Safety Testing
    The California legislature has recently come to the startling conclusion that guns may be dangerous. This revelation has come about after much pondering, by liberals, regarding what the electorate will be willing to tolerate, and upon the gullibility of the average citizen, in regards to gun legislation. This is right up there, with the remarkable discovery made back in the sixties, also by liberals, that war can be unpleasant, and even lethal. Those of us, who are conservative, should express our gratitude to our liberal friends, for pointing these things out to us.
    Of course, no liberal can look at a problem, or at an unpleasant, or unpopular situation, without immediately fumbling around for a piece of legislation with which to combat it. Often these proposals include something, which is vaguely referred to as “education”, and generally involves the employment of vast armies of liberals to implement. Fortunately for us, the liberals have decided that they want nothing, whatsoever to do with firearms, and have instituted no education program in their use. This initiative not to educate the public in the correct use of firearms has been pursued to the extent that many schools, summer camps, and youth organizations, which had once offered firearms training, have been discouraged from doing so. Considering what  public education has done for the intellectual development of this nation, in the thirty years since the liberals have taken control, this may be a good thing. The rates of accidental injury, and careless use of firearms, have dropped sharply, in the last thirty years or so. I suspect that this would not have been the case, had public gun education been implemented by the same people who have been running the rest of public education.
    Though the gun owning public may have been saved from the good intentioned support of the liberals, we have certainly not been spared the efforts of their opposition. Unable to directly oppose the Second Amendment, and ban guns on principle, in all but the most rabidly liberal places, the opponents of firearms ownership, have taken several different tacks. The first method employed was the attempt to have firearms declared a health threat. This was so transparent, that virtually no one took it seriously, and it seems to have faded away. Then there were the attempts to sue gun manufacturers, which seemed to be a real threat, but which have become more difficult to implement.
    Some of the less enlightened, or at any rate less principled members of the California legislature have decided that handguns should be safety tested. This is claimed to be no different than the safety testing of automobiles, television sets, furnaces, and other potentially dangerous products; it is also a lie. Furnaces are not supposed to blow up, cars are not supposed to crash, and hair dryers are not supposed to be used in the shower. Guns, on the other hand, are supposed to discharge projectiles, which, to the horror of those infected with liberalism, are meant to be dangerous. I could go on, for pages, about the foolishness of this, and about the differences between the use of firearms, and the common uses to which most other consumer good are put, but common sense has had little to do with most firearms legislation over the past thirty five years or so. In truth, most firearms legislation is primarily meant to inconvenience gun owners, and to make gun ownership as expensive, difficult, and unpleasant as possible. This is meant to deter the ownership of guns, and is justified under the theory that guns are evil, and so even bad legislation of them is a good thing. This “end justifies the means” type of reasoning is not uncommon among dictators, religious fanatics, racists, and criminals. It is also, unfortunately, not uncommon amongst liberals, and is becoming all too common in those employed to represent us in the government.
    The safety testing of a particular handgun will, if the gun passes, permit the manufacturer to sell it in California. The gun will be added to a list of “approved” weapons. Naturally, a fee is charged for this. It can be assumed that this fee might be raised in the future, with predictable effects upon the prices of guns, and upon the entrance of smaller, or more specialized manufacturers into the market. One of the tests required is a drop test, in which a loaded and cocked pistol is dropped from six feet, onto concrete. I can only say that the thought of such a thing happening to one of my own pistols makes me cringe. Only the most foolish, careless, and ridiculous person would allow such a thing to happen, which may be why the anti gun left considers this to be a valid test. For safety testing, a drop of six feet could turn anything weighting more than a few pounds into a dangerous object. Though it will not discharge a projectile, a brick dropped from six feet could certainly be adjudged to be a dangerous consumer item, lethal to the head, and painful to the foot.
    I was, frankly, a bit skeptical about the idea of drop testing pistols, but I am beginning to see this as a step towards some much needed safety testing of something which is considerably more dangerous. Most pistols are less that a foot long, and weight, at most, a few pounds. The California proposal to drop them from six feet, should be taken as a baseline, from which to develop safety tests for other threats to our well being. I propose that we start to drop test (for safety certification) California legislators. In the interests of fairness, we should only drop test those, who are in favor of drop testing firearms. In consideration of the size, and weight of the average legislator, compared to that of the average handgun, I propose that these drop tests be made from a height of between thirty, and forty feet. In the same manner as the pistol drop tests, many legislators may need to be drop tested several times, before a considered judgment of their safety features can be rendered.
    I suspect that this type of drop testing will become a very popular procedure with most of the electorate. If it receives enough support, we may wish to extend the testing process to the legislatures of other states, and even to that of the federal government itself. If such a program were instituted, I confidently predict that the nation would become a much safer, and better place to live, and that the quality of life will improve tremendously. If I am incorrect, it is still worth trying, even if it will save the life of only one child.