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.

Why do all these reports of stupid people give the the image in my head of Chief Wiggum from the Simpsons?

 Seaward wrote:

"Strawman" really is your favorite word. One of these days, you should discover what it means.

Do you know, in this context, what it means?

 Seaward wrote:

Driver's licenses prevent people who quite simply lack the knowledge of traffic laws, or have physical disabilities that prevent them from driving safely, from driving a vehicle, but they do nothing at all to prevent people who meet basic requirements from making stupid decisions or even stupid mistakes.

Yes, licensing is based on a certain set of criteria.

 dogma wrote:
Yes, licensing is based on a certain set of criteria.

Exactly none of which manage to somehow weed out people who fall victim to mental lapses, which is, come to think of it, everybody.

 dogma wrote:
Do you know, in this context, what it means?

Why would you even ask something like this? It's totally obvious he does.

It means saying something like "since there are plane crashes, we shouldn't require people to have licenses to fly jumbo jets". It does not mean something like "since the DMV hasn't eliminated car accidents, licensing won't work for gun ownership".

Plain as the nose on your face, chum.

 Ahtman wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Clearly we need to regulate Pokemon cards more stringently.

I've always been a advocate of more CCG regulation. Mostly with starting that they may not be in a store when people are trying to play RPG's or Warhammer.

I once gave myself a papercut on a CCG card, so good call


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 dogma wrote:
Do you know, in this context, what it means?

Why would you even ask something like this? It's totally obvious he does.

It means saying something like "since there are plane crashes, we shouldn't require people to have licenses to fly jumbo jets". It does not mean something like "since the DMV hasn't eliminated car accidents, licensing won't work for gun ownership".

Plain as the nose on your face, chum.

Maybe American presidents should also be licensed/made to sit basic economic classes. After all, they always get your country in debt!

Looks like a rare but poignant common sense breakdown.

The gun shows I've been to(in Louisiana) forbid loaded guns. I assume those shows did too, but yeah that's a pretty basic firearm safety rule.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Maybe American presidents should also be licensed/made to sit basic economic classes. After all, they always get your country in debt!

Technically - although it rarely works this way - it's largely Congress that gets the country in debt. In this country, they ultimately control the purse strings and approve spending or, again in theory, cut spending or programs. For example, the current debt ceiling crisis is due to how our budgeting process works - first Congress approves spending bills that total up to X dollars, and then later they approve paying for the X dollars they spent. It's a weird system but it works used to work OK. Attempts to give the president more control over budget matters, such as the line item veto, have been found unconstitutional (and rightly so IMO).

But I digress.

Never mind...

 Ouze wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:
Obviously we dont. But thats like sensible people wanting racists to disappear, its a great idea, but it wont/cant happen.

Respectfully, this isn't the best analogy. For one, racism doesn't (directly) kill people, it's just a mindset. We can't, and shouldn't try, policing ideas. Here's a better way of explaining it, via a silly, easily destroyed strawman - behold:

Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

The kind of licence you don't have in the USA, which prevents gun ownership by idiots who shoot their neighbours through complete lack of proper safety.

Licenses prevent that?

Somebody should tell the DMV.

See, what Seaward doesn't realize in this even worse perfect world fallacy is that's he's sort of assisting the people arguing for licensing, or tighter licensing, depending on venue. He thinks that this poor argument - that the DMV requires licensing, but hasn't eliminated accidents entirely, hence we shouldn't bother - shows the futility of licensing firearms,but it actually illustrates the gulf of differences between licensing a vehicle and a firearm. The DMV actually tries. The DMV already requires you to display some level of proficiency with a vehicle before it gives you a license (some jursidictions also do this with firearms, but many don't - mine doesn't; the only proficiency I need to display to buy a handgun is the ability to write a check for $30 and have a clean criminal record), and the DMV requires ongoing eyesight tests. As you get older, they will generally require retesting with increasing frequency. If you're known to be an unsafe driver, people can report you to the DMV (example) where they can review your proficiency. Acts of negligence will cause you to lose you license, whereas loaded-unsafed-shotgun-in-a-duffel-bag-guy probably doesn't even need a license to get it, let alone have one revoked.

Gun rights advocates should be pressing for these people to be prosecuted for criminal negligence, not defending them.

No I think mine was perfect for my point. His rebuttal with the license did make sense, but we arnt talking about licensing gun owners, we are talking about them being idiots and shooting someone, weather on purpose or accidentally. Racism, is an ignorant act that has cause MUCH violence and death. Also, many firearms are not outwardly meant to cause people harm, where as racism pretty much is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also intelligence tests are biased as well. Just because people can score high on intelligence tests doesnt make them smart. Again, my Uncle Dave is prime example. He is a VERY intelligent man, a state certified diesel mechanic, state certified hydraulics mechanic and can run diagnostic equipment like you or I breathe. The man is still lacking the sense to carry firearms unloaded and do proper safety checks before and after use.

 Seaward wrote:

Exactly none of which manage to somehow weed out people who fall victim to mental lapses, which is, come to think of it, everybody.

They weed out people that are statistically more likely to fall victim to mental lapses.

The gun shows I've been to(in Louisiana) forbid loaded guns. I assume those shows did too, but yeah that's a pretty basic firearm safety rule.

You would think that it would be obvious, but it's one of the biggest causes of accidental shootings.

Well, no one has ever been shot by an unloaded gun, so I'd say it was 100% the cause...

I think you know what I mean. How many cleaning accidents, gun-show incidents, and hunters shooting themselves while climbing up to their tree-stand show up in the news.

Fully half the people in this country that own guns scare the ever-living hell out of me when I think about such buffoons having a deadly (ranged) weapon.

My own cousin brought a fully-loaded Desert Eagle to my Grandmother's 78th birthday party, and was showing it off among the kids and old folks. He had no concept that it was inappropriate - he argued it was perfectly right for him do so because he "had a CCW" and "that's his right under the 2nd amendment".

He is also the cousin that blew a hole in the ceiling with a rifle he was cleaning because it was still loaded after a hunting trip.

Carrying a CCW "condition one" has it's place but I did have to unload and clear my sidearm at the gunshow I was just at last weekend.

I'd give anything if every one learned these following rules, preferably in school. If you follow these rules. You will never have a mishap baring catastrophic mechanical failure.

Colonel Cooper's Four Weapons Safety Rules:
1. Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
2. Never point a weapon at anything you aren't prepared to destroy
3. Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you're prepared to fire.
4. Keep the weapon on safe until you're prepared to fire.

Edit: In idiots having mishaps news I went to the range this weekend to enjoy shooting targets at various ranges. As we get there there's two ambulances and a couple squad cars going in. My buddy used to work at this range and I've been shooting there since I first held a gun. So we're concerned for the staffers we know and go check it out. Turns out a new shooter /somehow/ managed to fillet her hand with the slide of the pistol she was shooting (I seriously have no idea how, when I say that's just shy of impossible I mean it, you have to /really/ be fething up) then shot her friend in the leg as she was spazzing out (just grazed her).

For the record, that was the first major mishap at the range since I've been shooting there, which is roughly a decade.

Only you can prevent idiots.

This sort of accident happens in angling too.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This sort of accident happens in angling too.

Nothing like ending a day of fishing with a trip to the hospital to get a hook removed from someone.

Oh look dumb people did dumb things, color me suprised.

KingCracker wrote:

Responsible gun owners dont have accidents

That's not really true, accidents can happen to anyone; and do.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Why isnt there a basic intelligence test?

Do I really need to list the reasons you in particular shouldn't be calling for a basic intelligence test?

 AustonT wrote:
Oh look dumb people did dumb things, color me suprised.

KingCracker wrote:

Responsible gun owners dont have accidents

That's not really true, accidents can happen to anyone; and do.

I have heard it said that there aren't really accidental discharges, only negligent ones.

 d-usa wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Oh look dumb people did dumb things, color me suprised.

KingCracker wrote:

Responsible gun owners dont have accidents

That's not really true, accidents can happen to anyone; and do.

I have heard it said that there aren't really accidental discharges, only negligent ones.

I've heard a story or two of mechanical failure resulting in accidental firing, but that's about it. Other then those extremely rare occurrences I'd agree with this statement.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Carrying a CCW "condition one" has it's place but I did have to unload and clear my sidearm at the gunshow I was just at last weekend.

I'd give anything if every one learned these following rules, preferably in school. If you follow these rules. You will never have a mishap baring catastrophic mechanical failure.

Colonel Cooper's Four Weapons Safety Rules:
1. Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
2. Never point a weapon at anything you aren't prepared to destroy
3. Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you're prepared to fire.
4. Keep the weapon on safe until you're prepared to fire.


Only you can prevent idiots.

I dont even own guns, And even i know those rules.
I think its like a knife in a kitchen. Treat it right and make sure you dont people people in danger(When walking in a kitchen you have to yell "Knife on the line" so everyone clears you.

 d-usa wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Oh look dumb people did dumb things, color me suprised.

KingCracker wrote:

Responsible gun owners dont have accidents

That's not really true, accidents can happen to anyone; and do.

I have heard it said that there aren't really accidental discharges, only negligent ones.

Remington 700 what?

I have heard it said that there aren't really accidental discharges, only negligent ones.

Absolutely. In my opinion, the only accidental discharge of a gun that can ever happen is when you have a mechanical malfunction.

The problem is that people get too relaxed around them and treat them like toys, not tools made for killing.

 Seaward wrote:
Licensing has done absolutely nothing to prevent stupid people from doing stupid things.

And now you're pretending that licensing never does anything. Pretending that either (a) people with a history of speeding or drunk driving are not more likely to cause serious harm to other motorists, or that (b) making it illegal for these people to continue driving somehow doesn't reduce the amount of time they spend on the road.

And you're making such stupid, stupid arguments all because you've decided to absolutely fight against any suggestion of increased licensing standards for firearms. This is where I was talking about both sides taking up such stupid, extreme positions, looking for a fight instead of looking for a compromise. And in doing so, the most likely result is laws that jerk everyone around and fail to save lives.

So stop being silly. Start thinking, and putting forward sensible arguments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KingCracker wrote:
Also intelligence tests are biased as well. Just because people can score high on intelligence tests doesnt make them smart. Again, my Uncle Dave is prime example. He is a VERY intelligent man, a state certified diesel mechanic, state certified hydraulics mechanic and can run diagnostic equipment like you or I breathe. The man is still lacking the sense to carry firearms unloaded and do proper safety checks before and after use.

That's a good point. In fact, a lot of people who are smart tend to make assumptions about their competence in other areas, over-estimate their abilities in other fields. It's why you get doctors going bankrupt because they thought they could make millions in real estate or stocks. It's why you get scientists criticising fields other than their own, just assuming they're as knowledgable as people who actually work in those fields.

So an IQ test or something similar is really not likely to work. I mean having a high or low IQ really just isn't indicative of a person's ability to remember the basic gun safety rules and (more importantly) follow them at all times. That's a test of responsibility.

Really, the better method is to allow anyone to have a firearm, provided they pass a basic gun safety test. But then you have to be willing to revoke their license if they show they can't follow the rules, by say... bringing a loaded firearm to a gun show and accidentally shooting three people.

 sebster wrote:
And now you're pretending that licensing never does anything.

Licensing does a lot. It does not prevent people from making stupid mistakes.

So stop being silly. Start thinking, and putting forward sensible arguments.

They are sensible. That you don't like them doesn't change this, it just makes you angry. Sorry.

That's a good point. In fact, a lot of people who are smart tend to make assumptions about their competence in other areas, over-estimate their abilities in other fields.

I'm going to magnanimously avoid such an easy target.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:


Edit: In idiots having mishaps news I went to the range this weekend to enjoy shooting targets at various ranges. As we get there there's two ambulances and a couple squad cars going in. My buddy used to work at this range and I've been shooting there since I first held a gun. So we're concerned for the staffers we know and go check it out. Turns out a new shooter /somehow/ managed to fillet her hand with the slide of the pistol she was shooting (I seriously have no idea how, when I say that's just shy of impossible I mean it, you have to /really/ be fething up) then shot her friend in the leg as she was spazzing out (just grazed her).

For the record, that was the first major mishap at the range since I've been shooting there, which is roughly a decade.

Only you can prevent idiots.

My guess she was holding it movie style where for some reason they put one of their hands over the back of the slide, normally the fleshy part in between thumb and forefinger. Can't stop idiots.
Maybe we need an idiots license.

I saw a young woman cut her hand with the slide that way once. She was a novice shooter and adjusted her grip too high, and the person with her spotted it too late before she squeezed off a round. Made two nice gashes in her hand.

Thankfully she had better control and sense than to lose control of the weapon in her pain.

I don't think it'd be necessarily a bad thing for gun owners to have to have mandatory training in safe gun handling.
I'm not against gun ownership, but being born in the US does not automatically instil firearms skills no matter what some people think.
If you want to have one, fine, you should be allowed to.
However.
You should be trained in its safe use.

 Seaward wrote:
Licensing does a lot. It does not prevent people from making stupid mistakes.

Of course it does. Because it provides a direct, obvious penalty for people who make such stupid mistakes.

Drink driving was, obviously, always a stupid mistake. But it was only with legislation reforms and strong enforcement that threatened to take away the licenses of people who drove drunk that instances of drink driving decreased.

And what I've just typed is staggeringly fething obvious. And basically impossible to counter. And here you were saying licensing doesn't stop people making stupid mistakes. Because you're just saying whatever comes to your head to oppose any kind of reform of gun licensing. It's about half a step up from stimulus and response to be honest, and I'm sure you're capable of better.

If you break the law you might (temporarily or permanently) lose your right to liberty. Everyone's fine with that. If you break the law there's even places in the US where you might lose your right to life, and lots of people are OK with that. If you feth up while driving a car you might lose your driving license. Everyone's OK with that.

So why on EARTH are guns sacrosanct? Sure, it's in the Second Amendment; the right to liberty and life is in the Declaration of Independence, and yet people can be sensible about it. Why should anyone, after proving they don't have a grasp of basic gun safety, get to go home and keep posing a risk to his or her surroundings without any kind of punishment?

 sebster wrote:
Of course it does. Because it provides a direct, obvious penalty for people who make such stupid mistakes.

Drink driving was, obviously, always a stupid mistake. But it was only with legislation reforms and strong enforcement that threatened to take away the licenses of people who drove drunk that instances of drink driving decreased.

Well, sure, if we want to reduce the entire comparison down to drunk driving versus negligent discharge, you might actually have a point, for once.

Of course, that's a balls-out stupid comparison, because most NDs are more akin to running a stop sign without ever seeing it than getting hammered and driving.

And what I've just typed is staggeringly fething obvious. And basically impossible to counter. And here you were saying licensing doesn't stop people making stupid mistakes. Because you're just saying whatever comes to your head to oppose any kind of reform of gun licensing. It's about half a step up from stimulus and response to be honest, and I'm sure you're capable of better.

Nah, I'm saying it because it's true. Licensing (may) penalize you for mental lapses - I've certainly never had my driving license revoked despite three reckless driving court appearances, which in Virginia is automatic if you're above 20 over the speed limit - but it doesn't magically prevent you from failing to see the light or missing the No U-Turns sign or falling asleep at the wheel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If you break the law you might (temporarily or permanently) lose your right to liberty. Everyone's fine with that. If you break the law there's even places in the US where you might lose your right to life, and lots of people are OK with that. If you feth up while driving a car you might lose your driving license. Everyone's OK with that.

So why on EARTH are guns sacrosanct? Sure, it's in the Second Amendment; the right to liberty and life is in the Declaration of Independence, and yet people can be sensible about it. Why should anyone, after proving they don't have a grasp of basic gun safety, get to go home and keep posing a risk to his or her surroundings without any kind of punishment?

I'm not certain what you're complaining about. Break the law - commit a felony or violent misdemeanor - lose your right to own a firearm. That's currently how it works, and seems to be what you're advocating, unless I'm missing something.