DesertFox- wrote:
My idea of gun control differs greatly from what the term has been described as. My idea of the government having gun control and not gun absence would be that people are required to be more responsible with their firearms. Trigger guards, seperately stored ammo, registering your weapon...things a responsible person would do. Right now, we're somewhere in between the Wild West and my idealistic vision. I do get angered though when someone makes a statement like "guns are dangerous" or "guns kill people" because it's applying the label that they are inherently bad, while if you had a "guns save lives" slogan, that wouldn't be appropriate either. There needs to be a middle ground.
I've been around firearms for a great deal of my life. The people who owned them were responsible adults who kept them unloaded in safes and whatnot, and through exposure those behaviors have been passed on to me. I don't see what the big deal is these days. Firearms and their projectiles in general haven't become any less lethal since they've been invented yet I hear stories my dad and granddad say about kids taking a .22 down to the dump and shooting rats, or loading a .357 Magnum with 1 magnum round and 5 .38 specials then shooting at cans on a fence while at a farm. It's different though today. People are too afraid of weapons and they're not going to want to get exposed to them in order to find they have some irrational fears. If someone is walking down the street carrying a rifle (but not aiming it at people hopefully) I wouldn't feel I'm in any danger but some people would probably duck for cover at that point.
Meh, it's a hobby of mine and something I know about than the average person. I just wish more people would give it a chance. Hell, in my proper "gun control" society, everybody would know how to safely operate a firearm through education about them. I'd like to see how many people could properly load/unload a semi-automatic pistol you gave them today. Since this country has become less and less rural, people are less exposed to hunting and the like with shotguns and rifles, yet they're more accustomed to the drive-by with submachine guns and pistols.
Okay, I'm done rambling on...
Some excellent points. While I agree that there should be mandatory training, a sort of legal background check (to make sure you've not forfeited some rights through criminal activity or a check on your mental stability), and safe handling and storage demonstration, there should NOT be registration. There is no reason for it, it's not legal or constitutional, and it only serves one purpose...to provide a record of owners from which to confiscate illegally.
Seriously, we don't have the right to drive, but we are required some basic training before becoming licensed, and there's renewal tests to continue driving. Why not require some training for gun ownership, with a type of renewal of said training. A 2 hour lecture and lab for prospective buyers (CA requires handgun buyers to have a "Handgun Safety Certificate" administered by the DOJ which teaches about the 6 rules of safety, explains handguns and their parts and safe handling and storage, and there's other CA DOJ law information in there like how to legally transfer, transport, and use, etc), and a refresher test. Infringing the right to BUY a gun with a simple safety test like this would IMHO be ok, but not infringing their right to OWN and CARRY the weapon. And like this example, there should be some government intervention that mildly infringes gun acquisition...like an oath of responsibility, perhaps increased penalties for crimes and even accidents committed with your guns...like
shooting your old blackberry phone.
