|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
21st January 2013, 01:07 PM | #41 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
[derail]Raising the driving age won't really lower the number of accidents. Most accidents are caused by two groups, new inexperienced drivers, and the elderly. Raising the age of driving won't do a thing to the elderly stats, and all it will do to the inexperienced drivers is increase their age of being an inexperienced driver from 16 to 18.
Better measures are to try and remove the secondary factors. Alcohol, speed, distractions in the way of passangers and cellphones, and fatigue. These can be done by education, setting a zero alcohol limit, reducing speed limits for new drivers, not allowing passangers for new drivers, banning cellphones while driving, and setting cerfews for new drivers. Then enforcing them hard.[/derail] |
__________________
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) |
|
21st January 2013, 01:36 PM | #42 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,894
|
|
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
21st January 2013, 01:39 PM | #43 |
Proud NWO Gatekeeper
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,994
|
|
__________________
If I now say "dominoes", you won't think "pizza". Will you? - FireGarden on the Middle East |
|
21st January 2013, 01:50 PM | #44 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,626
|
While that may be true, especially for older drivers, it is also true that two years of extra development time between the ages of 16 and 18 has a huge impact on teenager's developing brain. 18 year-olds are typically more responsible than 16 year-olds in just about everything.
As for older drivers, again, like everyone else, there needs to be stricter rules. Maybe they should get their eyes checked every year once they run 65? Maybe they should immediately have their license stripped at any signs of developing alzheimer's or dementia? I have experience with this issue with my grandfather. His doctor had a hell of a time convincing the PA DMV that he has no business operating a vehicle after he was diagnosed. With such an evaluation from a doctor, there shouldn't be any sort of fight.
Quote:
Quote:
Unfortunately, the NRA kind of brought this down on themselves when they lobbied for a virtually powerless ATF and law-enforcement when the Patriot Act was being written back in 2006. Now that same NRA group insists that there are "over 20,000 laws on the books, and they needs to be enforced!" Well, true. But they kind of made it impossible to enforce back in 2006! |
21st January 2013, 02:06 PM | #45 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
|
Agreed.
I'd agree with that. But, how do you weed out the obvious A.D, and the negligent ones? Would gun malfunctions, (while very rare) fall under AD? I'm not opposed to a small fine for an AD. Well, that's somewhat incorrect. Most LEO's go through a college program before they're hired by a department. LEO training is where they train on firearms, and it's usually pretty early on during their classes. It's not years in most places. It's months, total. Yep. Point? I've corrected your statement to reflect reality. I'm somewhat confused what you're advocating though. Can you clarify? Thanks. |
21st January 2013, 02:50 PM | #46 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
Sorry to continue the derail, just want to answer this. If you are on a restricted licence here you cannot drive between 10pm and 6am unless you have applied for an exemption (usually to drive from or to work from home) or are accompanied by someone over 21 who has held a full licence for a minimum of 2 years (and is seated in the front passanger's seat.) Police have the power to randomly stop and check any driver for any reason, so they can enforce these rules pretty easily.
Australia makes it even easier to identify them, as their probationary drivers (the same as our restricted) are required to have "P" plates visible on their vehicles (same as the "L" plates for learners.) [/derail] |
__________________
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) |
|
21st January 2013, 04:56 PM | #47 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,626
|
That's a good question, and one probably best left for those more qualified than me to answer.
I do not know much (actually I know nothing about guns. I do own one, a handgun, but I respect the hell out of the thing. I know how to make absolutely sure the chamber is completely empty, and am always conscious of where it is pointing when in my hands. I know how to take it apart and put it back together again in order to keep it clean, well-lubricated, and in perfect working order. I take it up to the range and practice with it once a month, usually accompanied by someone much more experienced than me.) Other than my one gun I own, I know nothing about other types of guns. Form what I know, and from the way my Marine buddy talks, guns just don't go off on their own. Or they shouldn't. Ever. After all, "guns don't kill people. People kill people!" It is my understanding that when you own a gun, you have the responsibility to know and to maintain your weapon properly. And if properly maintained, it should NEVER "accidentally discharge" on its own. If not properly maintained, it should NEVER be loaded. I am unsure whether it can actually be proven that an AD in any given circumstance was completely accidental as opposed to just negligent. Perhaps there is an example or two floating around out there somewhere? I am just going off from my own understanding, which is that 100% of all ADs are due to negligence. (I might allow the possibility of something under 100%, due to my lack of experience and knowledge with firearms.) I don't think a "small fine" from an AD is good enough, so I disagree with you there.
Quote:
But they still have much more strict rules than the general population.
Quote:
Quote:
And please do not correct my statement that guns are only meant to kill. The purpose for the exercise in making that statement, is to promote awareness that a gun is not a toy. A good friend of mine, the person who goes up to the range with me, is a card-carrying member of the NRA, and is a DI in the Marines, is VERY strict and VERY serious in the manner of handling and labeling his weapon. It's called "respect." 1. Guns are meant to kill. Period. 2. You only call it a "weapon." It is your "weapon." 3. Never take out your weapon, unless you mean to fire it. 4. Never. Ever. Point the barrel at a human being. Not even if the barrel is completely detached from the rest of the weapon. The only time you do so, is if you are going to kill that person. In the end, when you are given a right, you are given a grave responsibility. When that responsibility is abused and endangers another person's right to live safely and happily, the government has a right to regulate and/or restrict that responsibility. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is illegal, despite the First Amendment. |
21st January 2013, 05:02 PM | #48 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,626
|
|
21st January 2013, 05:23 PM | #49 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 6,062
|
|
__________________
If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm |
|
21st January 2013, 05:28 PM | #50 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
Stupidity is a crime, if the only thing protecting innocent bystanders is blind luck. It's called "reckless endangerment".
Firing a gun into the air, or throwing rocks off an overpass, is against the law even if nobody happens to get hurt. If this misfire happened in a crowded area---the article doesn't say---then, yeah, it's both stupid *and* against the law, even if the guy happened to be lucky enough that the gun he was mishandling wasn't aimed at someone. (It happened out in a parking lot, it's just stupid, I guess.) |
21st January 2013, 05:30 PM | #51 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,626
|
That's not what I meant.
In PA, you have to actually physically have that official, updated inspection sticker on your windshield, each and every year, which guarantees your muffler is not going to just come flying off into someone's windshield at 70 MPH on the highway. Nailing the person after the fact, does nothing for the family killed by said flying muffler. And a police officer cannot tell whether a vehicle has a barely-attached muffler, like he can when a headlight is clearly out, or a bright color-coded sticker which shows the vehicle is out-of-date. |
21st January 2013, 05:31 PM | #52 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
|
While true, 100% accidental discharges are quite rare, it does occur. However, accidents do happen. The rest, I agree with 100%. And good for you for respecting a weapon as it should. What would you consider a reasonable fine? I wasn't thinking 10 bucks. I was thinking more like $100 bucks first offense, and escalates from there for each additional. LEO= Law Enforcement Officer The reason there is a strict screening process is because we as citizens are going to give them a huge responsibility, and bestow them with great power. The process is needed. Agreed, and they should be. The chances of being in a accident is pretty high. I've again corrected your statement above to reflect reality. Target shooting is a legitimate use for a firearm, so to say that a gun has only ONE purpose, is inaccurate. No Sir. Target shooting. (sorry if it's Ma'am) Here's the problem. What we're getting, are not common sense approaches. They're blanket bans on hundreds of weapons, and knee jerk responses that do nothing more than punish lawful gun owners. Have you seen the Feinstein proposal? Sorry, if it's inaccurate, I will correct it. Absolutely. They're not toys so to speak. I have one gun that I use strictly for fun. Shooting pumpkins, watermelons, and other inanimate objects. It's never used for self defense, hunting, or target shooting. I have the utmost respect for firearms. Have since I was a kid. I was raised with guns, and have been collecting for about 20 years now. I'm also a target shooter. I know what your point is, but it's the wrong way to go about it, IMO. Sorry, I can't let you state something as fact, when it's not. Especially when it's so easy to show otherwise. Weapon or firearm. Both acceptable. Agreed. Agreed. Yes, within reason. We're still allowed to own incredibly fast cars, even though many people speed in them a kill people. Agreed, and rightfully so. |
21st January 2013, 05:37 PM | #53 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
|
|
21st January 2013, 06:02 PM | #54 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
Not even close? "Failure to control a gun" is more than close---it's a totally standard reckless endangerment charge. Unless you have some specific info about the Indy case---like whether it happened in a crowded area---I believe you're BSing about knowing anything about the "standards" for endangerment.
Originally Posted by http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/sirens/2013/jan/16/charges-filed-when-gun-misfires-store/
Originally Posted by http://www.fairfieldcitizenonline.com/news/article/Fairfield-worker-wounded-when-handgun-misfires-2245549.php
Originally Posted by http://foxpoint.patch.com/articles/naked-mans-gun-goes-off-while-he-practices-stripping-the-weapon
Originally Posted by http://www.azfamily.com/news/Accidental-bathroom-shooting-could-lead-to-charges-for-gun-owner-139824613.html
|
21st January 2013, 06:57 PM | #55 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,626
|
I'll have to agree to disagree that "accidents do happen." I'm not really interested in debating that point, as it's a bit off-topic, and I do not know guns well enough to think of a proper example to support (and possibly counter) whatever examples or circumstances you may know about.
As for a "fine" for an AD: Littering in PA can carry up to a $300 fine. For littering. Up to $900 for illegal dumping, even if it is just compost. I think there needs to be a strict license and registration law for owning firearms, like there is for driving a car. An AD should result in a reckless endangerment charge (as is the case in most states), some jail time, and a MINIMUM of maybe a $1500+ fine. A suspension of a firearm license means the firearm will not be allowed to go outside the home for any reason for some period of time, except for an extreme dire circumstance where your life may depend on it. And that's just for starters. A second offense, means an even longer jail sentence, have your license and registration for that firearm forfeit, and a MINIMUM $3,000 fine. Would force people to think twice about being careless.
Quote:
Quote:
Laws governing both issues need to be tougher, and they should be equivalent.
Quote:
I never stated that target-shooting is not a legitimate use for a gun. But that isn't my point. My point is for the psychological effect to bring awareness to the heaviness of the responsibility of handling any weapon. When I make such a statement, I do it with purpose. You diminish that purpose, and quite frankly, I lose a little bit of respect for the points you are trying to make. I mean, it's nothing personal, it's just the mentality I have picked up from my Marine Drill Instructor friend.
Quote:
But there is a reason why I blame the NRA, and why you should as well. When the NRA lobbied for the gun laws and the rules of the ATF back in 2006 in the Patriot Act, they gave no teeth to the ATF to enforce existing gun laws! Because of this, there have been a lot of lunatics able to get their hands on guns that, otherwise, would have been much tougher for them to do so. A restriction on magazine sizes, and ARs would also be a start. If perfectly innocent law-abiding citizens (especially children) were not being slaughtered out in the streets, or in theaters, or in school buildings, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. There is obviously a problem with guns in this country that no other nation has. Had the ATF been given the ability to actually enforce the laws that the NRA lobbied against, perhaps 20 children and 6 teachers might still be alive up in Connecticut.
Quote:
Quote:
The only question then, is "what laws, and how strong should they be?" I am not a legal expert, nor am I an expert in firearms.The only thing you and I seem to have any disagreement on, is the degree of how strict the laws and punishment ought to be.The only thing I can do, is to give examples of what could be possible and/or sensible, as I have already done earlier in this post. In the end, I feel it is a rather pointless discussion if all we do is end up hashing over the finer points like they do in Congress. I mean, we can if you want. I already gave an example of where I am at IRT punishment. If you want to respond to that, go ahead. I'll listen. |
21st January 2013, 07:28 PM | #56 |
Daydreamer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
|
I think we should make the distinction between an object's purpose and an object's use.
The purpose of a car is transportation, but racing is also a valid use for a car. The purpose of a gun is to kill, but target shooting is also a valid use for a gun. Sure, a lot of people buy guns for the sole intent of using them for target shooting, and these guns might never be used to kill, but that doesn't change the purpose for which they were made. |
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim |
|
21st January 2013, 07:34 PM | #57 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
|
It most certainly does. You may disagree on principal, but fact is fact. Guns are designed to fire a bullet. Depending on the bullet, and the design, depends on what their use is. I have a target pistol that I COULD use for self defense, however, it is not what it was designed for. (It's a .22 cal, damn near useless for self defense)
|
21st January 2013, 07:36 PM | #58 |
Daydreamer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
|
|
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|