Right, arm's bared...

[LynnInDenver]

I'm betting it's the weakness that everyone everywhere would be using to try and torpedo it, because it's that big a one.

There was something similar in the TVT gun thread. One of the posters wrote up a list of what their "in a perfect world" gun laws would be. One of the items was for psychological screening. The problem is, no one seemed to be able to come up with an implementation that would work properly - it always incentivized either approving everyone or approving no one, both of which are obvious failure conditions.

Psychological screening could cause many problems. Depending on where you draw the lines of "too crazy to carry" and "sane enough to carry", it could be used to literally shove various bits of the U.S. population out of gun ownership... and could be expanded into other things.
This doesn't mean we don't need the health system to remain as it is... nor our way of handling mental instability. But that's really a separate (but equally important) discussion that needs to happen.

Is that really such a large group? I'm not sure. I heard someone put the NRA into that category once, but since one of the big things they do is training, that doesn't seem quite on.

Many individuals who are part of the NRA are going to be responsible gun owners.
Regarding training, there was a bit I read from an interview with Ben Browder, who played John Criton in Farscape. He grew up in the South region of the U.S., has been around guns his whole life, complete with training and respect for same. When he got into acting, and I presume this has been all sets, but notable in America with a gun culture, the number of people who DO NOT KNOW HOW TO HANDLE GUNS. It frightens him every time he sees it.

Part of education with guns is safe, proper gun handling... to the point that, handed a gun YOU KNOW IS FAKE, you still treat it as if it is loaded. (Rule #1 of gun safety: The gun is ALWAYS loaded, ALWAYS.)

(Also, why two? When I see a specific number mentioned it seems like it's usually 5-7, but more often it's a situation-dependent expression of some form.)

"Double Tap" is where I got that from.

If you take more than 2 bullets to take someone down, either the person was armored, or you'd better hope your target wasn't in front of something you didn't want 3-5 bullets to go into...

I'm pretty sure that'd make a lot of people who aren't members of the NRA dig in their heels. It's the second best reason to own a gun in my book.

I'm not so sure, but then, even with training, I'd fumble about trying to get the damned thing out unless I was wearing it on my hip.
I usually follow other methods for "self defense". Namely, I stay away from areas and situations that I'd need to use violence to get out of.
Yes, I realize some people out there have no choice but to live in an area where they know they could suffer a home invasion by someone hyped up on adrenaline, drugs, or just plain insanity. I'm still not convinced that it's 100% the best thing to have a gun around for defense, particularly, again, without training in it's use.

Seriously, why are you convinced that it doesn't work? Because there's a lot of examples of it in fact doing so out there.

I know it won't work for me, mostly because I don't like to hurt people. And I've known several people in the past that, rather than being the "last resort" option in their toolbox, would pull out that "self defense" gun in a BAR FIGHT WITH FISTS.

A more sane variant has been done. Unsurprisingly enough, it did not dissolve into an orgy of violence and bloodshed.

Given the drop in the crime rate before the law went into effect, I'm not sure it's 100% of the cause of the continuing drop. On the other hand, I hope they included mandatory training with that law. And I bet it includes registration of at least firearms bought there, and requirements for reporting a stolen weapon.I'm not saying that the gun itself is a bad thing. The place didn't explode in violence. But I'm dreadfully uncomfortable with any mandatory purchase requirements like that. Particularly since I'd have the additional purchases to make like a gun safe and a gun box to transport it in on the way to the gun range to keep myself maintained.

Oh, and school teachers in Utah have allowed to carry guns at school (if they have a concealed carry permit) since 2001. Also no orgy of violence and bloodshed.

No, I don't expect any such orgy of violence and bloodshed with that. Mostly because any that would take advantage, if they have a concealed carry permit, would have at least a decent idea of things like keeping it secure, when to not use it, etcetera.
Most of my point is that, right now, it's too easy for someone, with no training at all, no indication what he's in for, to go into a shop, plunk down the money, undergo the background check, and walk out with a gun in hand for "self defense"... a "self defense" that has a higher odds than it should that, when it gets pulled out in that mythical "held up in the alley" scenario, will possibly injure the owner or a nearby innocent before the criminal.
And, really? If I had to cherry pick ONE thing I wanted out of the whole thing, in terms of "not an absolute ironclad no clauses right to own a gun", would be a requirement for training. Which would involve having to get licensed.
--

"You know how parents tell you everything's going to fine, but you know they're lying to make you feel better? Everything's going to be fine." - The Doctor