I have not researched it, so I may be only repeating urban legend, but my understanding is that when the Nazi party came to power, they whipped up public support for the idea of gun registration. Once the guns were registered, it became a very straightforward exercise to disarm internal opposition to their reign of terror.

It can sound very reasonable to say, “Let’s get everybody with a gun to register it.” And reasonable people in reasonable times can agree. But not having everybody else know whether you’re armed is an additional peace of mind that will be sorely missed in less reasonable circumstances.

Our rights do not exist to protect us from reasonable, law-abiding people. Let’s not be too quick to discard them because we are reasonable, law-abiding people.

I think the claim “gun laws only protect criminals” is a gross oversimplification, and it’s one that comes from not critically examining one’s own argument. The rationale is this: if ordinary citizens are armed, criminals will be afraid to commit violence. Using that logic, places like Iraq, Sudan and Rwanda should be the safest places on earth.

From a police point of view, it is actually much safer to have only one shooter than to have several, even if all of the other shooters are acting in self-defense. The latter situation makes thins much less clear. If you see one person waving a gun around, it’s pretty easy to tell who the shooter is. If you see seven, how do you tell which one is the bad guy? Hopefully, it’s the only one that’s dead. But what if the shooter gets up, starts shooting, then Citizen #2 jumps up and takes aim at the original shooter? Citizen 3 hears the shots, and sees two people with guns and has to decide which one to take down. Citizen 4 jumps into the fray, sees Citizen 3 shoot either the Shooter or Citizen 1, and then starts firing. The police then show up and see several dead people, some with guns. They also, in the course of their investigation, find several others who were wounded or killed by stray bullets. (One shot, one kill doesn’t often work well with handguns, especially if you’re filled with adrenaline to the point you’re shaking.) They also see a few people who are visibly shaken who have guns. (If you don’t think you’d be affected by killing someone — even a “bad guy” — you’ve never been in combat.)

Now, I’m not saying that it would be better if none of the citizens were armed. What I am saying, as Velda said, is that if we want people to be able to carry concealed handguns, there needs to be a lot more training than there currently is. That training should not be a one-time shot. In the Army, soldiers are required to qualify on the weapon(s) they’re issued at least annually, sometimes every three months. Why should a civilian be any different? Quarterly exams would be a huge headache to submit to, as would yearly. But why not have weapons safety and marksmanship training be required every two years if you have a concealed carry permit? If you’re packin’ heat to defend the public, I’d much rather you demonstrate that you know how to use it.

Just a thought…

This is one of those issues where major opinion-formers tend to be so polarized they’ve blinded themselves and their followers to reason. I don’t understand how some well-meaning people have problems with:

Waiting periods — Is anyone in their right mind ever so desperate for a gun that they can’t wait a few days to get one? If they are -that- desperate is it really a good idea to give them one?

Required Training (and re-training and certification) — How long did you have to practice driving, and how many tests did you have to pass, before you were able to even apply for a drivers license? Compare that to requirements for handling a weapon (not just a concealed weapon.)

License and Registration — I’ve heard the argument that gun licensing is a privacy violation. But we license our cars and keep them registered. We also have safety inspections on a regular basis. Sure it’d be a pain, but if it makes such an impact on the saftey of our streets to register cars, doesn’t it make sense to do the same with guns?

Restricting reckless behavior — This opinion I formed from personal experience. A friend we’d invited over took out his loaded gun in our home and twirled it on his finger to show off. His only consequence is that we never invited him back. Would it be such a bad idea to say, vote on some dos and dont’s regarding gun handling and have consequences (gun confiscation or even just taking their license away for X months and having them re-certify) for idiotic moves like that one?

Anyway those are just a few ideas and examples and I’ve not solidified my opinions or committed myself to any of those particular concepts. Feel free to convince me otherwise.

What I do feel strongly about is that we the people have got to stop supporting the prevalent all-vs-nothing attitudes we’re being force fed, and use our noggins to come up with some workable solutions.

-V