This is great! I hope when people read this they realize that the author is intentionally doing the minimum required to own a gun. Of course you can take a class, learn about the mechanics of the gun, how to use it and how to hold it, you know... how to be responsible. But that is not a requirement. Just about any idiot can purchase and carry a gun. Most fascinating is that the cop was cool with an armed person approaching them at a site where they have someone else pulled over. -Only a woman could get away with this. If I attempted it, it wouldn't be received as gleefully. That's just my guess. I'm interested to see where this experiment leads. I wouldn't be surprised if some of her preconceived notions change.
If they let Paul Krugman speak I guess they gotta let that gal own a gun. Of course, her car is probably more dangerous to the public than her gun. Given her lack of preparation I am going to guess that she will violate at least a few state and federal statutes before it's all over. Federal examples: dropping someone off at the airport with her gun in the car; driving into a federally owned parking deck; being within 200 feet of the VP or POTUS. State examples: being in a municipal parking structure; entering an establishment that sells liquor/beer/wine for consumption on premise; entering a store that forbids carry though a badly marked entrance. (This last is a biggie and is a gray area.) -XC
All of the restrictions seem legitimate to me, but I would think that the burden to prevent guns on premise should fall on the business owner to clearly mark each entrance, with a sign that looks something like this: http://i.imgur.com/b1OahUA.gif I really don't know why anyone would be opposed to a one-time, mandatory gun safety class for prospective gun owners? If you are already knowledgeable because you grew up around guns, then you will be a true asset to the class and we in society will be grateful. Just take it. Then, after that you never have to take it again.Of course, her car is probably more dangerous to the public than her gun.
-Probably why we have mandatory drivers education classes and a, sometimes rather difficult, written test.
Here in MI you have to take a safety class to carry a concealed weapon, which is how most people want to carry pistols anyway. It was actually very thorough and informative. I was quite surprised, as I was expecting not much. The only thing that I think they should change here is that the range qualifying was ridiculous. You had to hit a 2' x 3' target 5 out of 6 shots from 12 feet! Anyone who can hold a gun can do that. Should require a little more, as it would be better to have more well practiced people walking around packing.
There is no mandatory drivers ed class if you're over 18. In NC you don't have to take the written test if you claim you can't read - they will read it out to you. So if you can learn basic road rules and sign rules, you don't even have to know how to read. Yay. You don't have to take a safety class to own a pool, get married, have a baby, practice free speech, refuse to let law enforcement in your home without a warrant, etc, etc. Heck, you don't have to take a class to get elected to any office in the country. And I am fine with all of the above, FWIW, just pointing it out.
I would be shocked if you didn't have to sign a waiver when installing a pool saying you've "read the safety...blah blah." I know the point you're making and some of those things should have an education comment tied to them. -Especially having a child. I think the gun people would do well to concede the "take a class" request from the gun-safety people. There has to be a reasonable middle ground to much of this debate. I'm not anti-gun, but I'd feel a lot better if I knew the guy I see carrying one was definitely educated as to how to safely handle it, and was thoroughly checked/screened for mental illness and past criminal behavior.In NC you don't have to take the written test if you claim you can't read - they will read it out to you. So if you can learn basic road rules and sign rules, you don't even have to know how to read. Yay.
You still need to know the answers. Do you need to know how to read in order to carry a gun? Hard to read those "no concealed signs" otherwise.
I agree with you and I'm not anti-gun (I dont live in the US so I might be VERY anti-gun by your standards...) either. The guns don't scare me half as much as the raised probability that due to the large number of armed people around me the odds that one of them will be having a bad day, their first mental break, their first attempted crime, their first mistake... while I or my family are within range. The math shows that the odds of getting shot are pretty tightly coupled to the number of armed people around you.I'm not anti-gun, but I'd feel a lot better if I knew the guy I see carrying one was definitely educated as to how to safely handle it, and was thoroughly checked/screened for mental illness and past criminal behavior.
No, I concede nothing, because every point limiting gun ownership is not made in good faith by "the other side." Just like conceding that there are so-called free-speech zones means that you agree to abridge your speech in other places. That is BS. Conceding that the TSA has a right to grope your kid's genitals defeats the 4th amendment - ok, I over-egg the pudding, but you get my point. How about less "Democrat" and "Republican" and more "Get your damn hands off my rights?" -XC PS - You don't have to know many of the answers. And I haven't taken the test in 15 years. PPS - You sign a contract absolving the installer of liability, but nothing more, when you buy a pool. You sign nothing when you buy a house with a pool.
IMO the gun debate is never going to be an honest one, because it treats all gun owners as equal when we know they are not. Take my fair city, Detroit. In the burbs there are throngs of dudes packing at all times, and the crime is negligible. In the inner city murder is an everyday occurrence, most often by gun. Most of these murders, so I am told, are drug/gang related. So the question isn't "how do we limit gun ownership?" but rather, "how do we stop gang violence?". But, as we live in civil society where we love to deflect real problems for imagined ones, truth for euphemism, the gun debate will always be about guns, and never about actual causes of violence. Personally, I have no idea how to solve this problem, but I'm damn sure that limiting the number of rounds in a magazine isn't going to help any of my neighbors get jobs and feed their families.
I took the test a year ago, I'm no dummy and a few of the questions had me sweating. You cannot get more than a few wrong or you fail.
Most of the questions have nothing to do with driving but have to do with punitive measures for wrong doing. IE failure to comply with a breathalyzer etc. At times, not exactly intuitive and definitely regionally specific. It sounds like gun laws are similarly so. Perhaps, a class and a test is a good idea? http://www.ncdot.gov/dmv/driver/license/test/sample_test.htm...
Well, the last time there was a test in the south to own guns, it was used to disarm black people. Hmmm, "racist, he explained." More seriously, there is a serious test to get a CCW - and it is 99% about the legal implications of owning and carrying a gun and when to decide to use it. You do have to pass a very lame marksmanship test, but it's no more a test of marksmanship than the driving test is a test of driving. -XC
Haha. I sometimes wonder about this one. Maybe they should at least have to take an anti-corruption class so they can't plead innocent when the Feds discover freezerbags full of cash in their office.Heck, you don't have to take a class to get elected to any office in the country.
For liability reasons, I have to take an anti-corruption training module every year. Good point, why shouldn't they?