The catch-all gun thread

[Chas]

I appreciate firearms for their defensive capabilities, but also, I would like to own a couple guns to go shooting from time to time. It's an acquired skill like any other, archery, knitting, quilting, or cooking. I would not relinquish any quilter of her needle or knitter of her darning needle just because those things could be conceived as weapons in a modern society. Nor would I take spikes from a mountain climber simply because they could penetrate vital organs of passers by.

An item only becomes a weapon if you choose it to be so. I will use anything as a weapon if necessary. Guns? Don't worry, I don't own 'em. But I do have some little bats, knives, scissors, and a myriad of heavy, hurtful objects that will become prime weapons.
So don't push me.

It is true that something can only kill if operated to do so (or handled incorrectly by someone who is not adequately trained). But guns (unlike the sewing needles but like some of the bladed weapons you mention) are designed to kill. It would seem only reasonable that if we require car owners to demonstrate proficiency with an automobile before they can use it in a way that impacts the public, and if we require insurance for that too, then why not require those who buy guns with intent to use them for whatever purpose (self-defense, hunting, stress relief at a firing range, etc), be required to have training (regardless of gun type, or private vs public carry/use), a license, and insurance?

And in some jurisdictions training is a requirement.

But there are 50 states with separate laws, plus the federal laws, plus local laws.