"Guns"
I was having a conversation with my friend Charles the other day about “Gun Control” and the Virginia Tech shootings.
Chuck is a staunch Libertarian and a member of the NRA, so I pretty much understand his views on the subject, and have for the better part of ten years.
But I later started thinking, “Why is it called ‘Gun Control’ when it’s actually ‘Gun Regulation’?”
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard a conversation on this topic that started with the sentence, “You know who else was for Gun Control? Hitler, Mussolini and Fidel Castro, that’s who!” Which is a simple and frankly, weak comparison for responsible ownership of a firearm to Nazism and Communism… very clever. No one wants to take away your grand-pappy’s six-shooter, Jethro… calm down.
That is a statement that is a total exaggeration in my mind, and will continue to be as long as people cling so desperately to the 2nd Amendment like a baby Chimpanzee clings to its mothers teats, and here’s why: In this country, there’s no such thing as “Gun Control”. Oh sure, there are a few Liberals that are against all guns, but most of us aren’t. And let’s go over what you need to do to own a gun so I can prove a point…
All you need is a relatively clean criminal record (and if you don’t have one, all you have to do is go to a state where you don’t have a record), the money for the gun and the licensing fees and Presto! You’re now a gun owner. To me, that just doesn’t seem adequate in terms of making sure that the person that owns the gun has the training necessary to safely and responsibly handle a firearm.
In military and police basic training, you learn all the steps that are necessary to take apart, fix, re-assemble and safely discharge your firearm… so why doesn’t everybody else have to go through a less rigorous form of instruction? Hell, even actors who fire guns filled with blanks in movies have to get training so that they don’t hurt themselves!
I’m not a person that is screaming for no guns whatsoever, but I just think that if you have a gun, that gun should have some purpose other then just being a gun. Guns by themselves are benign; an assemblage of bolts, springs, screws and metal plates, but when wielded (like any weapon) by someone skilled in its use, it’s deadly. But the problem here is that you don’t have to be skilled in the use of a gun for it to be deadly… lots of people accidentally shoot themselves or others fatally every year. Sure, the numbers aren’t “Tobacco Industry-related” in number, but the fact that it doesn’t go away is emblematic of the problem, which is training.
Accidents happen, but the chance that they can be reduced and eventually done away with through a series of training classes seems like a minor imposition on carrying or using a lethal weapon. Sure, the people that enjoyed the way things were in the past are going to get pissed, but frankly, who cares? You’ve been handling a gun safely and responsibly for 40 years? Then the class should be easy for you… but who knows? You may just learn something that you didn’t know before you took the class. After all, if all you have to do is go to the firearms equivalent of the DMV and pay a fee to renew your license every three or four years seems like it would be pretty fair to me.
I think guns are cool, despite the fact that I’ve never owned one, nor do I ever plan to own one. I’ve been shot at, and I’ve had them pointed in my face on a couple of occasions, but I hold nothing against those that do chose to arm themselves, as long as they do so safely and responsibly.
So I guess the whole point of this post is to just pose the question, “In order to get a legitimate license, you have to prove that you have a reasonable level of proficiency to drive a car, so shouldn’t you have to do the same thing with a gun?”
Chuck is a staunch Libertarian and a member of the NRA, so I pretty much understand his views on the subject, and have for the better part of ten years.
But I later started thinking, “Why is it called ‘Gun Control’ when it’s actually ‘Gun Regulation’?”
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard a conversation on this topic that started with the sentence, “You know who else was for Gun Control? Hitler, Mussolini and Fidel Castro, that’s who!” Which is a simple and frankly, weak comparison for responsible ownership of a firearm to Nazism and Communism… very clever. No one wants to take away your grand-pappy’s six-shooter, Jethro… calm down.
That is a statement that is a total exaggeration in my mind, and will continue to be as long as people cling so desperately to the 2nd Amendment like a baby Chimpanzee clings to its mothers teats, and here’s why: In this country, there’s no such thing as “Gun Control”. Oh sure, there are a few Liberals that are against all guns, but most of us aren’t. And let’s go over what you need to do to own a gun so I can prove a point…
All you need is a relatively clean criminal record (and if you don’t have one, all you have to do is go to a state where you don’t have a record), the money for the gun and the licensing fees and Presto! You’re now a gun owner. To me, that just doesn’t seem adequate in terms of making sure that the person that owns the gun has the training necessary to safely and responsibly handle a firearm.
In military and police basic training, you learn all the steps that are necessary to take apart, fix, re-assemble and safely discharge your firearm… so why doesn’t everybody else have to go through a less rigorous form of instruction? Hell, even actors who fire guns filled with blanks in movies have to get training so that they don’t hurt themselves!
I’m not a person that is screaming for no guns whatsoever, but I just think that if you have a gun, that gun should have some purpose other then just being a gun. Guns by themselves are benign; an assemblage of bolts, springs, screws and metal plates, but when wielded (like any weapon) by someone skilled in its use, it’s deadly. But the problem here is that you don’t have to be skilled in the use of a gun for it to be deadly… lots of people accidentally shoot themselves or others fatally every year. Sure, the numbers aren’t “Tobacco Industry-related” in number, but the fact that it doesn’t go away is emblematic of the problem, which is training.
Accidents happen, but the chance that they can be reduced and eventually done away with through a series of training classes seems like a minor imposition on carrying or using a lethal weapon. Sure, the people that enjoyed the way things were in the past are going to get pissed, but frankly, who cares? You’ve been handling a gun safely and responsibly for 40 years? Then the class should be easy for you… but who knows? You may just learn something that you didn’t know before you took the class. After all, if all you have to do is go to the firearms equivalent of the DMV and pay a fee to renew your license every three or four years seems like it would be pretty fair to me.
I think guns are cool, despite the fact that I’ve never owned one, nor do I ever plan to own one. I’ve been shot at, and I’ve had them pointed in my face on a couple of occasions, but I hold nothing against those that do chose to arm themselves, as long as they do so safely and responsibly.
So I guess the whole point of this post is to just pose the question, “In order to get a legitimate license, you have to prove that you have a reasonable level of proficiency to drive a car, so shouldn’t you have to do the same thing with a gun?”
posted by Todd Tobin at 8:05 PM
3 Comments:
Oh hon... I think you need to come to Canada... the more I read your writings I think that you would be far less annoyed with our Government... but then again you would probably just find other things to bitch about... not that bitching is bad... it keeps you informed and keeps you up to date with what is happening.
We have a similar course for gun safety and you also have to register each and every gun you have...
I am not sure what it has done to prevent violent attacks... probably nothing but the government has a pretty good idea of how many guns and where they are... and can trace a gun back now if it was involved in a crime...
Oh well, I have to go for now... take care...
I grew up in a household with a lot of guns. I never owned one myself until hurricane Wilma made the streets of my mellow South Florida suburbs look more like something out of a cliched apocalyptic movie. The news said that the grocery store in my neighborhood would be open until 6 p.m. When they closed the doors at 5, there was "almost" a riot.
I am throughly "gay and NRA". Still, I don't think anyone should be so adamant in their belief in the Second Amendment so as to interpret that it prohibits us from trying to keep guns out of the hands of the criminals and the insane.
Guns are the last, best defense of our rights against a tyrannical government. The Second Amendment guarantees the rest of them. I don't want anyone messing with ANY of my constitutional rights.
Your idea would make sense in a perfect world, but here in Nebraska you have to take a course like that for a concealed carry license. Of course, the state government only has four licensed instructors in the whole state, and (guess what!) they're all in the Omaha-Lincoln area, and booked up for the next six months. So that means that people on the other side of the state, like me, aren't as worthy of the right of self-defense unless we also happen to be rich enough to take a few weeks off of work, travel the six hours to Omaha, and live in a hotel for a few weeks... assuming we can even get a spot.
You can't trust the government to do anything right, no matter how well-intentioned a program is. This would have the practical effect of disarming a lot of people who really ought to be armed. And then there's the slippery slope argument-if they can do this to gun owners, what else can they do? And if they can ignore the Second Amendment, what happens when they ignore an amendment that YOU like? (Well, the answer is the USA PATRIOT Act, but the point remains.)
Post a Comment
<< Home