That's what I'm saying. But the people who obviously don't need to spend more time at a firing range always jump all over me every time I promote responsible gun ownership...
I want to lower the barriers in place for law abiding citizens to get guns, and foster a gun ownership culture that encourages people to take their gun out to a range frequently enough to be a member of a range or club, hell let areas with large population of gun owners set up public gun ranges on public land where citizens can go fire their weapons without paying a range fee.
My idea for licensing exempted people who are in clubs from the renewal requirement of taking the safety test.
But the only thing anybody seems to hear is that I want to take away their guns, which is not true. I want more Americans to have guns, and I want them to become familiar and comfortable with them, while at the same time respecting them.
This "licensing" requirement, and "club membership", and "safety test" sounds WAY too much like how the Aussies and English got their foot in the door for eventual confiscation.
The anti-gunners might have been able to get away with this crap here, before the internet, but they can't now. We know what happened to the English and the Aussies once they "compromised" on licensing, testing, etc.... And gun owners are not going to allow that to happen here.
We are winning the battle at the state level, and don't need to start compromising now.
First of all you just don't "get guns" unless you're in the military, they are bequeathed to you, or you buy one. Second, "Without paying a range fee", well then join the military. Otherwise, who is going to pour a few hundred thousand dollars into setting up a range? The Federal Government? I'd suggest you think through the process before expounding as an expert on weapons ownership. BTW, one of the best civilian home defence weapons is a pump alley sweeper with 000. Do you know what that is? Just chambering a round should make the perp shiite his pants.
That sounds like a good idea at first glance.
We spend tax money on a lot less worthwhile causes.
The problem is that with tax money comes control over that money.
We gun nuts are a bunch of independent cusses. We don't like people telling us how, when and where we can shoot.
Range fees aren't a big deal. If a person can spend several hundred dollars on his or her weapon and ammo, they can spend ten or twenty bucks for range fees.
What must happen to get more people to the ranges is for the range personnel to take an interest in the shooting pleasure of their clients without making them feel like they're in boot camp.
I know it's a fine line between the liability for the shooter's safety and the promotion of the shooter's enjoyment, but no shooter is going to want to go back to a range where he got his ass chewed because he was standing six inches in front of the white line.
Too many ranges convey the attitude that they're doing you a favor by allowing you to shoot at all.