In 1989’s Batman, the Caped Crusader tells the Joker “I made you? You made me first.” I get that feeling about The Trace and TTAG. Anyway, Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun agitprop machine continues to crank out “common sense” nonsense. Like this . . .
As permitless carry continues to gain steam across the U.S., here’s a story we noticed out of Missouri:
On September 3, a man wearing a loaded gun in his pants waistband accidentally shot himself in a University City grocery store. The man, who was hit in the leg, survived. A fellow shopper was wounded by debris from the blast.
States that do require a permit to carry a loaded weapon require prospective carriers to undergo a background check and some firearms training, though standards for that training vary widely. Critics of permitless carry say that removing such requirements creates an opportunity for individuals not proficient with guns to carry, creating a public safety risk.
According to the report at the link, the man in question was carrying his gun without a holster. It slipped, he grabbed it and BANG! OK, so, let’s follow author Miles Kohrman‘s logic, such as it is . . .
An armed American — one armed American — negligently discharges his firearm, wounding himself and a fellow shopper (peppered from debris).
The unnamed didn’t need a government permission slip — including “some” firearms training — to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.
Unnamed “critics of permitless carry” (a.k.a., Constitutional carry) reckon that government mandated training prevents negligent discharges.
Therefore . . .
Permitless carry creates a public safety risk and should be banned. In fact, the whole idea of armed civilians is inherently dangerous and should be discouraged. OK, banned. But we can’t say that. Unless we’re in New Jersey or Hawaii.
Where, pray tell, is any scientific evidence backing up the idea that safety training makes shooters safer — setting aside the fact that the Second Amendment prohibits any government regulation on the keeping and bearing of arms, regardless of its danger to the general public?
Suggesting that an unsafe gun handler can be made safe by government-mandated safety training is like saying that unsafe drivers are made safer by drivers’ ed. trustedchoice.com reports . . .
In 2009, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conducted a study to evaluate the effectiveness of driver’s education courses. In their conclusion, they stated that “the notion that a traditional driver’s education course can by itself produce safer drivers is optimistic.”
What does that tell you? What does it tell The Trace? Why nothing, of course. You can’t see with blinders on and you can’t hear when you’re shouting.
Nor can you properly balance one — count it one — example of a gun carrier endangering public safety against dozens, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of annual examples of defensive gun use. I guess that’s our job.