis is only useful and/or an accurate representation of events if the data set is "complete and definitive". I believe there is enough data with enough integrity that a fair assessment, though not a "complete and definitive" one, can be made regarding the relative rates of crime committed by civilian CCW permitees and law enforcement officers.

2. I'm sure you know that the problem with obtaining accurate and complete data lies not with the civilian CCW crimes data, but with the fact that law enforcement agencies aren't known for making public full and accurate statistics regarding how many of their officers commit how many of what kinds of crimes. Perhaps if you lobbied them to be more forthcoming with such data we'd have a more accurate picture of how many crimes are really committed by law enforcement officers. I think I might bet my house that they are not over-reporting officer crime.

And if you don't believe any of the numbers at all, then you must be totally neutral about the comparative rates of crime, right? After all, if the lack of "complete and definitive" data makes any statistical claims invalid, the truth could be that law enforcement officers are actually much more prone to commit crimes than even the incomplete data set shows. You certainly would have no statistical basis to assert that "public safety" is jeopardized by issuing CCW permits to civilians because you have no data upon which to base that claim, it'd be pure armchair speculation on your part.

How much of your so called "8 million" is sworn LEO's?

I'm not sure what problem there is understanding that to exercise free speech, you must be capable of speech. And  to be capable of speech, you must be taught and educated in how to do it?  Thus proves the fallacy.

Furthermore, you must have training and education in order to effectively exercise your right to remain silent.  You generally need training and education in order to properly exercise your right to counsel.  You need training and education to properly exercise your right to be free of searches and seizures.

do sworn LEO's need to have a CCW permit?

Unfortunately there is no easy way to figure out the bad eggs from the good eggs when it comes to CCW. Extensive training in liability and legal procedure may provide a foundation for most and may reform those Rambo wanna be types.

So what is "extensive" and who is responsible for the costs? Seems there has been a 'national discussion' recently about the chilling effect of the cost and effort required to get an ID for voting (a core fundamental right) yet none on the likely same effect on exercising y our Second Amendment rights. Why is that? And, what about the extensive history of concealed carry in other states where the "Rambo" mentality rarely factors into the real life application?

People need to be educated that they are accountable for every single round that is fired. While they may be attempting to stop a crime it does not justify a single loss of life on their part. While it may seem like common sense to most of us, when you add a sympathetic nervous system response to the mix most people forget to ensure they have a clear back drop before they fire. That is something that has to be trained and practiced.

In the heat of the moment your vision narrows, heart rate increases, and you experience auditory exclusion.  You lose complex motor skills. If you don't have training in how to react when the shit hits the fan you may end up killing someone innocent. It may be the little girl standing behind the suspect, in the background.

You mean like the guy at the mall who drew down on the active shooter but didn't fire because he wasn't sure of his background? No argument from me about the need for training, but who decides what level is the minimum level? The same bureaucratic functionary responsible for issuing CCWs now?

Maturity, that's a huge one. Knowing when to intervene and when not to. Weighing the risk vs. benefit. Knowing when it's better to walk away vs. escalating. Knowing how to lower your head, put your ego aside, and make a mature decision based on logic not emotion.

The number of DGUs where no shots are fired are a pretty good indicator that your concerns really haven't been validated in the states with CCW. Are there accidents? Certainly. Is it an overwhelming concern that should somehow affect the exercise of a core fundamental Constitutional right? IMHO, no.

I'm a firm believer that if you can't defend yourself without a gun, you have no business carrying a gun for defense. Learn how to fight before you even think about CCW. You may have to fight to maintain possession of your gun.

I'm pretty tolerant of other opinions and generally suggest a reasoned debate to explore alternate viewpoints, but you just lost all credibility with this statement. That you should be so crass to think that just because you can't go hand-to-hand with a younger, stronger assailant that you shouldn't be able to carry a gun is quite shocking. That you would condemn anyone but the strong and physically fit an opportunity to defend themselves from a criminal attack that might kill or severely injure them is...well....how do I put this.....Hitler-ish...in a "master race, we gotta weed out the sick and the week" kinda way that I find it difficult to comprehend. That anyone, in this day and age would even suggest that a paraplegic suffer an assault rather that be "allowed" to use a firearm just because he can't "fight it out" or that a brittle asthmatic should just chance a life threatening asthma attack by fighting rather than use a firearm as the proverbial equalizer, is so utterly uncaring, so callous, so "superior" of you,  that I find it difficult to find the words to tell you how offensive that statement is.

I can only imagine, but I bet that if it were you, or someone close to you, that was incapable of fighting, that you'd be much less caviler in dismissing the value of a human life just because they were disabled....

Just my 2 cents.