I happen to like guns and shooting. It's a good point to understand the appeal of guns and also "the other side."
But there is a point you are leaving out that comes up if you talk to anyone who does treat firearms seriously: many people do not take those classes and/or do not treat guns safely. Go to a range on Sunday and that will be really clear. Or read the comment history by people who bring this up whenever guns come up in a general forum. Often they rightly end up complaining about safety of other gun owners in posts in more topic specific forums. But somehow, when it comes to a general audience, those issues get omitted.
Taking the class would give you a distinctly wrong impression about the responsibility of all gun owners. As does the suggestion to take the class.
Sorry, not to single you out specifically, it really is a good suggestion. But the net rhetorical effect of people making points like this is (and I think it's intentional) to skew the framing of the issue. Yes, you may be responsible, but with the exception of some people who would never heed your advice, people who want more regulation of firearms aren't worried about you. Guns don't kill people, some people with guns kill people.
But it gets to the heart of the matter of why responsible people who are pro gun rights feel like progressives aren't willing to consider productive compromises that address the real fundamental problems. Banning "assault weapons" would be largely ineffective. Requiring people to demonstrate basic safety as determined by an apolitical third party (National Guard in their state?) before being licensed would probably dramatically cut down on gun accidents and nobody would have to be afraid that their right to self-protection is being taken away from them.
I mean, isn't all this debate kind of moot drama in 2017?
If guns were meant to protect us from our government--well we already have an overtly anti-constitutional, criminal government with disproportionate powers residing in unelected individuals.
Oh but if we make guns illegal--well there already are too many unregistered that it would empower criminal interests, both economically from a black market, and from having relatively more firepower.
Ah but you just want to "save lives?" Well if you want to save people's lives isn't it easier to ignore all this bullshit and do something like go supply clean drinking water to an undeveloped part of the world?
> If guns were meant to protect us from our government--well we already have an overtly anti-constitutional, criminal government with disproportionate powers residing in unelected individuals.
You don't really believe that otherwise you would've left to one of the other hundreds of countries in the world, unless you believe all governments are criminal.
> Ah but you just want to "save lives?"
I'm interested in saving my own life if I'm ever in danger. I already have a brita filter.
But there is a point you are leaving out that comes up if you talk to anyone who does treat firearms seriously: many people do not take those classes and/or do not treat guns safely. Go to a range on Sunday and that will be really clear. Or read the comment history by people who bring this up whenever guns come up in a general forum. Often they rightly end up complaining about safety of other gun owners in posts in more topic specific forums. But somehow, when it comes to a general audience, those issues get omitted.
Taking the class would give you a distinctly wrong impression about the responsibility of all gun owners. As does the suggestion to take the class.
Sorry, not to single you out specifically, it really is a good suggestion. But the net rhetorical effect of people making points like this is (and I think it's intentional) to skew the framing of the issue. Yes, you may be responsible, but with the exception of some people who would never heed your advice, people who want more regulation of firearms aren't worried about you. Guns don't kill people, some people with guns kill people.