The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - are there any sensible gun regulations you would support?

dspieler · December 22, 2012, 10:20 PM

Here is what I believe, and I think reasonable people may disagree, but then in a democracy, we have the opportunity to argue and advocate our positions and see what wins out.

Guns are designed to punch holes in things. In some cases, animals in a legal and regulated hunt, sometimes in people in lawful self defense, and sometimes in unlawful punching of holes in either animals or people.

This is an enormous responsibility. In fact, I think this is a larger responsibility than operating a motor vehicle. However, I also think that laws are not there to protect people from their own bad decisions. If you drive (car/truck/atv) on your own property, and endanger yourself, then you bear the brunt of the cost, and the government can't say boo about it.

On the other hand, if you carry a weapon in public, concealed or open, same as if you drive a vehicle on a public road, you are assuming responsibility not only for your own safety, but for the safety of others around you. I want to know that you understand, for example, that the FMJ round you are carrying may not only go through the person you are in an altercation with, but also into the person standing behind him/her. Moreover, I want you to understand that you are not a sworn law enforcement officer, and that your ability to use your weapon is limited to specific legal guidelines, and not there if you feel your honor, but not your safety is threatened.

I live in a shall issue state, and I needed to demonstrate absolutely no minimal competency with my firearm to be allowed to carry. I think this is a dereliction of the responsibility of the government and given that this was passed with the support of pro-gun advocates, I also think this is a dereliction of our collective responsibility for responsible gun ownership.

To carry is to assume enormous responsibility and I think we, collectively, should step up to the plate and say, yep, there are some minimums, beyond not having been convicted of a felony or domestic violence, that we want our representatives to meet.

December 22, 2012, 10:20 PM	#116
dspieler Member Join Date: October 18, 2012 Posts: 25	Here is what I believe, and I think reasonable people may disagree, but then in a democracy, we have the opportunity to argue and advocate our positions and see what wins out. Guns are designed to punch holes in things. In some cases, animals in a legal and regulated hunt, sometimes in people in lawful self defense, and sometimes in unlawful punching of holes in either animals or people. This is an enormous responsibility. In fact, I think this is a larger responsibility than operating a motor vehicle. However, I also think that laws are not there to protect people from their own bad decisions. If you drive (car/truck/atv) on your own property, and endanger yourself, then you bear the brunt of the cost, and the government can't say boo about it. On the other hand, if you carry a weapon in public, concealed or open, same as if you drive a vehicle on a public road, you are assuming responsibility not only for your own safety, but for the safety of others around you. I want to know that you understand, for example, that the FMJ round you are carrying may not only go through the person you are in an altercation with, but also into the person standing behind him/her. Moreover, I want you to understand that you are not a sworn law enforcement officer, and that your ability to use your weapon is limited to specific legal guidelines, and not there if you feel your honor, but not your safety is threatened. I live in a shall issue state, and I needed to demonstrate absolutely no minimal competency with my firearm to be allowed to carry. I think this is a dereliction of the responsibility of the government and given that this was passed with the support of pro-gun advocates, I also think this is a dereliction of our collective responsibility for responsible gun ownership. To carry is to assume enormous responsibility and I think we, collectively, should step up to the plate and say, yep, there are some minimums, beyond not having been convicted of a felony or domestic violence, that we want our representatives to meet.