I have said before that I'm
actually conceptually in support of further training for gun owners and conceal
and carry owners as well. But I feel
like we have to be pretty careful about legislating good intentions. That good intention being making you more proficient
with the gun so you can better defend yourself and others before you are able
to carry a concealed weapon.
People should have the right to protect themselves whether
they are good at it or not. Forcing people to meet a certain level of
proficiency with a gun before they can protect themselves with it is kind of
like saying you can’t defend yourself with your fists unless you are at least a
yellow belt in karate. When the shit is
going down you do the best with what you’ve got whether you are trained or
not. I think it is important to preserve
that right.
I agree it makes good sense to be proficient with a gun if you
really want to protect yourself with one. But, even if I’m not, I still have a
right to protect myself with the gun. I
get worried when we start making laws and regulations that start to infringe on
basic rights even if they are well intentioned.
A good corollary to this argument is the training required
to operate a much more deadly device, the automobile. Fact: automobiles kill way more people than
guns do each year. The requirements to
get a driver’s license are almost exactly the same as are required for a
conceal and carry permit. In my opinion both
are pretty lax. In both cases you have
to take a written test and you have to take a proficiency test. With a car you have to navigate a parking lot,
and perhaps some side streets if your DMV instructor is a hard ass. With conceal and carry you have to hit the
paper at least a few times. Does this
parking lot test really prepare you for the realities of driving in gridlock
every day, or teach you how to turn into a skid on ice or any other important
info about controlling this giant metal missile? Not really. Does putting a few shots on the paper make
you a good marksman, or capable of controlling your nerves when a potential
murderer threatens you? No. Neither of
these tests really prepare you for the realities of operating a deadly device under
stress, but then they aren’t really designed to, they are more concerned with
making sure you know the laws and rules around operating more than actually how
to operate.
So to wrap up this analogy here, cars are 3x more deadly
then firearms (according to the 2010 gun homicide numbers from CDC
11,078 and the NHTSA
traffic safety facts 32,885 motor vehicle deaths). The requirements to get
a license are simple and require minimal demonstrated proficiency. And oh by
the way driving is not protected by the United States Bill of Rights. So why aren’t people lobbying for more
extensive driving tests and license requirements every time there is a car
accident or vehicle related death?
This isn’t the case for guns however; all anyone ever talks
about when there is a gun death is stricter gun laws. Better testing is often cited as one of those
stricter gun laws that should be enacted.
And again, I’m not saying I’m against it but I do think we need to be
careful here. If we are going to let the
operation of the (3x more deadly) automobile continue to be poorly operated
with no real changes to licensing procedures then we need to apply the same
reasoning to the use of the less deadly gun. If we aren’t going to overburden
people with more proficiency requirements to qualify for the privilege of driving then we can’t
overburden people for the right of
protecting themselves with a gun.
That is unless we want to be hypocrites.
No comments:
Post a Comment