Originally Posted by kimio
It was suggested that perhaps a licensing program of some sort would be a decent solution to this dillemma. The idea was that in order to purchase a firearm, you must be certafied as being trained in the basics of gun safety, and know how to properly maintain and handle a specific type of firearm.
And this will accomplish ... what, exactly?
Remember: This current furor was sparked by a school massacre in Connecticut. Connecticut already has in place just about all the types of regulations being discussed (other than a magazine capacity limit, and they are working on that in Hartford right now). The school shooter was very well trained and he obviously knew how to handle the firearm. He even remembered to wear ear protection while shooting. 9Yes, this was confirmed by the Connecticut State Police.)
But he didn't purchase any of the firearms he used -- he murdered his own mother and stole the guns from her. How would your mandatory training in any way have affected the outcome of the Sandy Hook incident?
Unfortunately, you have already fallen into the gun grabbers' trap. You have allowed them to define the discussion as being about "gun violence," which then automatically leads to solutions involving regulations on "guns." The problem is NOT "gun violence. THE ISSUE IS SCHOOL SECURITY!
While everyone has been dithering about more and "better" gun laws, just two or three days ago a 17-year old kid was arrested for plotting an attack on his school ... using a bomb.
What good would a law requiring firearms safety training have done to prevent a bomb attack?1