Firing or handling a gun isn't critical, but it does make it clear the kind of damage different kinds of guns will do to targets. Assembling and disassembling t

Firing or handling a gun isn't critical, but it does make it clear the kind of damage different kinds of guns will do to targets. Assembling and disassembling them makes it clear how easy a crude gun is to make at home with a machine shop. Handling it will help you judge how easy it is to conceal it. And firing a police issue revolver will make it obvious how much harder it is to fire accurately than a regular, civilian issued one (and possibly lead to fixing the policy that ensures officers end up with guns handicapped to endanger bystanders; I'm against police being armed with lethal weapons, but if it's going to happen, I'd like them to at least hit their targets). > For example, is a low-power firearm with hollow-point bullets more dangerous than a high-power firearm? How does knowing how a gun is purchased tell you this? This seems to be another argument for teaching regulators against guns, and not against it. The simple fact of the matter is that to effectively regulate guns, you need to know about them. The legislation proposed to curb gun violence is (almost invariably) written by people who are very obviously flying blind, and as a result, the laws proposed are the equivalent of banning rubbing cocaine in one's hair while leaving crack smoking legal.