The idea isn't bad per say, but while it may be a good solution for you, it may not be the best solution for everyone. I live in the south, and I know a lot of people would be outraged at the idea of this. When it comes down to it, most people are selfish. They think having a gun is to protect them and their loved ones, not me or you. They wouldn't like the fact that they have to spend extra time and money for their 'God given right' to bear arms. An 80 hours course isn't going to stop people from being violent, look at the hijackers of 9/11, they had to go through and get their pilot training which costs thousands and a lot of time, and that just shows where there is a will there is a way and a course might help these situations but nothing is going to totally alleviate them.<p>I don't think a lot of people who don't live in the south or a rural area understand how guns are used in normal culture in places like here. People go out and hunt. A lot. They go target shooting, they have competitions, etc. It's a big deal and it's an issue that sits very close to the heart of a southern person.<p>I personally am not sure what should happen, but these are just some things I have seen and grown up around. Almost everyone has a gun here, most of them never get shot, but they are still really prevalent.
Taking the argument to its logical conclusion: if you aren't willing to kill on behalf of the unarmed, you aren't worthy of defending yourself. Kill for me, or you deserve to die. That logic seems flawed.
<i>All assault rifle owners are required to serve as volunteer police </i><p>If someone wants to use a gun for criminal purposes, it's hard to imagine that giving them a badge first is going to solve anything.<p>It just means they could go on their power trip under the guise of police work in addition to doing it criminally.
<i>"the constitution specifically highlights firearms as a method reserved for future use to revolt against the government, if it ever becomes evil."</i><p>I keep reading this, but I don't believe the us constitution says any such thing. Am I (European) correct?
The difficulty in defining what to regulate is probably the hardest part of the problem and he just throws out a completely unworkable definition.<p>A double-action revolver would fit his definition of an "assault rifle".
I will never support any sort of gun control that does not also include disarming law enforcement. Is this not something other people are concerned with?
> <i>“No person can own or operate an assault rifle as a civilian except for honorably discharged veterans, current military officers or enlisted personnel at E3 level or higher, or persons who have passed an 80 hour course. All assault rifle owners are required to serve as volunteer police (or some other analogous public safety service).”</i><p>Because nothing could go wrong with conferring special rights only to members of the military, right?<p>This proposed solution would have had limited impact on the recent killings that have stoked the current gun control argument. Adam Lanza would've have passed the 80-hour training requirement. Columbine and Virginia Tech was perpetrated by handguns and shotguns. Aurora did involve a rifle but VT still resulted in more fatalities with just handguns. The older perpetrator of the Beltway sniper attacks was an Army veteran.<p>This is not to say that gun control is bad. But the reasoning behind this solution is very specious.