NBC review of child gun deaths

[billvon 2,400]

>Excuse my trimming there, but I don't see a compelling reason these should be
>mandatory. Lights, horns and brakes are for the safety of others as much as
>anything.

I agree, actually. There's a good societal argument for lights/horns/brakes and only a personal argument for seatbelts, one better made by the person driving.

[billvon 2,400]

>nd no bill I don't think he would allow nukes for self defense either . . .

So "ban some things but not others." Sounds like a much more sensible position.

[futuredivot 0]

normiss

Sadly sobering
I think we owe it to our future generations to improve on this issue.

Agreed. I had firearm safety training when I was in elementary school. It should be offered as part of the curriculum. I'd be willing to pay a little extra tax on ammo to fund it.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[turtlespeed 212]

futuredivot

***Sadly sobering
I think we owe it to our future generations to improve on this issue.

Agreed. I had firearm safety training when I was in elementary school. It should be offered as part of the curriculum. I'd be willing to pay a little extra tax on ammo to fund it.

But you can't do that if there is no ammo to buy, after guns are banned there is no reason anyway.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Agreed. I had firearm safety training when I was in elementary school. It should be offered as part of the curriculum.

While such training could be useful, what part of the current curriculum would you suggest dropping to make room for firearm safety? Math? Science? Language arts? Most elementary schools (at least here in Georgia) have done away with recess, and lunch is generally only 1/2 hour, to make time for all the required material to survive all the standardized tests.

Anyway, it's usually the dumbass adults who need the training about not leaving guns where young children can pick them up. However Georgia, at least, requires 0 training, absolutely nothing, before issuing a concealed carry permit. No requirement to demonstrate you can hit a barn door, no checking to make sure you have a clue about the legal aspects of using a firearm, no gun safety training, nothing. The same is true, of course, for any gun purchases, private or through a dealer. It seems a bit odd to expect a 6-year-old to take responsibility for gun safety, but give the adults in the home a free pass.

Back 1,000 years ago when I took driver's ed, we had to watch videos of dismembered bodies, or people who had their faces scraped off as they went through a windshield. Gruesome, but it sure made the point that driving a car was not a trivial matter, there are serious consequences if you mess up. Perhaps purchasing a firearm could be accompanied by having to watch a video that shows what can happen when that firearm is misused, or stored where kids can find it. However I'm sure the NRA would never allow that.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[kawisixer01 0]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

Agreed. I had firearm safety training when I was in elementary school. It should be offered as part of the curriculum.

While such training could be useful, what part of the current curriculum would you suggest dropping to make room for firearm safety? Math? Science? Language arts? Most elementary schools (at least here in Georgia) have done away with recess, and lunch is generally only 1/2 hour, to make time for all the required material to survive all the standardized tests.

Anyway, it's usually the dumbass adults who need the training about not leaving guns where young children can pick them up. However Georgia, at least, requires 0 training, absolutely nothing, before issuing a concealed carry permit. No requirement to demonstrate you can hit a barn door, no checking to make sure you have a clue about the legal aspects of using a firearm, no gun safety training, nothing. The same is true, of course, for any gun purchases, private or through a dealer. It seems a bit odd to expect a 6-year-old to take responsibility for gun safety, but give the adults in the home a free pass.

Back 1,000 years ago when I took driver's ed, we had to watch videos of dismembered bodies, or people who had their faces scraped off as they went through a windshield. Gruesome, but it sure made the point that driving a car was not a trivial matter, there are serious consequences if you mess up. Perhaps purchasing a firearm could be accompanied by having to watch a video that shows what can happen when that firearm is misused, or stored where kids can find it. However I'm sure the NRA would never allow that.

Don

Oh I dunno, maybe in health class, where they talk about all the other social and personal health issues. Or perhaps physical education class, where it used to be. In my schools we had archery in physical education. In my father and grandfather's classes they had marksmenship. In my father's high school what is now a wrestling practice area was once a firing range that was open to rental for shooting in the evening to the general public.
Funny how everyone wants to bash the NRA, yet the NRA has spent, and spends millions of dollars a year developing, producing, and giving firearms safety training material for both minors and adults.

[kawisixer01 0]

BTW where is the outrage for what appears to be a much larger cause of child death, one that has continued to steadily rise and is completely controllable....poisoning.
https://www.preventinjury.org/PDF/2013-Poisoning

[cvfd1399 0]

How does the NRA stop gun laws? Do they have lawyers that make sure legal rights are not infringed? Do they hire lobbyists that scare politicians into not backing bills?

I kind of like like someone watching out for our rights, and would rather us have politicians that would grow spines and not cave to a threat of not being elected next time just because a lobbyist told them they would campaign against them if they did not vote the way the NRA wanted. Assuming that is what is going on.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

GeorgiaDon

...Perhaps purchasing a firearm could be accompanied by having to watch a video that shows what can happen when that firearm is misused, or stored where kids can find it. However I'm sure the NRA would never allow that.

Don

The NRA is very strongly in favor of proper education. Just about every firearms instructor is "NRA certified." The NRA is the group that came up with the "Eddie Eagle" educational curriculum to promote safety for kids.

BUT...

Just like tests for prospective voters, those "educational requirements" can be rigged to deny people their rights.

One of the better examples was Chicago after the MacDonald decision came down. They proposed a training requirement for anyone who wanted a pistol permit. Classroom and range training. Sounds good so far.

But they also wanted to ban all shooting ranges in the city.

That's pretty simple. Enact a training requirement and then enact rules so that no one can meet it.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Oh I dunno, maybe in health class, where they talk about all the other social and personal health issues.

Perhaps. Of course that would require ejecting something else from the curriculum, unless they happen to have a couple of weeks open that they were wondering how they would fill in the middle of the semester.

Quote

Or perhaps physical education class, where it used to be. In my schools we had archery in physical education. In my father and grandfather's classes they had marksmenship.

I wouldn't object to that. However these days I shudder to think of the potential legal liability associated with putting kids together with live ammunition. One accident would bankrupt your school district. I imagine your father/grandfather were in school back before people started regarding every accident like winning the lottery. When I was a kid, every swimming pool had a diving board, and that's a rarity these days.

Quote

Funny how everyone wants to bash the NRA, yet the NRA has spent, and spends millions of dollars a year developing, producing, and giving firearms safety training material for both minors and adults.

I am aware that they do this. Do you think they would support any form of mandatory safety training?

Quote

BTW where is the outrage for what appears to be a much larger cause of child death, one that has continued to steadily rise and is completely controllable....poisoning.

I'm fairly confident that in real life you are capable of dealing with more than just one thing.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

That's pretty simple. Enact a training requirement and then enact rules so that no one can meet it.

That would be an obvious problem, not to mention unconstitutional. I suppose one alternative would be to have no training requirements at all. Are those the only options? Are there no examples of jurisdictions that require some training, and also make that training easy to access?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[GeorgiaDon 340]

cvfd1399

How does the NRA stop gun laws? Do they have lawyers that make sure legal rights are not infringed? Do they hire lobbyists that scare politicians into not backing bills?

I kind of like like someone watching out for our rights, and would rather us have politicians that would grow spines and not cave to a threat of not being elected next time just because a lobbyist told them they would campaign against them if they did not vote the way the NRA wanted. Assuming that is what is going on.

You're making a joke, right?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

That's pretty simple. Enact a training requirement and then enact rules so that no one can meet it.

That would be an obvious problem, not to mention unconstitutional. I suppose one alternative would be to have no training requirements at all. Are those the only options? Are there no examples of jurisdictions that require some training, and also make that training easy to access?

Don

Of course it's unconstitutional. The NRA had to sue to get it rescinded. The city of Chicago did a lot of those sorts of "legal requirements" trying to prevent gun ownership. They got sued a bunch of times in the process.

I'm unaware of any place that has training requirements to own a gun. Maybe some places like NYC that have "pistol permit" requirements to possess them.

I wouldn't be opposed, in theory, to having training requirements. Just like I'm not opposed to knowledge tests applied to prospective voters (again, in theory).
But the voter tests have been tossed because they were too easily abused and used to disenfranchise particular groups of people.
Unless it can be shown that any "training requirement" to own a gun can be safeguarded against that sort of abuse, then I'd be opposed to it in practice.

Lots of states have training requirements to obtain a carry permit. Those vary. Most places have classes available pretty readily.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[cvfd1399 0]

GeorgiaDon

***How does the NRA stop gun laws? Do they have lawyers that make sure legal rights are not infringed? Do they hire lobbyists that scare politicians into not backing bills?

I kind of like like someone watching out for our rights, and would rather us have politicians that would grow spines and not cave to a threat of not being elected next time just because a lobbyist told them they would campaign against them if they did not vote the way the NRA wanted. Assuming that is what is going on.

You're making a joke, right?

Don

Ok forget the last post, explain how they would do this then.

Quote

Perhaps purchasing a firearm could be accompanied by having to watch a video that shows what can happen when that firearm is misused, or stored where kids can find it. However I'm sure the NRA would never allow that.

[futuredivot 0]

Blow out some of the useless standardized testing and that and the associated test prep (which isn't teaching) would free up time to get back some of the missing arts, PE, and the type. Heck, we're going to have to do something to fill the school day-the best teachers are dumping the career as fast as they can.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[cvfd1399 0]

You could do it in PE. Not because I hate Physical Education, but in all of high school if you were not on a sports team during PE you just sat on the bleachers and talked for an hour and did nothing. If thats the way its gonna be at least bore them with a powerpoint.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

wolfriverjoe

***>We need detailed unbiased information . . .

And yet the NRA continues to oppose CDC research into gun deaths. It's almost as if they don't want that detailed unbiased information available to the general public.

When the head of CDC sits on the board of directors of one of the largest anti-gun organizations, and says publicly that the research will be used to prove the need to control guns, then I'd be inclined to call that sort of 'research' "biased."

And so it should be banned?

When you don't agree with someone, they should be silenced?

Seems counter to what America always claims to stand for.

[kallend 1,623]

wolfriverjoe

***

Quote

That's pretty simple. Enact a training requirement and then enact rules so that no one can meet it.

That would be an obvious problem, not to mention unconstitutional. I suppose one alternative would be to have no training requirements at all. Are those the only options? Are there no examples of jurisdictions that require some training, and also make that training easy to access?

Don

Of course it's unconstitutional. The NRA had to sue to get it rescinded. The city of Chicago did a lot of those sorts of "legal requirements" trying to prevent gun ownership. They got sued a bunch of times in the process.

I'm unaware of any place that has training requirements to own a gun. Maybe some places like NYC that have "pistol permit" requirements to possess them.

I wouldn't be opposed, in theory, to having training requirements. Just like I'm not opposed to knowledge tests applied to prospective voters (again, in theory).
But the voter tests have been tossed because they were too easily abused and used to disenfranchise particular groups of people.
Unless it can be shown that any "training requirement" to own a gun can be safeguarded against that sort of abuse, then I'd be opposed to it in practice.

Lots of states have training requirements to obtain a carry permit. Those vary. Most places have classes available pretty readily.

The Congress managed to come up with a scheme that works for operating R/C model aircraft. It sets nationwide standards while keeping government out of the process (Section 336 of Public Law 112-95). The operation has to be done in accordance with the programming of a "nationwide community based organization" (CBO). In the case of gun safety NRA's program would fit the description of a CBO.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 212]

SkyDekker

******>We need detailed unbiased information . . .

And yet the NRA continues to oppose CDC research into gun deaths. It's almost as if they don't want that detailed unbiased information available to the general public.

When the head of CDC sits on the board of directors of one of the largest anti-gun organizations, and says publicly that the research will be used to prove the need to control guns, then I'd be inclined to call that sort of 'research' "biased."

And so it should be banned?

When you don't agree with someone, they should be silenced?

Seems counter to what America always claims to stand for.

So you really don't see an issue with having a predisposed outcome, and then using public monies and taxes to pay for the research to prove your predisposition?

That's telling.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

So you really don't see an issue with having a predisposed outcome, and then using public monies and taxes to pay for the research to prove your predisposition?

Let them do the research first, peer review it and go from there.

You are in favour of banning something because of what might happen. Like banning a gun, because it might be used for something nefarious.

[turtlespeed 212]

SkyDekker

Quote

So you really don't see an issue with having a predisposed outcome, and then using public monies and taxes to pay for the research to prove your predisposition?

Let them do the research first, peer review it and go from there.

You are in favour of banning something because of what might happen. Like banning a gun, because it might be used for something nefarious.

If I said to the world, I am going to conduct research that will ultimately prove that smoking is not bad for you, or even that guns do not need to be further controlled, Would you say the same?

If you look for an outcome, you can find a way to prove it.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[normiss 622]

I would simply challenge you for said proof.
Your example is impossible.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

turtlespeed

***

Quote

So you really don't see an issue with having a predisposed outcome, and then using public monies and taxes to pay for the research to prove your predisposition?

Let them do the research first, peer review it and go from there.

You are in favour of banning something because of what might happen. Like banning a gun, because it might be used for something nefarious.

If I said to the world, I am going to conduct research that will ultimately prove that smoking is not bad for you, or even that guns do not need to be further controlled, Would you say the same?

If you look for an outcome, you can find a way to prove it.

No you can't. Not in a peer review study.

And yes I would feel the same the other way around. Let the research take place, let it be peer reviewed and go from there.

(Never mind that in this case the person making the comments is likely not the same one doing the research)

[billvon 2,400]

>If I said to the world, I am going to conduct research that will ultimately prove
>that smoking is not bad for you, or even that guns do not need to be further
>controlled, Would you say the same?

Nope. That would indicate you had already made up your mind. However, if you said that you were going to conduct research to determine what degree of risk smoking poses to you, or what degree of risk gun ownership poses to people in the US, then I'd support you in that.

[turtlespeed 212]

billvon

>If I said to the world, I am going to conduct research that will ultimately prove
>that smoking is not bad for you, or even that guns do not need to be further
>controlled, Would you say the same?

Nope. That would indicate you had already made up your mind. However, if you said that you were going to conduct research to determine what degree of risk smoking poses to you, or what degree of risk gun ownership poses to people in the US, then I'd support you in that.

So then by him saying is is going to use the research to prove that we need more gun control, then you agree he has a conclusion he is trying to meet.

He's not saying he will be unbiased

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun