Anti-gun NYT columnist wants mandatory "aim test" before all gun sales

Gail Collins also says stories of defensive gun uses aren't convincing.

New York Times columnist Gail Collins

Sometimes you just have to chuckle at the crazy ideas put forth by the gun grabbers to remedy their so called “gun violence” problem.

After all, this is the same uninformed crew that gave us “smart gun” tech and microstamping, neither of which is actually workable.

These are the folks who think magazine limits, thumb-hole stocks and muzzle brake-bans prevent crime.

New York Times columnist Gail Collins is among the worst.

Some of her ideas are, quite literally, laugh out loud.

Her latest anti-gun solution? An “aim test.”

This nugget comes from her most recent column:

“One problem with our gun debate is that it has the wrong starting point. Let’s raise the bar. Demand that nobody be able to purchase a gun without passing a test demonstrating she knows how to aim it. You’d be astonished at how many enthusiastic owners that would eliminate from contention,” Collins wrote.

An aim test … hmmm. How would this work?

Does the FFL have to take a gun buyer to the range before making a sale?

Does the FFL toss a quarter into the air in their shop to see if the potential buyer can track it with the barrel?

It is, like most of Collins’ ideas, silly and unworkable.

I also find it humorous that Collins says her readers would be “astonished” at how many “enthusiastic” gun owners would be eliminated from purchasing a firearm by her aim testing.

How does she know this?

I doubt she’s ever even met a gun owner, even an enthusiastic one.

Finally, Collins dumps cold water on the stories of folks who used a firearm to save their lives.

“The stories about how a Gun Saved The Day aren’t generally all that convincing. The Heritage Foundation recently ran a list of 11 incidents in which “a gun stopped matters from getting worse.” One case involved a robber who threatened employees at a pizza restaurant in Georgia. The workers won the day by grabbing another gun and catching him off-guard. It was indeed good news. But the fact that the workers were able to get the gun because the holdup man decided to use the restaurant bathroom before leaving with the money was … kind of a help,” she wrote.

I found this of extreme interest.

At least now we know why the New York Times and other leftist media organizations don’t run stories of defensive gun uses.

They don’t find them “convincing.”

That, folks, says a lot.

As always, thanks for your time.

Lee