Morganni Wrote:No statistics, I'm afraid. But we don't require ANY training here to get a gun. Background checks, yes. Training, not nearly so much. So that's what I base part of that on.JFerio Wrote:Regarding the ongoing costs... some people who buy "for defense" or "just to have it" are less likely to be ones who maintain their weapons correctly anyway.
Got statistics for that?
I could say that a lot, really. You seem to be starting from the premise that legal gun owners in general are very dangerous, and that therefore that needs to be reduced. There is a great deal of research and statistics to the effect of that being flat-out wrong, and not to a minor degree. So what have you got to counter that?
-Morgan.
The gun owners I personally know are not dangerous. They know how to respect the gun. They do not carry their guns around because they can, and they have purposes for them that are nowhere near self defense. But the population that does not respect the gun, while it might not be a majority of gun owners, is of grave concern to me and does admittedly color my view of the subject. The Connecticut shooting is a case in point, the mother didn't have the arms properly secured, either because she didn't lock them up, or worse, let someone else have the combination/keys who couldn't handle the responsibility.
And this won't change until the laws can be revised and written that basically ensure that, you want the gun? You have to prove you're worth the gun, through training and storage preparation. Granted, it'll take a good 10-20 years for it to have sufficient effect on the underlying culture issues, but it took us a long time to get to having the culture issues in the first place.
--
"You know how parents tell you everything's going to fine, but you know they're lying to make you feel better? Everything's going to be fine." - The Doctor