"Well Regulated Militia"

[*Nately120*]

(08-06-2019, 01:33 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I would never discredit his work in fighting diabeetus. Why do you think that it's off the list and diabetes is on the list now? He survived it.

I actually think the guy was double-dipping.  He shills Quaker Oates which is loaded with sugar and (especially the varieties he insisted the kids should eat) and then shills for insulin companies.  Not since his acting in THE THING have I seen such a villainous Brimley!

[Belsnickel]

(08-06-2019, 01:22 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: In 2017....


~14,500 gun homicides.
~37,000 car accident deaths.
~47,000 suicide deaths.
~55,600 influenza & pneumonia deaths.
~83,500 diabetes deaths.

But which do you think got the most attention and coverage? The fear has been formented. Even though once you take gang-on-gang violence out of the gun homicides it becomes even lower.

Meanwhile we all still drive cars (most of the time 1 person to a car to clog the roads), we don't have any expanded efforts to curb suicides, we don't make flu shots mandatory, and SNAP cards can still be used to buy soda and candy.

People have been flooded by coverage and told how they need to be scared, so they are. Just look at sharks... the US averages ~1 death by shark attack a year. How many people are scared of it, though?

We have tons of government regulations and industry standards to try to make driving safer. We can't really force someone to get immunized, that would raise all sorts of constitutional issues. You may still be able to buy soda and candy on SNAP, but the amount of money poured into efforts to prevent diabetes and heart disease by our government is sizable, including incentives related to SNAP to make their dollar stretch further for healthy foods. There are also a lot of efforts from the government to decrease suicides overall (anti-bullying campaigns can even be included in that given that the result of bullying can often be depression and potential suicidal tendencies).

What aren't we putting money into? Gun violence. Of those ~47k suicides, half were carried out by firearm, so we have to add that to the homicides number and would actually put it over the vehicular deaths. But we don't know what will work as far as policies go because we haven't been funding that research or really anything firearm related. The NRA has been shirking what it did for a long time in favor of right-wing extremist fear mongering (I know they still do some firearm safety stuff, but it's not what they are known for anymore). So maybe we ought to just spend a little something on trying to prevent gun violence.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(08-06-2019, 01:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: We can't really force someone to get immunized, that would raise all sorts of constitutional issues.

Funniest un-ironic answer in a thread about 2nd Amendment rights.

[Belsnickel]

(08-06-2019, 02:32 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Funniest un-ironic answer in a thread about 2nd Amendment rights.

There are options to help curb gun violence that would not infringe upon constitutional rights. I mentioned one in this thread. But whatevs.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(08-06-2019, 02:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There are options to help curb gun violence that would not infringe upon constitutional rights. I mentioned one in this thread. But whatevs.

It was less about you and more about the general opinion I saw in some of the other threads. Like banning everything other than revolvers, pump action, and bolt action weapons, or 1 gun per house. There were mentions of New Zealand's response the other day, and then I saw an article just today about California's mandatory background checks for buying ammunition.... then I saw your bit about how requiring vaccines would raise constitutional issues and chuckled.

All these restrictions and attempts to limit/remove 2A or make it more of a financial burden in order to use your rights, but requiring voter ID is racist and too much of a financial demand. 

Sure guns can be used to kill people, but it was votes that gave Donald Trump the keys to America's nuclear arsenal.  

[GMDino]

Can you (universal) imagine how many MORE vehicular deaths we would have in the country if we treated it like gun violence and said there's nothing we can do?  Or death from illnesses.  Or suicides.  Or any of the other red herrings presented to say (in so many words) "shootings aren't THAT bad because there are fewer of them than some OTHER way to die".

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(08-06-2019, 03:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: Can you (universal) imagine how many MORE vehicular deaths we would have in the country if we treated it like gun violence and said there's nothing we can do?  Or death from illnesses.  Or suicides.  Or any of the other red herrings presented to say (in so many words) "shootings aren't THAT bad because there are fewer of them than some OTHER way to die".

Except we do treat it like gun violence, or worse.

Literally just getting something like 30 out of 40 simple questions right, passing an easy eye test, and paying $24-ish dollars gets a 15.6-year-old with ZERO experience driving a temporary license to drive around 70 miles per hour in a 4,000lb death machine as long as they have someone 18+ in the passenger seat. It takes maybe 1 hour to get depending on how slow or crowded your BMV is.

Then 16-year-olds with cellphones are given full rights to drive around the 4,000lb death machine at 70mph with no supervision as long as they can drive around a small neighborhood without ignoring stop signs and maneuver between 4 cones.

The gun equivalent of that would be something like a 15.6-year-old being able to answer some gun safety questions (and not get TOO many of them wrong) to buy a gun, and a 16-year-old showing they know which way to point the barrel and perform a reload without pointing the barrel at yourself before getting a concealed carry permit.

A vehicle proven to be capable of killing 86 and injuring 458 in a single attack.

You can get a student pilot license at 16 to fly solo, and don't even need a student pilot license in order to receive flying lessons.

It's just a threat that we have all deemed is acceptable and okay... Not even getting into driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs and how many people with multiple DUIs still have licenses and are driving around.


- - - - - - -

Heck, in Ohio you can't even be pulled over for texting and driving, and if they pull you over for another reason and you were also texting and driving, it is just a $150 fine. If you are literally visible to police doing something that can endanger everyone's lives around you, they still can't pull you over unless you do something else wrong.

[*bfine32*]

(08-06-2019, 03:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: Can you (universal) imagine how many MORE vehicular deaths we would have in the country if we treated it like gun violence and said there's nothing we can do?  Or death from illnesses.  Or suicides.  Or any of the other red herrings presented to say (in so many words) "shootings aren't THAT bad because there are fewer of them than some OTHER way to die".

Why are citizens allowed to purchase High performance vehicles? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Here's a problem that's never really addressed.  Freedom isn't safe.  Cars could be regulated to only go the speed limit (don't laugh they're actually doing this in the EU), but we give our citizens the freedom to drive faster.  Lowering the highway speed limit to 40 MPH would save thousands of lives, if not tens of thousands, but we want the freedom to go faster.  Organized crime and street gangs could be eradicated in less than a month if you suspended 4th amendment rights during that time frame.  We prefer that criminals get these protections so we have them too, we exchange our safety for freedom.  We could force people to take classes before they have children, that would make us safer.  We could impose government mandated dietary restrictions, that would make us safer.  We could make alcohol and other drugs illegal, that would, ostensibly, make us safer.


The dirty little secret is that having no guns in private hands would make us, at least somewhat, safer, in most circumstances.  It would also prevent older people from having any chance against defending themselves from a younger home intruder or attacker.  It would affect women in similar ways.

Freedom isn't safe, ultimate safety would come with an utter lack of freedom.  I get that some people are willing to trade freedom for safety, I am not.  Also, I take a very dim view of others trying to restrict my freedom because of the actions of criminals.

[GMDino]

(08-06-2019, 05:28 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Except we do treat it like gun violence, or worse.

Literally just getting something like 30 out of 40 simple questions right, passing an easy eye test, and paying $24-ish dollars gets a 15.6-year-old with ZERO experience driving a temporary license to drive around 70 miles per hour in a 4,000lb death machine as long as they have someone 18+ in the passenger seat. It takes maybe 1 hour to get depending on how slow or crowded your BMV is.

Then 16-year-olds with cellphones are given full rights to drive around the 4,000lb death machine at 70mph with no supervision as long as they can drive around a small neighborhood without ignoring stop signs and maneuver between 4 cones.

The gun equivalent of that would be something like a 15.6-year-old being able to answer some gun safety questions (and not get TOO many of them wrong) to buy a gun, and a 16-year-old showing they know which way to point the barrel and perform a reload without pointing the barrel at yourself before getting a concealed carry permit.

A vehicle proven to be capable of killing 86 and injuring 458 in a single attack.

You can get a student pilot license at 16 to fly solo, and don't even need a student pilot license in order to receive flying lessons.

It's just a threat that we have all deemed is acceptable and okay... Not even getting into driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs and how many people with multiple DUIs still have licenses and are driving around.


- - - - - - -

Heck, in Ohio you can't even be pulled over for texting and driving, and if they pull you over for another reason and you were also texting and driving, it is just a $150 fine. If you are literally visible to police doing something that can endanger everyone's lives around you, they still can't pull you over unless you do something else wrong.

If the 16 year old is driving without a licensed adult training them they are breaking the law that requires them to be trained before they can drive on their own.

And if he's doing 70 he's probably breaking another law designed for safety.

And we improve the vehicles to be safer in case we run into someone breaking the law by driving recklessly or in case of an accident.

As to the texting, that's more like how Chicago has very stringent gun laws...and someone goes to Indiana and gets one easy and brings it back.  If we approached the problem as a national one maybe we could lessen the incidents.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(08-06-2019, 10:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: If the 16 year old is driving without a licensed adult training them they are breaking the law that requires them to be trained before they can drive on their own.

And if he's doing 70 he's probably breaking another law designed for safety.

And we improve the vehicles to be safer in case we run into someone breaking the law by driving recklessly or in case of an accident.

As to the texting, that's more like how Chicago has very stringent gun laws...and someone goes to Indiana and gets one easy and brings it back.  If we approached the problem as a national one maybe we could lessen the incidents.

If you pass the driving test (just a real short drive through an area and then a cone maneuvering test) then you are done with your temp license and you're a fully qualified solo driver, which can be done at 16. 

Rural Freeways and Interstates in Ohio have a speed limit of 70.

We improved the guns to be safer. Most have safeties, that wasn't always a thing.

As to the texting, I don't really see the Chicago/Indiana connection as people in New Mexico aren't driving over to Texas or Arizona where there are no state-wide bans in order to fulfill their needs of texting and driving.

[GMDino]

(08-06-2019, 11:28 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: If you pass the driving test (just a real short drive through an area and then a cone maneuvering test) then you are done with your temp license and you're a fully qualified solo driver, which can be done at 16. 

Rural Freeways and Interstates in Ohio have a speed limit of 70.

We improved the guns to be safer. Most have safeties, that wasn't always a thing.

As to the texting, I don't really see the Chicago/Indiana connection as people in New Mexico aren't driving over to Texas or Arizona where there are no state-wide bans in order to fulfill their needs of texting and driving.

You are still ignoring all the step that are required to get the license.  In PA you have to wait a minimum of six month plus have proof of the number of practice hours.  Even if you pass the test (administered by the state police) there are restrictions on a driver until the age of 18.

So maybe PA drivers are better, safer than OH drivers which is my point about Chicago and Indiana.  However people are buying guns where they can to take them where they can't.

Citing examples of people breaking the law (DUI, speeding) has nothing to do with the steps we have taken to prepare people to drive.  You can lose your license and not be legally allowed to drive a car anymore.  If you are caught even behind the wheel breaking no other laws you face fines and other punishments.

We have recalls, consumer testing, heck look all the way back at "Unsafe at any speed".  Without vigilance and identifying problems driving would not even be as safe as it is today.

My point remains the same: Over the decades we have worked to improve driving safety as more and more cars are on the road.  Any proposal to do the same with guns is met with "you can't" and that's the end of the argument.  Not that some things haven't been done, but it is obvious we need to do more to limit these kinds of incidents.  And we could but the powers that be do not want to.

[hollodero]

(08-06-2019, 05:28 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: The gun equivalent of that would be something like a 15.6-year-old being able to answer some gun safety questions (and not get TOO many of them wrong) to buy a gun, and a 16-year-old showing they know which way to point the barrel and perform a reload without pointing the barrel at yourself before getting a concealed carry permit.

Wouldn't that be already an improvement though? In general, not so much for the 16-year-olds.

Also, just out of curiosity, is there no exam for achieving a driver's licence in the US?

(08-06-2019, 07:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's a problem that's never really addressed.  Freedom isn't safe.  Cars could be regulated to only go the speed limit (don't laugh they're actually doing this in the EU), but we give our citizens the freedom to drive faster.

Do you have any source for that'? Because I'm sure there are applications for that, bit it doesn't seem to be spreading too far and I did not yet hear of an European country making such devices mandatory or thinking about it.

Btw. German highways in general know no speed limits at all. Now that is freedom (with a trade off in deaths).

[*michaelsean*]

(08-07-2019, 09:54 AM)hollodero Wrote: Wouldn't that be already an improvement though? In general, not so much for the 16-year-olds.

Also, just out of curiosity, is there no exam for achieving a driver's licence in the US?



Do you have any source for that'? Because I'm sure there are applications for that, bit it doesn't seem to be spreading too far and I did not yet hear of an European country making such devices mandatory or thinking about it.

Btw. German highways in general know no speed limits at all. Now that is freedom (with a trade off in deaths).

This was his allusion to the test.  Pretty accurate.

Quote:Then 16-year-olds with cellphones are given full rights to drive around the 4,000lb death machine at 70mph with no supervision as long as they can drive around a small neighborhood without ignoring stop signs and maneuver between 4 cones.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-07-2019, 09:54 AM)hollodero Wrote: Do you have any source for that'? Because I'm sure there are applications for that, bit it doesn't seem to be spreading too far and I did not yet hear of an European country making such devices mandatory or thinking about it.

Btw. German highways in general know no speed limits at all. Now that is freedom (with a trade off in deaths).

I sure do.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49090755

The European Union is planning to make speed limiters compulsory on all new cars from 2022 and the UK is set to follow suit even after Brexit. But is the technology reliable enough yet?

[Belsnickel]

(08-07-2019, 09:56 AM)michaelsean Wrote: This was his allusion to the test.  Pretty accurate.

Yeah, not around here.

Quote:If you are a Virginia resident under age 18, you must hold your Virginia learner's permit for at least nine months and complete a Virginia state-approved driver education program.
Your parent, guardian, or foster parent must provide his or her driver's license or state-issued identification card number and sign the driver education completion certificate. By signing the certificate, they attest to your academic standing and certify that you have driven at least 45 hours (15 of which occurred after sunset) and that the statements made and the information submitted on the certificate are true and correct. Certifying false statements can result in prosecution.

Quote:The program must present 36 classroom periods, including components about alcohol safety, drug abuse awareness, aggressive driving, distracted driving, pedestrian and bicycle safety, handicapped parking, fuel-efficient driving practices, motorcycle awareness, and organ and tissue donation awareness. The program must also include 14 in-car instruction periods - 7 periods of driving and 7 periods of observation, including the final road skills examination.

https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/drivers/#ed_reqs.asp

And here is the road skills checklist for the test: https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/webdoc/pdf/csma19.pdf

[*michaelsean*]

(08-07-2019, 10:03 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, not around here.



https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/drivers/#ed_reqs.asp

And here is the road skills checklist for the test: https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/webdoc/pdf/csma19.pdf

No they have to do that, but the test consists of mainly what LL said.  

[Belsnickel]

(08-07-2019, 10:06 AM)michaelsean Wrote: No they have to do that, but the test consists of mainly what LL said.  

Not from what I went through, or what I have seen recently. A road test around here takes about an hour.

[GMDino]

(08-07-2019, 10:08 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not from what I went through, or what I have seen recently. A road test around here takes about an hour.

VA seems even more strict than PA.

35 years ago I had to wait almost a year to get my license because I didn't go to the public school so I couldn't take the drivers ed course until the following summer after my 16th birthday.  It wasn't required but it helped with insurance discounts so my parents made me wait.

Other than that two weeks of driving with the instructor my practice was driving back and forth from work with my dad and taking my mom to the store every chance I got.

We did a cone/driving course test with a state trooper and that was it.

EDIT: Technically, back then, you could get your permit and then go take your driving test the next day.

My son just got his a couple months ago. It was the aforementioned minimum six months wait, proof of hours driven (so many at night, so many in inclement weather) then an actual road test that followed parallel parking at the DMV.  If you failed the parking part you didn't even get to take the road test.

[hollodero]

(08-07-2019, 09:58 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I sure do.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49090755

The European Union is planning to make speed limiters compulsory on all new cars from 2022 and the UK is set to follow suit even after Brexit. But is the technology reliable enough yet?

Well, as far as I can see I still have the freedom to switch it off. I might read it wrong, but this rather is about making the implementation of that technology compulsory, not so much using it.