Trinidad, on 2013-May-12, 03:12, said:
That is certainly true. The problem, however, is that each of these individuals perceives themself as (much) better than average. People overrate their own skills whether they are driving skills, or skills needed for responsible gun ownership or any other skill. This is particularly true for those who don't fully understand what skills are needed.
As long as everybody can evaluate for themselves whether they are fit to own a gun this will lead to "unfortunate accidents" such as kids shooting kids. If there would be sensible objective tests and checks that need to be passed to be allowed to own a gun, these "unfortunate accidents" would be reduced significantly.
Rik
Actually, we agree here. Somewhat at least. I quit hunting because I realized that going out in the field every once in a blue moon with a lethal weapon was really not a very smart idea. I am not sure if Dick Cheney considered, or did, give up hunting after his little mishap, but there would be a point to it. He may have grown up in Wyoming, or maybe Nebraska, but that was in an earlier life. There is a lot to be said for knowing who you are, who you have become, and who you are not.
Still, a guy like me, living in a very quiet residential area, retired, seldom in conflict with anyone (except maybe on bbo threads) should show some restraint in telling someone who is living in vastly different circumstances that he, or maybe particularly she, does not need some protection close at hand.
With a little restraint, and some thought, I think some proposals could get very broad support. Background checks are obvious, and there is wide support. Money talks, so the NRA has won a temporary reprieve, but I do think that it is temporary. And I will repeat my suggestion that gun owners should be required to learn the laws governing the use of such weapons and be tested on this knowledge. Most people that I know are not big on guns, but there are some who are. Their views on their right to own guns is one thing, but their views on their right to use guns are, in sme cases, downright scary.
Take the story Charles tells. He answers the door, gun in hand, some boys are there. There has been some trouble about which girl his son is dating. Sounds crazy. Sounds like 16 year old boys, who are often crazy. Ok, first possibility, maybe one of the kids pulls out his own gun and shoots. Oops. Or maybe the boys, who as the story was presented sound pretty nuts, push on in anyway. Well, what good is a gun unless you use it? So Charles shoots one of them. The others come at him. He shoots them. One or two of them die. Far fetched? Not really if you come to the door with a gun in your hand. Now the police come. Charles is protecting himself and his family. Sure. But maybe a cop says "You felt sufficiently threatened so that you brought a gun to the door with you but you still opened the door? Did it cross your mind to not open the door and, instead, to dial for help from the police? " I have no idea where this would go legally but I much prefer not to find out the hard way.
I read recently, although I did not study it in detail, about a guy who was being let out of jail after serving some years for knifing someone. As I got it, everyone agreed that he was not the instigator of the trouble, he was defending himself, but the way things had gone he could have safely backed off before killing his assailant so he ended up convicted of some form of manslaughter. Something along these lines, I did not pay attention to the details.
Mostly I think that gun enthusiasts far overstate the security a gun gives them and far underestimate the legal difficulties that can arise from using the weapon. Not all do, but many do. If we had background checks, and if we required proof of good solid knowledge of legal responsibilities arising from gun ownership, I think we would cut down sharply on the craziness.And I think a lot of support could be had for both approaches. Enough to overcome the NRA. Eventually.
Help
