Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Alexzandvar wrote:

Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Thou doth needeth to restate thineself as doth question doth confuseth both the divine and the damned.

I think the Washinton Post is full of gak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
But then his young son took one of his unsecured hand guns and killed there family dog.

Needless to say said uncle is now firmly believes all gun owners need to be mandates to own safes to properly secure there weapons

So he concluded from failing as a parent himself that the government should act as parents to adults?

More that it should be a law that people in general should not leave dangerous weapons laying about the house. And the nanny state arguement is silly in this regard, since improperly storing your firearms can get you, your family, or some just plain innocent bystander harmed.

This is far more about doing a good for the general public and less moral shaming through legislation.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe
You can view the graph by age group using the above link.

Why do folks consider Federal Gov't intervention proper for guns, but not the real killers, like unattended swimming pools and bath tubs?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I think about the same procedure that we need to drive a car would do.

Is there any evidence that driver's licenses prevent car accidents? It seems to me that driver's licenses are more about putting people on quite superficial notice of traffic laws and tax and insurance records than anything else.

Manchu wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I think about the same procedure that we need to drive a car would do.

Is there any evidence that driver's licenses prevent car accidents? It seems to me that driver's licenses are more about putting people on quite superficial notice of traffic laws and tax and insurance records than anything else.

Driver's licences most definitely prevent car accidents. You have to prove that you know how to drive a car, which is very important. I we had a bunch of people who did not know how to drive, the freeway would be carnage.

I think what we do have is a bunch of people who have proved that they qualify for driver's license, which is pretty different from proving that they do in fact drive responsibly from day to day or even from year to year.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I have an uncle that used to be massive Pro-gun and pro no gun restrictions (He believed that there should not even be laws mandating proper training or securing of guns).

But then his young son took one of his unsecured hand guns and killed there family dog.


Needless to say said uncle is now firmly believes all gun owners need to be mandates to own safes to properly secure there weapons

I dislike people like that. Just because he wasn't a responsible gun owner he wants everyone else to suffer for his stupidity?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Manchu wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I think about the same procedure that we need to drive a car would do.

Is there any evidence that driver's licenses prevent car accidents? It seems to me that driver's licenses are more about putting people on quite superficial notice of traffic laws and tax and insurance records than anything else.

Driver's licences most definitely prevent car accidents. You have to prove that you know how to drive a car, which is very important. I we had a bunch of people who did not know how to drive, the freeway would be carnage.

And yet WAY more kids die each year in auto accidents than in gun accidents.

if gun control advocates were honestly about saving lives, they would be focusing on cars.

cars "cause" far more needless death and destruction then guns.

far more young children (and people in general) are needlessly killed because we have cars then because we have guns,

and let me tell you, up here where you get charged with a federal crime if your gun isnt trigger locked+ in a safe, the illegal guns still flow, our gun deaths have not decreased in any way, shape or form due to these laws,

and the irresponsable/criminal types, STILL DO NOT FOLLOW THEM.

Manchu wrote:
I think what we do have is a bunch of people who have proved that they qualify for driver's license, which is pretty different from proving that they do in fact drive responsibly from day to day or even from year to year.

Yeah, that's what I was going to say.

I'm not sure about your state Co'tor, but in Ohio... you don't really have to prove you know how to drive. To get your driver's license you have to pass a written test to get your permit, and pass a road test. The written test is a 50 question test that you have to get 35 to 38 questions correct. Once you do that, they give you a learner's permit which lets you get behind the wheel as long as there is a licensed driver aged 21 or older sitting next to you. So I don't even know how to operate a vehicle at the point I get my permit (which I can get at 15 yrs 6 months). If I'm under 18 I have to have 24 hours of driver's education courses, which take a week or two, and most courses provide you with 8 hours of in car instruction. If I'm over 18, I can walk to a different line and get ready for my road test. The road test consists of 3 parts. 1) Vehicle inspection by the ODOT officer, 2) Maneuverability test in which you pull foward between a set of cones and then back up without using any of the techniques normal people use (this is to simulate pulling in and out of a garage, it's not even parallel parking anymore). Then you go out onto the road for about 10 minutes and then you pass your test.

I've been given a piece of plastic that says I sufficiently know how to drive and was tested in all of 15 minutes.

 Alfndrate wrote:

Manchu wrote:
I think what we do have is a bunch of people who have proved that they qualify for driver's license, which is pretty different from proving that they do in fact drive responsibly from day to day or even from year to year.

Yeah, that's what I was going to say.

I'm not sure about your state Co'tor, but in Ohio... you don't really have to prove you know how to drive. To get your driver's license you have to pass a written test to get your permit, and pass a road test. The written test is a 50 question test that you have to get 35 to 38 questions correct. Once you do that, they give you a learner's permit which lets you get behind the wheel as long as there is a licensed driver aged 21 or older sitting next to you. So I don't even know how to operate a vehicle at the point I get my permit (which I can get at 15 yrs 6 months). If I'm under 18 I have to have 24 hours of driver's education courses, which take a week or two, and most courses provide you with 8 hours of in car instruction. If I'm over 18, I can walk to a different line and get ready for my road test. The road test consists of 3 parts. 1) Vehicle inspection by the ODOT officer, 2) Maneuverability test in which you pull foward between a set of cones and then back up without using any of the techniques normal people use (this is to simulate pulling in and out of a garage, it's not even parallel parking anymore). Then you go out onto the road for about 10 minutes and then you pass your test.

I've been given a piece of plastic that says I sufficiently know how to drive and was tested in all of 15 minutes.

Well... I think it more than that...

There's no institutional education that teaches "Defensive Driving" and concepts like that. Not sure if it needs to be mandatory, but at least it needs to be available and free.

My parents taught me those things... and I'd like to teach 'em to my kids.

 whembly wrote:
Not sure if it needs to be mandatory, but at least it needs to be available and free.

Why free? Can we also offer free self-defense classes?

 whembly wrote:
Well... I think it more than that...

There's no institutional education that teaches "Defensive Driving" and concepts like that. Not sure if it needs to be mandatory, but at least it needs to be available and free.

My parents taught me those things... and I'd like to teach 'em to my kids.

All of my defensive driving I have learned from my parents who insisted I log 15 hours behind the wheel of a parking lot before they let me onto the street. Once I was deemed okay by them to go onto the street, then it was street time at day for 35 hours, and then 25 to 50 hours at night before I was even allowed to go test for my license (which I didn't get until I was 19 because of that).

 BrassScorpion wrote:
And still nothing is being done due to corrupt political payoff money from the gun manufacturers. Until the 1970s the NRA was an actual gun safety organization, since then they're just a lobby organization paid for by arms makers.

Mass Shooting Epidemic Continues One Year After Newtown
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/12/11/mass-shootings-since-newtown/

Which sounds bad until you compare it to something else, like the number of infant mortality cases that occur in the US.

Interestingly, it's difficult to find any actual hard data within the last several years out of places that don't reflect some sort of obvious agenda (like your link). I found this from 2007, which seems to indicate that firearms are considerably less of a cause of death a lot of other things, such as drowning, traffic accidents, and fire.

On the other hand, you're not contributing, you're just drive-by trolling, so really, all of this has been pointless, but hey, I learned something.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Not sure if it needs to be mandatory, but at least it needs to be available and free.

Why free? Can we also offer free self-defense classes?

Free because EVERYONE shares the road.

You can practice defensive driving all you want, but if there are donkey-caves on the road, you may as well be fethed in some cases. We need more drivers on the road that realizes that we share the road.

Also I believe I saw that about 15,000 children die every day from starvation.

Where's the outrage?!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Not sure if it needs to be mandatory, but at least it needs to be available and free.

Why free? Can we also offer free self-defense classes?

Free because EVERYONE shares the road.

You can practice defensive driving all you want, but if there are donkey-caves on the road, you may as well be fethed in some cases. We need more drivers on the road that realizes that we share the road.

Everyone shares the sidewalk, too! I just want my Kung Fu classes

 whembly wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Not sure if it needs to be mandatory, but at least it needs to be available and free.

Why free? Can we also offer free self-defense classes?

Free because EVERYONE shares the road.

You can practice defensive driving all you want, but if there are donkey-caves on the road, you may as well be fethed in some cases. We need more drivers on the road that realizes that we share the road.

It could never be 'free'. It could be paid for by tax payers. Get a referendum on your county ballot and see what your local folks think of raising their taxes to pay for it.

It sure as gak is not a Federal issue.

 CptJake wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Not sure if it needs to be mandatory, but at least it needs to be available and free.

Why free? Can we also offer free self-defense classes?

Free because EVERYONE shares the road.

You can practice defensive driving all you want, but if there are donkey-caves on the road, you may as well be fethed in some cases. We need more drivers on the road that realizes that we share the road.

It could never be 'free'. It could be paid for by tax payers. Get a referendum on your county ballot and see what your local folks think of raising their taxes to pay for it.

It sure as gak is not a Federal issue.

Of course... I'm down with that...

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Also I believe I saw that about 15,000 children die every day from starvation.

Where's the outrage?!

Sorry, but someone needed to say this: THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Also I believe I saw that about 15,000 children die every day from starvation.

Where's the outrage?!

Obviously anyone who thinks that gun control is the most important thing to be done "for the sake of the children" doesn't care about THOSE children.

I didn't mean to cause such an argument.


Stupidity laws are everywhere, and it should be no different when it comes to guns.

Its a dumb Idea to drive a car with out knowing how, thus drivers lincenses. Its a dumb idea to drink and drive, hence DUI laws. Its a dumb idea to try and raise wild lions with out training, hence lion training permit forms.

But do you have rules saying "it's your right to bear arms train lions"?

 -Shrike- wrote:
But do you have rules saying "it's your right to bear arms train lions"?

This is less in the stopping people from owning cars/guns/lions/penguins and more in the making sure if you own it you know how to properly store and use it.

I still need a penguin permit, as the proper way to "use" a penguin escapes me.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I didn't mean to cause such an argument.


Stupidity laws are everywhere, and it should be no different when it comes to guns.

Its a dumb Idea to drive a car with out knowing how, thus drivers lincenses. Its a dumb idea to drink and drive, hence DUI laws. Its a dumb idea to try and raise wild lions with out training, hence lion training permit forms.

Would you be alright with a law that forced people to keep their car doors locked when not in use?

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I didn't mean to cause such an argument.


Stupidity laws are everywhere, and it should be no different when it comes to guns.

Its a dumb Idea to drive a car with out knowing how, thus drivers lincenses. Its a dumb idea to drink and drive, hence DUI laws. Its a dumb idea to try and raise wild lions with out training, hence lion training permit forms.

Would you be alright with a law that forced people to keep their car doors locked when not in use?

Would you be okay with requiring the exact same registration, licensing, inspection, and insurance requirements for guns as we do for cars?

 Alexzandvar wrote:
Its a dumb Idea to drive a car with out knowing how, thus drivers lincenses.

We've just gone over how that's not really what's up with driver's licenses.

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I didn't mean to cause such an argument.


Stupidity laws are everywhere, and it should be no different when it comes to guns.

Its a dumb Idea to drive a car with out knowing how, thus drivers lincenses. Its a dumb idea to drink and drive, hence DUI laws. Its a dumb idea to try and raise wild lions with out training, hence lion training permit forms.

DUI laws punish an act which has been committed. Leaving a gun accessible to a child is already a crime anyplace in the US I can think of and will get you charged with child endangerment or similar.

So I guess we are good, don't need more laws, just enforce the existing ones.

Still waiting your opinion on what Fed laws you want to prevent the drownings and vehicular accidents that kill way more kids than guns do.

Manchu wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
Its a dumb Idea to drive a car with out knowing how, thus drivers lincenses.

We've just gone over how that's not really what's up with driver's licenses.

Nanny state shouldn't need you to have a drivers license. Why should they tell you how to own and operate a car responsibly.

They should just step in after an accident has happened and punish you accordingly...

 d-usa wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I didn't mean to cause such an argument.


Stupidity laws are everywhere, and it should be no different when it comes to guns.

Its a dumb Idea to drive a car with out knowing how, thus drivers lincenses. Its a dumb idea to drink and drive, hence DUI laws. Its a dumb idea to try and raise wild lions with out training, hence lion training permit forms.

Would you be alright with a law that forced people to keep their car doors locked when not in use?

Would you be okay with requiring the exact same registration, licensing, inspection, and insurance requirements for guns as we do for cars?

Which amendment gives us the right to drive on the road again?

 CptJake wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I didn't mean to cause such an argument.


Stupidity laws are everywhere, and it should be no different when it comes to guns.

Its a dumb Idea to drive a car with out knowing how, thus drivers lincenses. Its a dumb idea to drink and drive, hence DUI laws. Its a dumb idea to try and raise wild lions with out training, hence lion training permit forms.

DUI laws punish an act which has been committed. Leaving a gun accessible to a child is already a crime anyplace in the US I can think of and will get you charged with child endangerment or similar.

So I guess we are good, don't need more laws, just enforce the existing ones.

Still waiting your opinion on what Fed laws you want to prevent the drownings and vehicular accidents that kill way more kids than guns do.

How much government have we created, how much money have we spend, and how many soldiers have died to prevent something that has killed an average of 20 people a month over the last 13 years?

If the number of deaths matter, then we shouldn't be doing anything about terrorism. Since even in September of 2001 more people died from car accidents than from 9/11.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I didn't mean to cause such an argument.


Stupidity laws are everywhere, and it should be no different when it comes to guns.

Its a dumb Idea to drive a car with out knowing how, thus drivers lincenses. Its a dumb idea to drink and drive, hence DUI laws. Its a dumb idea to try and raise wild lions with out training, hence lion training permit forms.

Would you be alright with a law that forced people to keep their car doors locked when not in use?

Would you be okay with requiring the exact same registration, licensing, inspection, and insurance requirements for guns as we do for cars?

Which amendment gives us the right to drive on the road again?

The Rt. 66th Amendment, penned by William Rogers, Hwy

 Alfndrate wrote:

Manchu wrote:
I think what we do have is a bunch of people who have proved that they qualify for driver's license, which is pretty different from proving that they do in fact drive responsibly from day to day or even from year to year.

Yeah, that's what I was going to say.

I'm not sure about your state Co'tor, but in Ohio... you don't really have to prove you know how to drive. To get your driver's license you have to pass a written test to get your permit, and pass a road test. The written test is a 50 question test that you have to get 35 to 38 questions correct. Once you do that, they give you a learner's permit which lets you get behind the wheel as long as there is a licensed driver aged 21 or older sitting next to you. So I don't even know how to operate a vehicle at the point I get my permit (which I can get at 15 yrs 6 months). If I'm under 18 I have to have 24 hours of driver's education courses, which take a week or two, and most courses provide you with 8 hours of in car instruction. If I'm over 18, I can walk to a different line and get ready for my road test. The road test consists of 3 parts. 1) Vehicle inspection by the ODOT officer, 2) Maneuverability test in which you pull foward between a set of cones and then back up without using any of the techniques normal people use (this is to simulate pulling in and out of a garage, it's not even parallel parking anymore). Then you go out onto the road for about 10 minutes and then you pass your test.

I've been given a piece of plastic that says I sufficiently know how to drive and was tested in all of 15 minutes.

Before the Boy went for his test he had to pass my test which included a flurry of scenarios (while he was driving) like identifying all places kids could pop out of when we turned onto a street in 2 seconds, maing him hit is breaks hard and then hitting him with a question when the adrenalin was up, that sort of thing. His driving record to date is better than all other persons in the family combined.