Gun buyers should prove qualifications

By now, we've all read the statistics: 32 homicides in Greensboro last year, six of whom were teenagers. What wasn't widely publicized was that 25 of those killings, 78 percent, were gun-related deaths. Simmer down, NRA members: This isn't a column about banning guns, but it is one about being thoughtful about how we handle the awesome responsibilities of this right.

It's something I've thought about a lot over the years, particularly at the beginning of this decade when I spent a year's membership at Calibers Indoor Gun Range, creating ever-tighter patterns of .22-caliber holes in faceless paper targets.

It was a powerful feeling to use a weapon with such intensely destructive potential. Ultimately, it was knowing how easily the trigger slid under my grip that kept me from buying a gun.

You see, that's the problem with guns: They are so incredibly easy to use. It takes infinitely more know-how to operate a computer, with which the average non-hacker can hurt little more than people's feelings, than a firearm that can end a life with even the most careless of gestures.

I just can't help but wonder how many of those 25 dead would still be alive had their attacker not had such a convenient weapon. If those attackers had only their fists, or a knife, would they have followed through? It's gory but worth considering that a beating or stabbing requires time, effort and proximity. You can't beat someone from 400 feet away, but you can shoot someone from that distance, even with a wimpy .22 revolver. No, an attacker using fists or knives has to be within an intimate distance of the victim, close enough for a vivid experience of the effect of their actions.

Meanwhile, a person with a gun standing a football field away could barely see the entry wound, much less the precious blood seeping from it. Most importantly, I suspect it's a gracious few people who have the expertise to hit or stab someone once to kill them, leaving time for a change in heart, to stop the attack before it's too late.

Still, I'm not suggesting that guns be outlawed completely. Our civil rights seem to be an endangered species and I'm not interested in further abridgements. But I do think more processes should be implemented to ensure that only those who can handle the deadly power of firearms have access to them.

Right now, we have a waiting period to buy guns in stores but an unfortunate gun-show loophole. Why? Do we value commerce more than responsibility? Right now, anyone who wants to legally carry a concealed weapon must complete an educational course, but why not extend that to all gun ownership? People should be required to prove they can handle both the weapon itself and the responsibility therein before taking a firearm home. We rightly require as much before a person can drive a car.

And, by all means, let's hold gun owners responsible for anything that happens with their firearm, whether they are the ones who pull the trigger or not. Unless a gun is reported stolen, there's no excuse for not taking full responsibility for its whereabouts.

I realize that there will always be a black market for firearms and other contraband. But when lives are on the line, it is worthwhile to take a note from the Serenity Prayer and change that which we can. We can tackle the problems of illegal weapons once we start acting rationally and responsibly with legal ones.