Well, the first part of that is that there are already massive exclusions and background checks, and in some states (ironically, like Connecticut and California) those are pretty damn severe. Incidentally, when you hear people talk about a waiting period, that was because it took that long to run a background check. Now a gunshop owner can run you through the FBI's system and it's nearly instantaneous, hence no waiting period. (Some states have what's called a "cooling off" period, however, which takes the place of a waiting period, since you're already cleared, you just can't take the gun home that day.)
That said, after seeing/hearing the kind of training CP got in concealed-carry classes and hunter's safety classes, I'm totally with you on required training, a written test, and a range test.
The problem isn't that there aren't safe and sane ways to get people to be more intelligent about the guns they own (or might own). The problem is that no one seems to be able to have a rational conversation, because either they're drowned out by the strident anti-gun ban-them-all chorus or the strident pro-gun cold-dead-fingers chorus. The big chunk of folks in the middle (seems to me) end up just wanting all of them to shut up, because this yelling isn't getting us anywhere.
Or as CP put it today, "I'm sorry, but I can't hear you over all the knee-jerking going on."
My whole point really could be summed up as the notion that there are sane solutions we might offer, and that we could have a conversation about the pragmatic approaches to a very specific type of situation -- but that it's going to be really hard, so long as we don't recognize that we're also simultaneously having a conversation about our national cultural identity. And that second part is really what's causing a lot of the kneejerks, I think.
no subject
Date: 17 Dec 2012 07:14 am (UTC)That said, after seeing/hearing the kind of training CP got in concealed-carry classes and hunter's safety classes, I'm totally with you on required training, a written test, and a range test.
The problem isn't that there aren't safe and sane ways to get people to be more intelligent about the guns they own (or might own). The problem is that no one seems to be able to have a rational conversation, because either they're drowned out by the strident anti-gun ban-them-all chorus or the strident pro-gun cold-dead-fingers chorus. The big chunk of folks in the middle (seems to me) end up just wanting all of them to shut up, because this yelling isn't getting us anywhere.
Or as CP put it today, "I'm sorry, but I can't hear you over all the knee-jerking going on."
My whole point really could be summed up as the notion that there are sane solutions we might offer, and that we could have a conversation about the pragmatic approaches to a very specific type of situation -- but that it's going to be really hard, so long as we don't recognize that we're also simultaneously having a conversation about our national cultural identity. And that second part is really what's causing a lot of the kneejerks, I think.