incredible asset." First, as a simple statement, it is illogical through circular reasoning: "a responsible gun ----------------------------------------------------------------------(24)
owner is one who handles a gun responsibly." Even beyond that, the reasoning is illogical and somewhat frightening. Is Mike proposing that we use gun ownership itself as a test of responsibility? Do we just give people guns and then see which ones use them responsibly? What do we do with the ones who don't? Just duck? Responsibility must be tested in other ways before dangerous tools are handed to people. The whole point of gun control advocates is that too many people are not in "emotional control" of themselves, that these people are not responsible owners of firearms, and they should not be allowed to possess firearms. How are we to see that firearms are used responsibly? Talk about it? It is certainly not gun control advocates who have undercut every attempt to bring responsibility into firearms use. The National Rifle Association talks a good line about teaching responsible use of firearms; but it has opposed every attempt of any kind to toughen gun laws. They have stated publicly that their lobbying agenda emphasizes the total repeal of all federal handgun laws, including those laws which provide for a background check on criminal or violent behavior. One California State Senator has been trying for several years to pass an amendment to the state constitution which would take away all authority from the state legislature to enact handgun laws. How do these actions promote responsible use of firearms? They certainly do nothing to promote public safety. A few years ago California made a timid attempt to provide some mild control of handguns. Proposition 15, as it was called on the ballot, would have required both registration of handguns and a short waiting period to check criminal background. This measure was wildly opposed by many people, including Roy Rogers and Mike Darwin, as being an infringement on their basic rights. This despite the fact that both Roy Rogers and Mike Darwin were responsible citizens who certainly would have qualified for gun ownership. I am willing to admit that, given the current situation, I would favor a near-total ban on handguns. Since the gun supporters seem unable to support anything less than "let anyone buy anything," they are the ones who have pushed the other side into an equally radical stance. If one side says "all," the other side is likely to say ----------------------------------------------------------------------(25)
"nothing." With no structure in place or ever likely to be in place to promote their safe use, elimination may be the only option left. I believe the harm handguns do is far in excess of the good that they can accomplish. Some people feel that there should be no preventive laws; that laws should be few and then only deal with the consequences of inappropriate actions. If you kill someone, you must pay for it; but you should not be prevented from killing someone. This approach is the extreme in shortsightedness and is very close to the approach being advocated by Mike. He talks about responsibility but appears to think it will come