|
Wearing a seatbelt is good, and the state requires us to do it. Should they?
Staying under the speed limit is supposedly good, and the state requires us to do it.
Not smoking marijuana is supposedly good, and (most) states really frown on those who do.
There is plenty of regulation on food and drug items, posting of calorie/nutrition information at restaurants, trans fats, and now legislation is on the table to reduce sodium in prepared foods and tax calorie-rich nutrition-empty sodas and sweetened drinks (intent being economic-induced behavior modification). Not ingesting bad things is good for us, but the state is there to supposedly protect consumers from making poor or misinformed decisions.
Aaron Graham makes a good point, I'd like to emphasize one portion of it. The law-abiding citizen with extensive training who carries and screws up (or just gets unlucky), injuring/killing an innocent in an event where they could have done nothing, is perhaps even more exposed to criminal and civil liability than the law-abiding citizen with no training. If you've spent a significant portion of your disposable income on firearms training, it is presumed that you are proficient at arms, you could be considered somewhat of a subject matter expert, and therefore held more accountable. It's like a Formula 1 driver getting into a fender bender in the parking lot. The guy's a pro, it shouldn't happen, right? What does that say about the system?
|