That's a good point there, and I don't want us to end up with overly strict qualification tests either. I've heard of places where you take a basic safety course at a range, at the end of which you take a "qualifying test" and if you pass, the instructor certifies you for the license. I may be wrong on this, but it sounds like a reasonable approach to me. It could even be left to private agencies to do the teaching courses, much like drivers ed courses or motorcycle license courses are, and certify the attendee for the government-issued license.
As for aiming the shotgun I do know -- I have fired handguns, rifles and shotgun. It's less of an issue to aim the shotgun at that side of the earth, compared to a handgun, but this may well be a case of YMMV. ;-)
I'm more of a preventative kind of person -- perhaps not too surprising given my profession -- and I'd prefer not to get into a situation where I have to have a gun. Like I said, we have other weapons that are not so obvious and cannot be denied on the basis of "no license". I believe the Army still instructs its new personnel that the best weapon one has is "right here". :-)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: We may also differ...
Date: 2007-04-19 03:01 pm (UTC)As for aiming the shotgun I do know -- I have fired handguns, rifles and shotgun. It's less of an issue to aim the shotgun at that side of the earth, compared to a handgun, but this may well be a case of YMMV. ;-)
I'm more of a preventative kind of person -- perhaps not too surprising given my profession -- and I'd prefer not to get into a situation where I have to have a gun. Like I said, we have other weapons that are not so obvious and cannot be denied on the basis of "no license". I believe the Army still instructs its new personnel that the best weapon one has is "right here". :-)