Even I don't always agree with my opinion

 

Guns, Guns, Guns

2
Posted October 7, 2017 by jim young in Lifestyle

“Guns may be the only legal thing you can purchase whose sole intended purpose is to kill.”

Nobody likes to be told what to do or not do. That’s human nature.

But sometimes rules are necessary for the safety of ourselves and the people around us.

 

  1. Speed limits
  2. Seat belt laws
  3. Helmet requirements for bikes
  4. Drinking and driving laws

And as much as we may groan and grumble about them, most reasonable and responsible adults accept the reasoning behind these rules. We know that if we don’t comply with the laws that have been passed to enforce them, we will suffer the consequences.

These consequences range from minor fines to jail time depending on the seriousness of the offence. Of course a much more grave consequence would be the very reason these laws were instituted in the first place – personal injury or death to ourselves or others.

So it continues to bewilder me that Americans have so much resistance whenever Gun Control Laws are mentioned.

It almost seems as if they whenever the words “Gun Control Laws” are uttered, all they hear is “Ban All Firearms”.

Despite all the statistics (not even going to quote them here because you’ve probably already read them) that prove that more Americans are killed by guns every year than almost every other country, that guns are NOT effective as a means of protection, mass shooting are on the rise and all the other reasons, Americans seem to hold to the NRA slogan of “I’ll give you my gun when you can pry it from my cold, dead hands”.

I would like one gun supporter to explain to me why it is unreasonable to suggest the following Gun Laws be instituted in the United States.

  1. Licensing to require proof that the gun owner has been trained in the safe use and storage of the firearms he or she posses.
  2. To receive a license one would also have to prove he or she is mentally healthy enough to properly use a firearm.
  3. Acknowledgement that every gun owner will relinquish his or her license if he or she has a past record of negligent or criminal use of firearms.

This suggestion is not a precedent even in the U.S. Compare the above suggested laws to the right to drive an automobile.

  1. Licensing is required to prove that the driver has been trained in the safe use of the automobile.
  2. To receive a license one also has to prove he or she is healthy enough to properly use an automobile.
  3. A driver knows that he or she will relinquish his or her license if he or she has a past record of negligent or criminal use of an automobile.

Why not start there? It seems to me that if a gun owner in the U.S. objects to Gun Laws that require proving that he or she is mentally healthy and has sufficient knowledge to safely use a gun without negligence or criminal intent, then perhaps he or she afraid they do not qualify. These people simply should NOT be permitted to own a gun just as they would NOT be permitted to drive a car.

Guns may not kill people just as cars don’t kill people, but guns and cars in the wrong hands DO kill people.

30 –


2 Comments


  1.  
    Anonymous

    This is the most sane commentary on the gun issue that I have heard.
    Thank you for bringing clarity to this topic.




  2.  
    Anonymous

    I fully agree!





Leave a Response