This is a subject that cuts two ways with me. On the one hand, I oppose gun control in almost any form, believing as I do that the more armed good guys who are out there the more armed bad guys have to fear. Crime should be a high-risk occupation and the more we can make it so, the better. The government should not interfere with a citizen of good character who wants to carry a gun, period.
On the other hand, I believe if someone is going to go about armed, as opposed to being armed at home or business, public safety demands that (s)he should first have to demonstrate some degree of proficiency (accuracy above all,) gun and tactical knowledge, and the ethics of self-defense.
And here we run into the problem: who decides those factors? And then, who administers the pass/fail qualification and tracks it? I’m not going to try to answer those questions except in the broadest sense, for what I want to do here is generate discussion of options by saying what my thoughts are, and why they are, and to elicit some responses.
Any debate or discussion must have basic parameters to control the discussion. Mine are these:
The controlling premise is this: You, the armed citizen, do not have the right, morally or legally, to endanger an innocent person while attempting to protect yourself or your family. That is not debatable and I will not accept here any argument that tries to justify to the contrary. You will find some discussion of this issue in my December 1, 2012 post about Practical Accuracy and why it matters.
The second premise is this: The government must not be in the qualifying or licensing business. To have it otherwise places either politicians (whose intentions I trust less than a back-alley crap game) or unelected minions of dubious motivation, in the position of saying yes or no to a citizen who wishes to carry a gun.
So, let’s do this: Have the NRA or some other nationwide, respectable organization such as Gun Owners of America, be the controlling agency. That group, in conjunction with public safety officers (line officers or first-line supervisors who really understand criminals,) and private attorneys, shall draw up a nationwide training syllabus that addresses the factors for qualification I mentioned above and others they might think pertinent.
Thereafter, qualified personnel, including trainers at approved firearms training facilities under contract, will carry out the training.
Upon successful completion of the course, the top agency shall issue a certificate of competence in armed self-defense (call it what you wish.)
The citizen will carry that certificate at all times when armed in public and shall, upon demand in investigation of an armed encounter in which he is involved, produce it for law enforcement. Under no circumstances shall an officer demand it be produced for any other purpose, nor shall it be established as a requirement to purchase a handgun.
There are my thoughts. Now let’s hear yours. Courtesy counts; I have no use for rude bigmouths who can’t discuss things in a civil fashion and I’ll moderate with that in mind.
And here we run into the problem: who decides those factors? And then, who administers the pass/fail qualification and tracks it? I’m not going to try to answer those questions except in the broadest sense, for what I want to do here is generate discussion of options by saying what my thoughts are, and why they are, and to elicit some responses.
Any debate or discussion must have basic parameters to control the discussion. Mine are these:
The controlling premise is this: You, the armed citizen, do not have the right, morally or legally, to endanger an innocent person while attempting to protect yourself or your family. That is not debatable and I will not accept here any argument that tries to justify to the contrary. You will find some discussion of this issue in my December 1, 2012 post about Practical Accuracy and why it matters.
The second premise is this: The government must not be in the qualifying or licensing business. To have it otherwise places either politicians (whose intentions I trust less than a back-alley crap game) or unelected minions of dubious motivation, in the position of saying yes or no to a citizen who wishes to carry a gun.
So, let’s do this: Have the NRA or some other nationwide, respectable organization such as Gun Owners of America, be the controlling agency. That group, in conjunction with public safety officers (line officers or first-line supervisors who really understand criminals,) and private attorneys, shall draw up a nationwide training syllabus that addresses the factors for qualification I mentioned above and others they might think pertinent.
Thereafter, qualified personnel, including trainers at approved firearms training facilities under contract, will carry out the training.
Upon successful completion of the course, the top agency shall issue a certificate of competence in armed self-defense (call it what you wish.)
The citizen will carry that certificate at all times when armed in public and shall, upon demand in investigation of an armed encounter in which he is involved, produce it for law enforcement. Under no circumstances shall an officer demand it be produced for any other purpose, nor shall it be established as a requirement to purchase a handgun.
There are my thoughts. Now let’s hear yours. Courtesy counts; I have no use for rude bigmouths who can’t discuss things in a civil fashion and I’ll moderate with that in mind.
RSS Feed