Can’t we just require every gun owner get certified?
Feb 23, 2018, 6:17 AM | Updated: 6:21 am
Why can't we require all gun owners to be certified? Dave Ross asks. (Ralph Barrera/Austin American-Statesman via AP)
(Ralph Barrera/Austin American-Statesman via AP)
Karl Donnelson teaches science at rural school in Colorado and he carries a gun to class.
Apparently, it takes a police state to be truly free
He’s been a teacher there for three years. He carries a 9mm Glock in one of his boots. He didn’t always wear boots to school.
Arming teachers seems to be the president’s latest go-to idea, and why not? It could stop an attack and might even improve discipline in the meantime; You’re probably not gonna tip-off to a teacher who keeps a Glock in his boot.
But take note: Mr. Donnelson doesn’t just have to pass a background check – he has to pass a three-day firearms course, and get a psychological evaluation. And every semester he has to go to the gun range and re-qualify.
Leading me to wonder, why should that only apply to teachers who carry guns? Does this idea of the “good guy with a gun” just mean some guy with a good heart? No! It means a guy who’s good with a gun! Having good intentions isn’t enough — witness the armed Parkland security officer who did nothing.
So why can’t that be the compromise? That every gun owner needs to be trained like Mr. Donnelson. Then you get a certificate saying “Good Guy.”
And without that certificate, you’d be a potential bad guy (especially if you’re 19 with a history of fighting and making online threats). Then, anyone in your family, for any reason, could legally gather up your guns and take them down to the police station.
-
Tune in to KIRO Newsradio weekdays at 5am for Dave Ross on Seattle's Morning News.
