Qualified & Responsible
I hope you liked my idea of setting up a new nationwide system for gun and ammunition monitoring, It is not the answer to all the problems. I am not a gun control activist, in the sense of the word. I certainly believe that we should be allowed to own guns. It's one of our rights. But, should you have any objection to having your name in a database of all gun owners? Why should you? I don't mind, personally.. Do you intend harm to others? If not, then you should not be against it. In fact, you should be supporting it. In the end, it may help insure that you are able to keep those guns. How am I qualified to talk about guns? That's an easy one:
I grew up hunting with .22's (both pistol and rifle) before I was even ten years old. As far as pistols, I have owned a .22 cal, a .38 cal, a .44 cal, and a .45 cal (different brands and models). As far as rifles and shotguns; I have ownded a .22, a .264, a .270, a 30-06, a 218b, a 9mm, a .410, a 20-gauge, a 16-gauge, a 12-gauge, and a 10-gauge.
In the military I was trained on .38's, .45's, and 9mm. I was also trained on M16's and M4's. I shot expert marksman for 20 straight years on M16. And was expert on the .45's and 9mm's. I have been asked numerous times to train the local Philippine police on M16's and pistols, but have refused their requests, as it may violate my resident status here. These are the guns I was "oficially" trained on. I have shot many more weapons than the ones listed. So do I know what I'm talking about? Yes, I'm pretty sure I do.
But the real question I'm getting at is this; "Am I responsible with these weapons?" I damn sure better be, with my training. "There is nothing more deadly than a weapon in the hands of someone trained to use it." You've heard that, I'm sure. But what about a weapon (especially a semi-auto) in the hands of someone who has "NEVER" had any training. Wouldn't that scare you more? It would me. Even when an ex-military person loses control (which is rare but does happen, of course), you can predict certain patterns or characteristics because of his training. An untrained person is unpredictable, and therefore, more dangerous to the public. Right now we are selling weapons, of all shapes and sizes, all over the U.S., to just about anyone who walks in the door. They are not required to attend training for the weapon, nor are they required show show they are competent to shoot the weapon. What if training WAS required? Would that be better? I really don't know, but I think two things would happen. 1) less and less guns would be bought if it was also a requirement to attend training classes for them. Cetain guns in particular. Most people would simply not have the time to attend, or would not want to attend, or would not pay to attend. So, the amount of guns purchased would drop dramatically. 2) If training were required, schools or classes would have to be started that currently may not exist. Is this a bad thing? Would it be that hard to start these training classes knowing that whoever provides the training will be getting paid to do it? Seems to me like it would open up businesses and jobs to people. Especially people who are "qualified". Most especially to jobs for ex-military. What would be the purpose? Obviously the purpose is to "train" the person on how the gun should be treated, maybe ingrain some safety into their thinking, show them the right way to handle a weapon, and teach them to respect the gun as a deadly weapon. Why would that hurt anybody? If I just purchased a new AK-47, I would very much like to be well- trained on how it operates, how to clean it, how to handle it, how to take it apart, etc.
Some people would say that it would be even worse to train a would-be killer on these guns. I see their point, of course. But, take a closer look, and you will see that the odds go way, way down that a person, just another public joe, would, after bothering to receive training, go out and start shooting people. It would not follow that he would show responsibility by attending the training (which would point out that he usually follows the law), then go out and violate that responsibility. Absolutely, it could still happen that he would do just that. But we can only cut down the odds, and having to officially attend training for certain weapons, would most definitely help. And, there would be a record of his attendance on file. In other words, another way to track guns. I see it as good thing to consider, don't you?
I grew up hunting with .22's (both pistol and rifle) before I was even ten years old. As far as pistols, I have owned a .22 cal, a .38 cal, a .44 cal, and a .45 cal (different brands and models). As far as rifles and shotguns; I have ownded a .22, a .264, a .270, a 30-06, a 218b, a 9mm, a .410, a 20-gauge, a 16-gauge, a 12-gauge, and a 10-gauge.
In the military I was trained on .38's, .45's, and 9mm. I was also trained on M16's and M4's. I shot expert marksman for 20 straight years on M16. And was expert on the .45's and 9mm's. I have been asked numerous times to train the local Philippine police on M16's and pistols, but have refused their requests, as it may violate my resident status here. These are the guns I was "oficially" trained on. I have shot many more weapons than the ones listed. So do I know what I'm talking about? Yes, I'm pretty sure I do.
But the real question I'm getting at is this; "Am I responsible with these weapons?" I damn sure better be, with my training. "There is nothing more deadly than a weapon in the hands of someone trained to use it." You've heard that, I'm sure. But what about a weapon (especially a semi-auto) in the hands of someone who has "NEVER" had any training. Wouldn't that scare you more? It would me. Even when an ex-military person loses control (which is rare but does happen, of course), you can predict certain patterns or characteristics because of his training. An untrained person is unpredictable, and therefore, more dangerous to the public. Right now we are selling weapons, of all shapes and sizes, all over the U.S., to just about anyone who walks in the door. They are not required to attend training for the weapon, nor are they required show show they are competent to shoot the weapon. What if training WAS required? Would that be better? I really don't know, but I think two things would happen. 1) less and less guns would be bought if it was also a requirement to attend training classes for them. Cetain guns in particular. Most people would simply not have the time to attend, or would not want to attend, or would not pay to attend. So, the amount of guns purchased would drop dramatically. 2) If training were required, schools or classes would have to be started that currently may not exist. Is this a bad thing? Would it be that hard to start these training classes knowing that whoever provides the training will be getting paid to do it? Seems to me like it would open up businesses and jobs to people. Especially people who are "qualified". Most especially to jobs for ex-military. What would be the purpose? Obviously the purpose is to "train" the person on how the gun should be treated, maybe ingrain some safety into their thinking, show them the right way to handle a weapon, and teach them to respect the gun as a deadly weapon. Why would that hurt anybody? If I just purchased a new AK-47, I would very much like to be well- trained on how it operates, how to clean it, how to handle it, how to take it apart, etc.
Some people would say that it would be even worse to train a would-be killer on these guns. I see their point, of course. But, take a closer look, and you will see that the odds go way, way down that a person, just another public joe, would, after bothering to receive training, go out and start shooting people. It would not follow that he would show responsibility by attending the training (which would point out that he usually follows the law), then go out and violate that responsibility. Absolutely, it could still happen that he would do just that. But we can only cut down the odds, and having to officially attend training for certain weapons, would most definitely help. And, there would be a record of his attendance on file. In other words, another way to track guns. I see it as good thing to consider, don't you?