It was suggested on another thread that more Training should be included in the list of things needed for better gun control. As I said, I am not opposed to training. But how does that prevent or reduce mass shooter events from occurring?
From a safety aspect, I wholeheartedly endorse training requirements. But I fail to see how that is included in gun control efforts. Do we really want to make the mass shooters a better shot? kill more people? Again, what does training have to do with gun control?
It does the same thing as any gun control: makes it harder for people to legally own guns.
In Chicago, for example, they required training, but prohibited training facilities in town. They also prohibit guns on public transportation. To exercise your right to own a gun, you had to have the means to travel out of town repeatedly for training.
The courts saw the obvious problem with such a rule and it went away, but the general purpose was (and is) not to train better and safer shooters, but to find ways to make the training more and more difficult to obtain and to pass, making it harder for people to legally own guns.
Any little thing that can be done to make legal gun ownership harder will be attempted.
I'm not with you on this score.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
To many Militia means the National guard i.e. government. To myself and many gun owners it means a citizen army that is the last defender of freedom against tyranny.
Given the revolutionary experience that is the context surrounding the writing of the constitution the latter meaning is self evident.
Still "well regulated" isn't just rhetorical fluff and I take that to mean that there was to be a framework of laws "regulating" this right. We all know that none of our rights is an absolute. The obvious example of yelling fire in a theater. We also know that some rights can be lost through due process for felony convictions, mental incapacity etc.
I think demonstrating gun safety is not a high burden to the free exercise of my right to bare arms. It would improve safety and I think reduce crime and random violence. Maybe you think that last phrase is nuts but allow me to explain. There is a behavioral fact known to psychology that assigned responsibility is an effective way to modify bad behavior. The smart principal who takes the bully aside and says "Sol I can tell you are a tough no nonsense kid and we have a new student that I'm afraid is going to get picked on. Would you take on the responsibility to help protect him? I don't mean physically but just let it be know that he is under your protection. Thanks I knew I could count on you"
I've sat in on a number of various gun classes and the very best of these do a great job driving home the point that in practice carrying a gun is less a right and more of a responsibility. A responsibility to keep and handle the gun safely. The responsibility that you may one day have to draw that gun in defense, the responsibility to other gun owners not to make their lives more difficult because you made news using your gun inappropriately.
I'm not saying this will eliminate the problem but it could moderate it to a degree.
You are correct that hoops and hurdles designed to discourage ownership are wrong but passing a safety course and background check every five years is not unreasonable. Gun ownership is a right and a responsibility. Taking the time to teach people that fact is not a wasted exercise.
In general, I've learned to ignore gun threads, they just end up pissing me off, and some like that. In particular I usually ignore Happy's threads, well, you know.
However, this was one of the best written gun responsibility comments I've seen.