On guns again

I'm not pretending to be an expert but articles about about gun ownership in the US interest me. Not sure why, maybe I'm just interested to know what other people's views on the subject are. I do personally think guns are not a form of defence but offence, thus those carrying guns are only asking for trouble. But I had a couple of additional thoughts I wanted to share that I had while reading some articles recently.

1. I read that one in the US can legally carry a gun at 21. That's same age you can drink in the US. So then I started to link the two ideas together. A young 21 year old can go out and get a gun in the morning and then buy a drink in the afternoon. While intoxicated can still carry their new gun?

Are there any laws in the US making it illegal to carry a gun while under the influence? If not then there most definately should be. It is illegal to drive under the influence. So when judgement is severely impared and as violent behaviour is associated with alcohol it makes absolute sense to ensure that the safety of another is not compromised because a gun carryier has allowed their judgement to be impared.

Obviously all pro gun advocates will claim to be responsible gun owners. They can demonstrate their responsibility by never holding a drink while also carrying a gun.

2. I also recently read an article about a young woman who put something anti gun on social media, maily as a joke. It soon went viral as there was clearly a lot of support for it. She says in addition to the support she recieved, she also was given abuse and even death threats. Death threats are a clear sign of instability and someone's lack of ability to control themselves. In light of the recent school shootings and pro gun advocates claiming gun laws not being the problem but mental illness it would be totally foolish of any gun owner to make such threats to anyone over something so trivial that is not placing their immediate life in danger.

If any gun owner shows any signs of aggressive behaviour towards another in a situation other than life threatening they should be considered unsuitable to act as one of these gun carrying want-to-be heros. Only the truly responsible should be allowed to act in such a way.

3. I really struggle to believe that in a threatening situation a gun carrier is going to make much of a difference. There are lots of factors to consider, particularly the safety of others surrounding the attacker. There are questions of conscience, about potentially killing another person, and shooting should only be a last resort after negotiation and carefully considering all other options.

It is my understanding that the police who carry guns are extensively trained and are given strict guidelines about when to draw and fire their guns. SWAT teams receive even more training and only engage under certain circumstances. And when an officer does pull the trigger a review and investigation follows.

Are the gun carrying public subject to the same level of training and review process? To drive a car one must pass a test, to carry a murder weapon in public, one should also be expected to pass a test.

It should be accepted that if someone wants to carry a gun with the intention to use it in a life threatening situation to shoot and even kill another, then they should be subject to an in depth investigation where their actions will be scrutinised. To act as judge and executioner in a public or even private space is a massive responsibility and should not be treated lightly.

Maybe gun carriers will think twice if they were to understand that no matter how good their intentions, they could still be prosecuted if, after review, they are considered trigger happy.