Does the headline indicate that you disagree with the idea of easing the restrictions on people carrying firearms?

I think people ar emore than capable of getting all the firearms they need now. I think the key isn't getting weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens so much as well trained citizens.

Otherwise, you just get a lot more dead people.

But requiring you to prove your skill with firearms the same way you have to with cars isn't acceptable, is it?

I remember when I was in the Boy Scouts, the obligatory Boys' Life magazine featured advertisements for Daisy rifles and the NRA. Indeed, suppliers of guns and idiotic money-making gimmicks were huge sponsors of that particular periodical. The main point of the ads was not about how important it was to make gun ownership easier; it was about user education.

However, please note that the perpetrators of these shootings were not stumbling around with guns they didn't know how to use.

As for access to guns: I'm afraid I'm concerned with increases in firepower that are available to the general public. Typically, when you have shootings like these, the killers are armed to the teeth with three or four pieces and wads of ammo. I typically get the impression that, when they begin, they are fully expecting someone to shoot back, and only loose their caution as they become more intoxicated with the satisfaction of killing other humans.

So if some idiot bursts into a restaurant with an AR-15, is the situation going to be substantially altered if a patron or two has a Saturday night special? Maybe so, but the AR-15 was developed largely to give its user an insuperable advantage.

I would expect all that would happen is the MO of such mass shooters would evolve, IF large cross sections of the public were always packing a gun.

However, please note that the perpetrators of these shootings were not stumbling around with guns they didn't know how to use.

I'm not really thinking about trenchcoat mafias. Guns aren't those guys' problem. Psychic balance is their problem. And they got their guns.

I just know how few people can properly handle weapons, and how difficult it is to hit things at any distance with a handgun. Unless people get a rational amount of training and practice a gun in their hands will only make thing smore dangerous. Your nut-jobs will become snipers, people will whip out guns in response to the sound...and the first guy to draw will get shot up by everyone else.

P6,
getitng firearms could be a bit easier for people with no harmful intent. It varies state by state though. In Colorado there's only one or two things I'd change. In NC there's 4 or 5. When we start talking about chicago, DC or NYC then it's a whole nother ballgame. Those places make it as difficult as possible to purchase or own a firearm.

But carrying is a different matter. A lot of places forbid carry ouright, others require a very burdensome permitting/licensing process. A lot of state have a fairly easy permitting process for conealed carry, two have no resrictions at all on concealed or open carry, a several have no restrictions on open carry, Well not "no resttrictions but relatively few.

Now I agree with you about training. The problem is to what standard & how do you set up such a system w/o the potential for abuse?

Honestly it's not that difficult to become effective with a handgun at short distances (say 25 to 30 yards). Most gunfights occur at a distance of about 7 yards so I think your concerns about distance being a factor in whether a person can use a handgun effectively isn't that justifiable.

& in the states where concealed carry is liberalized (more or less) there hasn't been the problem that you're alluding to - people drawing at the drop of a hat. Neither have criminals beefed up their game to compensate. aside from the evil punks such as the one in Minnesota & the one in Texas (a few months back) most cirminals prefer easy targets, not ones that they have to go to a lot of effort to overcome.

But what I do think would possibly solve your concerns as well as further reducing the already low number of negligent shootings per year is to require firearms training for everyone. Do it in the schools. Up till say grade 5 primarily teach safety (what to do if you find a gun, etc..) then start working on basic handling skills & by high school have a basic marksmanship course coupled with a return to shooting as a high school sport (in some places, mainly rural this is still common, but a few decades back many high schools had shooting teams for several different disciplines). That way everyone gets the training in safety & handling w/o having to worry about a database of gun owners just laying around for the government to abuse.

James,
If killers go abpout well armed (I'm speaking of the mass murder type) it's because they know the cops will eventually (eventually) be called on them. If however a killer had no idea how many people were packing or which ones - well it still wouldn't deter them - they usually seem bent on killing themselves & others (unfortunately not in that order). But what it does do is give their potential victims a chance to fight back. Now the AR-15; well us guns nuts argue about it quite a bit. The gist is that some think it's great while myself & many others think it's inadequate for most endeavors. But it'sa rifle which is still more powerful than amost any handgun. At 150 yards I'd rather have an AR than a .40 for sure. But at the distances usually involed a handgun is more than adequate to stop someone - providing you have it, the knowledge of how to use it & the will to use it.

For example in Tyler, Texas this guy used an Ak clone (a semi-auto, not full auto) to shoot his wife & a few deputies ont he courthouse steps. One guy with a 9mm Glock (which is a pitiful combination IMHO) shot him 7 times in the chest Now the guy had on a bullet resistant vest & ended up killing the man (Mark Wilson was his name) but another concealed carry holder opened fire from a different angle. Drove him off the scene & kept him from finishing his son off (whom he shot right after his ex-wife). So was a handgun effective? Not for Mr. Wilson - but it kept the punk from killing anyone else & gave the cops time to get their act together.

Hell, 30% of school shootings have been stopped by people who ran to their cars, grabbed their handguns & went back in. So a small cheap handgun (& remind to to explain the origins of the phrase you used to describe them)can be effective. Not as effecive as a shotgun or a rifle, but effective enough. There's an old saying - you're never outgunned if you don't miss.

But it's not th level of firepower avaialble that's troubling. The basic mechanical designs have been around over 100 years (they had magazine fed semi-auto's in the late 19th century) it's the mental/moral state of the peole that cmmit these crimes. He;;, Kleibold & Harris shot on averge a little under 3 shots per minute. That's less than what was required of a Minuteman in 1775. But had thy not been able to acquire firearms they might have put more effort into their bombs & that would have caused much more damage than their shooting did. But it's something that causes people to think shooting random people is acceptable that's the problem - not the tools they use. Take them away they'll just find other ones that are equally effective.

One thing though - if you ever get the notion look up how many mass shooting happen in gun free ones. then try to find one where firearms were commonly carried. These murderers don't usually seem tobe concerned with taking on hard targets. They go for the easy ones in almost every case. if we make it easier for people with no harmful intent to carry then perhaps they'll try harder to find easy targets. perhaps they'll do as you think & beef up a little. But in either case it's better for the people to be able to fight bak than not, even if there is little chance of them succeeding.

Now I agree with you about training. The problem is to what standard & how do you set up such a system w/o the potential for abuse?

Drivers' licenses is my model. Set up official firing ranges and test for marksmanship. As I recall there was very little abuse in the tests during basic training.

Honestly it's not that difficult to become effective with a handgun at short distances (say 25 to 30 yards).

After training.

And even then accuracy depends on conditions. Assuming more permissive carrying laws, most folks will not be lugging around weapons of sufficient caliber of overcome a stiff wind at 20 yards. Then there's the problem of correctly identifying the shooter. And drive-bys...

Now, fact is there are places in this country where it makes little sense to obstruct gun ownership...red states (forgive the stupid political term) where the population...and hence assistance during a problem situation...is more widely dispersed would be an example. And there are places (same places, actually) that's just chock full of "cold, dead fingers" types. We're talking a real social consensus, and you always have to respect that.

But nut jobs with guns are hella worse than nut jobs with swords or crossbows. And there seems to be more nut jobs every week...and frankly, that includes everyone that has some Red Dawn scenario justifying a weapon cache.

The current state of affairs in unacceptable.

P6,
Even with a weak pistol cartridge like the .380 ACP you're looking at about 1 inch or so of deflection in a 15 mph crosswind at 25 yards. It's really not as complex or skill demanding as you seem to think. I suck with a pistol & I don't practice with them nearly enough but a man sized target at 25 yards is not an issue. Even smaller than that -say a head shot - isn't that demanding. Look, part of the reason I offer to teach people how to shoot is that it's easy to get to the level where you could succesfully defend yourself, at least as far as mechanical skill is concerned. What gets difficult is competition - shooting at a 2 inch target at 25 yards or an 8 inch target at 600. But for self defense all it takes is a few hours of initial practice & periodic refreshers.

& the problem with setting up mandatory testing is A: it'd create a registration (which I'm opposed to for the potential for serious abuse) & B: it has the potential to be abused as is. Setting the standards too high, or the testers deliberately failing people who would have passed. If we were to make it a general thing, such as is taught in schools that would eliminate my concerns. But I'd oppose it as a prerequisite to purchase or carry.

& the nut jobs that have an arsenal because of some Red Dawm scenario - first of all that was a pitiful movie. It could have been sooo much better & I cringe every time I think of it. But a Red Dawn (shudder) type scenario is the main justification for the 2nd amendment. the idea was that an armed populace would negate concerns about having a standing army become abusive in addition to enabling a multitude of first responders. It has some side benefits as well. The Klan was stopped in many a place because black folks were worried about a Red Dawn-typ scenario & built up arsenals & skills accordingly. An election in Tennesse was kept from being corrupt (1946 - called the Battle of Athens) because of armed people worried about that sort of thing. & if a bunch of Jews, or Russians, or Armenians had been nut jobs worried about a Red Dawn-type scenario we'd have had less genecoide last century. All that's to say that before you dismiss the nut jobs as nut jobs think about why they might have arrived at their conclusions. 170 million killed by their own governments in the 20th century is enoguh to validate some of their concerns.

Black folks weren't worried about a Red Dawn scenario. Black folks were defending against citizens of the country they were ostensibly citizens of. And if you compare the number of folks lynched to the number of white folks killed by Black folks during thetime you'll see not very many Klan assaults were turned back...never mind the assaults that took place just before the picnic.

In short, invoking Black history here is entirely inaccurate. And I will dispute it wherever it turns up.

And I am NOT against gun ownership. I just need it to be rational...which it is not.