Well, they should; but that would be considered Evil Gun Control by the pro-gun people who in this scenario are presumably making the rules.
For the record, and it’s been mentioned in dozens of these threads, if you’ve ever taken a CCW or detailed firearm safety course (I’ve had one of the above and two of the latter) they spend quite a bit of time talking about how screwed you are if you ever use a firearm in a defensive shooting. ESPECIALLY if it’s not in direct defense on your property.
Not disagreeing with you, just making the point that it’s already part of most if not all firearm safety education, even (as were two of my classes) when sponsored through the NRA!
Ideas are more dangerous than guns.
Maybe not that often, but yes.
I certainly agree it is not a good idea.
It would be gun control if it were being used as a licensing scheme: past the test or else no guns for you. As others have said, no one today would dare try to impose an analogous requirement to vote such as a literacy test.
It’s a little different in the hypothetical where people are being required to own and carry guns, since in that case it’s being used to try to train people in the use of firearms; presumably with the caveat that if they simply aren’t competent to pass the training then they’re excused from the mandate.
I’ve even suggested that a training and education requirement might actually be a modernized version of drilling the Militia, provided that it was structured as a positive requirement rather than a negative prohibition– that failing to pass explicitly wasn’t a way of forbidding people to own guns. Of course if what someone really wants isn’t competent gun ownership but simply to ban as many people as possible, then this won’t satisfy them.
Yes I have, and yes, they did. But in talking with other people in other parts of the country it appears that not all CCW &/or gun safety courses are created equal.
I just think that if we can mandate that all law-abiding, competent citizens carry a gun, we can mandate that they all know what the Hell they’re doing with that thing.
For the record: I have owned and operated firearms for over fifty years, and let me tell you, those things are extremely dangerous.
No; as far as the gun nuts are concerned guns = good, they don’t care about competence or safety. Just guns. In this scenario I expect everyone would just be handed a gun and told to keep it always on them or face severe penalties.
There are about 5 million of those radicals, out of 333 million Americans and like 90 Million American gun owners. The NRA is a unimportant lobby that no longer has any relevance.
Doesn’t matter, since this scenario implicitly indicates that they now run the country.
Not really. It is a thought experiment- what would happen is every adult carried a gun. Would violence increase? or decrease? How about crime? Of course it can not and will not happen, but why fight the hypothetical? This isnt a gun control debate here.
Of course it is; forcing people to carry guns is just as much gun control as forbidding them.
The hypothetical said that training was mandatory. That presumes there’s some intent or purpose to having that requirement, and some consequence of not meeting it.
I think we’re veering into “No True Scotsman” territory here, since you’re presuming the absolute worst of anyone who identifies as pro-gun.
This is factually incorrect.
Agreed! If we don’t want to fight the hypothetical, then it’s hopeful at least that we can include some far less insane corollaries, especially since we want to avoid the OP’s tongue-in-cheek “What could go wrong?”.
Here are the top lobby groups in America-
Amounts spent run from $38Million/yr, down to 6.6Million. The NRA spends less than 1 million, 980K. It ranks 383rd of lobbying money. It has less than 5 million members. Likely far less, since that was its high point, and it is well known it lost over a million members.
The NRA is meaningless today. It spends it money just on GOP candidates, so it is known in advance who will get its small amounts of money.
But the organization isn’t what it used to be. Mismanagement and infighting have hollowed it out from the inside; a lawsuit from New York attorney general Letitia James surfaced embarrassing revelations about its leadership. And in an era of mass shootings and changing politics around guns, most Democrats no longer fear risking its ire. But what does the NRA’s diminished state actually mean for the state of gun violence in America? …At the same time, they are much smaller and less powerful than they were even just a few years ago. As of their last filing, I think they only had about $11 million in reserves in their PAC and super-PAC, which puts them well below the rate they need to raise to get even back to just their 2020 levels, which of course was an election in which the candidate they backed lost… For a long time, the NRA has been a boogeyman in the liberal imagination. A lot of people think they simply buy off GOP politicians, who then do their bidding.
That was never true.
At one time the NRA was powerful, now it is just a meaningless bogeyman.
These are both clearly an exaggeration to the point they are factually incorrect.
Well, my cites stand over your bare statements without any actual facts.,
Your singular “cite” does not claim the NRA is meaningless.
Moreover, conflating the NRA with the entirety of the pro-gun lobby is misleading. They were first and still have the most name recognition but there are other groups out there that in fact are more active than the NRA on the court case battle lines. Just to name a few, Gun Owners of America and the Second Amendment Foundation are big at the national level; and at the state level there are the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association and the California Rifle and Pistol Association, whose activism is outsized because of their opposition to their states’ heavy anti-gun laws.
“Big” is a relative term - they still dont get into the top 100 lobbyist orgs in terms of spending.
The NRA is a very convenient misdirection. If person A says that the pro-gun lobby is powerful, person B merely says that they are wrong because the NRA is NOT powerful, and the conversation has been diverted. Of course, the supposed powerlessness of the NRA is a totally different story when you compare what they say to the left to what they say to their followers and those they try to scare.