I see the question posed by
BerettaCougar as farsighted. He's attempting to look ahead and short-circuit one of the next claims of the anti-civil rights crowd. If our rights were expanded on Aug 1 to include open carry without a permit in all 50 states, we'd likely see a rise in negligent discharge "incidents". These would be pointed out by the Brady's et al., as "evidence" that gun carry must be restricted to "trained" individuals.
Krezyhorse said:
Enforcing the laws that are currently on the books would be a good place to start.
Disagree. First, we need to run the 20,000 or so existing laws "on the book" through a constitutional filter set on a "medium" setting. Reject those that are a clear violation of rights -- permits to own/purchase, one-gun-a-month laws, waiting periods, safe-gun lists, gun-free-school zones beyond line of sight, so-called safe-transport laws, etc.
From a strict constitutional perspective, laws should only reign-in the unacceptable behavior with firearms, such as displaying a gun
in a rude, angry or threatening manner or
discharging a firearm inside the city limits. You can't limit worshippers to reading only 10-pages a day or gag theatre goers because they
might yell fire. So why hamstring people because they
might shoot their gun from a moving car window?
Law changes:
Laws cannot prevent crimes, only deter. We can't prevent the determined nor the
stupid from committing illegal acts. We can, however, make certain acts very expensive and/or subject to a loss of rights.
Deliberate acts - shooting at a sign, waving your gun around, etc. - are already covered by laws in most areas. We may need to revisit the penalties and punishments for these acts.
Negligent acts - What we do for negligent or stupid use of guns is a steep slope. Your first incident (no injuries) gets you a strong slap - say a $750 fine, mandated to complete a training course in 120 days and loss of carry rights for six months. If that doesn't wake you up and you have another negligent act, you pay a $1500 fine and lose your carry rights for 18 months. If you still haven't learned on your 3rd negligent act, you don't deserve to own weapons.
¹
Limited civil liability - If the victim of your bullet is/was a criminal threat and the shooting is justifiable, then no civil suit should proceed against you.
² If your shooting was "in immediate self defense" (i.e. you're facing a potentially lethal attack) and a bullet strikes a 3rd party the criminal is responsible for civil damages.
³
Training vs. Education:
First, I think we should have mandatory firearms
education that begins around age 10 (4th grade). Start with the basics and safety rules. We teach youngsters the dangers of jaywalking, electrical outlets and a lack of personal hygiene at these ages so this should work about the same. Progress the training through high school, adding American history of guns with the early Liberty of the country up through moral, legal and ethical use of a firearm by the Junior year of high school.
All of that could be done without firing a single shot. That's
education.
Training would be an elective in schools, requiring a parent's agreement. It would require certain things of the student (grade average, lack of disciplinary actions, etc.) It would only cover safe handling, storage, cleaning and basic marksmanship, probably with 22s.
¹ If your negligence causes injuries, you lose your carry rights for 18 months. If it happens again, you could become a prohibited person. And civil trials will likely force you to pay for the person's injuries which can get
really expensive.
² There may be exceptions here but very few.
³ Just like when a robber's accomplice dies while committing the crime and the robber is charged with the accomplice's murder. Certain conditions may apply - e.g. "spray and pray" in a crowded metro subway station.