Fooloso4 wrote: ↑
March 16th, 2018, 4:31 pm
. . . the fact that some accidental deaths may be the result of lack of training supports my point that it is a sensible requirement . . .
Suppose the number of accidental firearms deaths could be halved by compulsory training (an optimistic estimate). You consider imposing a training requirement on 2 million people per year to prevent ~250 accidental deaths "sensible"? I ask again: Would you also require training for everyone buying anything with a potential to cause accidental death?
It matters because a well designed Skil saw is intentionally designed to minimize injury, the same cannot be said of guns. The accidental death or injury caused by a Skil saw is usually limited to the user, the same cannot be said of guns.
Most firearms are also designed to minimize accidental injuries. They have safeties. Designing the equipment to be safe without reducing its utility is fine. Requiring training/licensing for every user of every dangerous tool or technology is an entirely different matter. And of course, many other tools pose dangers to bystanders as well, even a Skil saw (they can throw nails).
I wrongly assumed that when you said "things that could be done" you meant changes to what is already being done - the institution of an adequate background check. I wrongly assumed you realized that an instantaneous check system is inadequate.
Yes, it is inadequate, but not because it is instantaneous. It is inadquate because 1) it does not cover all firearms transfers, and 2) because the disqualifying data must be forwarded to NICS by the States, not all of which are diligent about doing so. We need a system which transmits disqualifying events, such as convictions, issuance of restraining orders, etc., to NICS instantly, electronically.
Keep in mind, though, that even if the background check system worked perfectly it would have little effect on gun crime. As I pointed out earlier, 90% of criminals obtain their guns illegally. The background check system is irrelevant to them.
That was exactly my point! The objection you made against training can be turned back against you. If you object to training laws because they do not keep firearms away from criminals, then you should also reject licencing laws for the same reason.
I do reject licensing laws for the same reason. What makes you think otherwise? (There may be some sort of misunderstanding going on here).
No group that stockpiles weapons that can legally be purchased can stand against the force and power of the United States government.
You're mistaken there. They could indeed stand against the government, though it is doubtful that they could prevail against a determined effort to subdue them. However, the mere possibility that such an uprising might occur is itself a deterrent to unconstitutional government excesses --- such as an attempt to confiscate personal firearms.
I think you are being disingenuous. If anti-American extremist groups moved into your neighborhood with stockpiles of weapons you would not be concerned?
Anti-American, or anti-government? I would consider the former a risk, but not the latter.
A great deal would have to change for the government to become despotic, it remains a remote possibility.
I agree. But my question remains: If government were to forbid or severely restrict the private ownership of firearms it would undercut the right of the people to resist despotism, would it not? Would that not increase its likelihood?