IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


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.
Reply
Old 21st January 2013, 01:07 PM   #41
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
Originally Posted by Nihilianth View Post
True that! There should also be much stricter laws about who can drive as well. Age limit for drivers need to be raised, perhaps to at least 18. And far too many people get busted for DWI far too many times.
[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)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 21st January 2013 at 01:08 PM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2013, 01:36 PM   #42
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,894
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
Far too many idiots own cars too.....
So true. However, our society is built in a way that makes cars hard to dispense with. ... Unlike guns, which we function nicely without.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2013, 01:39 PM   #43
NWO Sentryman
Proud NWO Gatekeeper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,994
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
[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]
How do you propose to enforce that? I mean, in the UK, there are issues with stop and search, so a "sus" law is out of the question.
__________________
If I now say "dominoes", you won't think "pizza". Will you? - FireGarden on the Middle East
NWO Sentryman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2013, 01:50 PM   #44
Nihilianth
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,626
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
[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.
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:
Better measures are to try and remove the secondary factors. Alcohol, speed, distractions in the way of passangers and cellphones, and fatigue.
They already have all those laws on the books, and they should be made much stricter, especially with any violations. People with a permit (at least in the state of PA) aren't supposed to have other passengers in the vehicle, except for one person: That person must be above the age of 21, and in the front passenger seat. That should never apply to people with full licenses.

Quote:
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]
I agree. I aboslutely agree. Likewise, gun laws needs to be strengthened, and the ATF needs to be given actual teeth. (Screw the ATF. There needs to be one department dedicated to firearm law-enforcement, not to be combined with alcohol and tobacco.)

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!
Nihilianth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2013, 02:06 PM   #45
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by Nihilianth View Post
"Accidental discharge" could just as easily result in a bullet stuck in another person's brain, as it did in his hand.
Agreed.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth View Post
Seems to me that the charge of "accidental discharge" needs to be strengthened. A lot.
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.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth View Post
You know that police officers have to go through years and years of training, and strict background checks and psychological profiles before they are ever able to even touch a gun.
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.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth View Post
Likewise, teachers have to go through the same rigorous background checks and psychological profiles in order to teach.
Yep. Point?

Originally Posted by Nihilianth View Post
Yet, there is this ongoing "debate" about stricter gun laws and background checks for ordinary citizens to be able to walk around with machines built for one specific purpose: To kill. fire a bullet.
I've corrected your statement to reflect reality. I'm somewhat confused what you're advocating though. Can you clarify?

Thanks.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2013, 02:50 PM   #46
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman View Post
How do you propose to enforce that? I mean, in the UK, there are issues with stop and search, so a "sus" law is out of the question.
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)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2013, 04:56 PM   #47
Nihilianth
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,626
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
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.
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:
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.
Again, I dunno much about that. So I'll take your word on it. (What's "LEO" stand for, anyway?)

But they still have much more strict rules than the general population.



Quote:
Yep. Point?
Even the laws governing legal drivers are a lot more strict than who gets to be sold a gun. The point being, there are all sorts of strict rules, regulations, and better enforcement for all sorts of professions and daily living in general, than there are purchasing a gun. And a gun only has a single purpose: To kill.



Quote:
I've corrected your statement to reflect reality. I'm somewhat confused what you're advocating though. Can you clarify?

Thanks.
The point is, guns are only meant for one thing: To kill. There are many makes and models whose sole purpose is to kill on a mass-scale. This is not 1776 any longer. I can respect the Second Amendment and their arguments, if gun-owners (and the NRA in general,) would just hear some common-sense approaches in order to reduce the potential for guns falling into the wrong hands.

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.

Last edited by Nihilianth; 21st January 2013 at 05:11 PM.
Nihilianth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2013, 05:02 PM   #48
Nihilianth
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,626
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
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]
That is entirely correct. However, as I understand it, a lot of states aren't even that strict. The state of Pennsylvania, has those exact laws on the books.

I think it's like Alabama or somewhere, that drivers don't even have to have their car inspected. At all.
Nihilianth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2013, 05:23 PM   #49
Cylinder
Philosopher
 
Cylinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 6,062
Originally Posted by Nihilianth View Post
I think it's like Alabama or somewhere, that drivers don't even have to have their car inspected. At all.
Arkansas abandoned vehicle inspection as well. What you're missing is that the vehicle standards still exist - drivers are responsible for inspecting their vehicles instead of the state. You still get the ticket for the broken tail light.
__________________
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
Cylinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2013, 05:28 PM   #50
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
But, an accidental discharge, even while doing something pretty dumb, doesn't fall into a crime category that I am aware of. Unless of course that states laws includes "Stupid ****" ......
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.)
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2013, 05:30 PM   #51
Nihilianth
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,626
Originally Posted by Cylinder View Post
Arkansas abandoned vehicle inspection as well. What you're missing is that the vehicle standards still exist - drivers are responsible for inspecting their vehicles instead of the state. You still get the ticket for the broken tail light.
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.

Last edited by Nihilianth; 21st January 2013 at 05:32 PM.
Nihilianth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2013, 05:31 PM   #52
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by Nihilianth View Post
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.

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.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth View Post
I don't think a "small fine" from an AD is good enough, so I disagree with you there.
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.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth View Post
Again, I dunno much about that. So I'll take your word on it. (What's "LEO" stand for, anyway?)

But they still have much more strict rules than the general population.
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.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth View Post
Even the laws governing legal drivers are a lot more strict than who gets to be sold a gun. The point being, there are all sorts of strict rules, regulations, and better enforcement for all sorts of professions and daily living in general, than there are purchasing a gun. And a gun only has a single purpose: To kill. to fire a bullet.
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.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth View Post
The point is, guns are only meant for one thing: To kill.
No Sir. Target shooting. (sorry if it's Ma'am)

Originally Posted by Nihilianth View Post
There are many makes and models whose sole purpose is to kill on a mass-scale. This is not 1776 any longer. I can respect the Second Amendment and their arguments, if gun-owners (and the NRA in general,) would just hear some common-sense approaches in order to reduce the potential for guns falling into the wrong hands.
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?

Originally Posted by Nihilianth View Post
And please do not correct my statement that guns are only meant to kill.
Sorry, if it's inaccurate, I will correct it.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth View Post
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."
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.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth View Post
1. Guns are meant to kill. Period. sometimes.
Sorry, I can't let you state something as fact, when it's not. Especially when it's so easy to show otherwise.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth View Post
2. You only call it a "weapon." It is your "weapon."
Weapon or firearm. Both acceptable.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth View Post
3. Never take out your weapon, unless you mean to fire it.
Agreed.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth View Post
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.
Agreed.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth View Post
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.
Yes, within reason. We're still allowed to own incredibly fast cars, even though many people speed in them a kill people.

Originally Posted by Nihilianth View Post
Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is illegal, despite the First Amendment.
Agreed, and rightfully so.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2013, 05:37 PM   #53
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
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.)
You'll have to do some research as it doesn't even come close to that standard.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2013, 06:02 PM   #54
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
You'll have to do some research as it doesn't even come close to that standard.
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/
Charges filed when gun misfires at store

PORT ORCHARD, Wash. (AP) — A man whose gun went off when he dropped it inside a store at the Kitsap Mall in Silverdale now faces criminal charges.

The Kitsap County Prosecutor's Office on Wednesday filed one count of aiming or discharging a firearm and one count of reckless endangerment against 58-year-old Marc R. Bromberg.

Originally Posted by http://www.fairfieldcitizenonline.com/news/article/Fairfield-worker-wounded-when-handgun-misfires-2245549.php
Fairfield worker wounded when handgun misfires

According to police Sgt. Suzanne Lussier, the victim was standing in a doorway and had just warned Bigelow to be careful and put the gun away when Bigelow accidentally fired a round.

Bigelow -- who police said had no permit for the weapon -- was charged with first-degree assault, illegal possession of a firearm, first-degree reckless endangerment and carrying a pistol without a permit. He was released after posting a $25,000 bond.
Originally Posted by http://foxpoint.patch.com/articles/naked-mans-gun-goes-off-while-he-practices-stripping-the-weapon
Naked Man's Gun Goes Off While Practicing Stripping the Weapon
He's charged with reckless endangerment in Milwaukee County Court after he misfired, leaving a hole in the wall just six feet from where his wife was sitting.
Originally Posted by http://www.azfamily.com/news/Accidental-bathroom-shooting-could-lead-to-charges-for-gun-owner-139824613.html
Nobody was hurt.
While the store's managers have not decided if they want to press charges against Seals, the man who was nearly hit is assisting with a possible prosecution.
Seals has not been charged with anything at this point, but he could face one count of endangerment.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2013, 06:57 PM   #55
Nihilianth
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,626
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
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.
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:
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.
Owning a gun is a huge responsibility, and bestows a person with great power. A similar process is needed.

Quote:
Agreed, and they should be. The chances of being in a accident is pretty high.
They shouldn't be, though. You brought cars into this discussion, because your intent was to try and get a gun restriction person to look like a hypocrite for calling for stricter gun laws, while ignoring some weak vehicle laws.

Laws governing both issues need to be tougher, and they should be equivalent.

Quote:
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)
(I am a male.)

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:
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?
No, I have not seen the Feinstein proposal.

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:
Yes, within reason. We're still allowed to own incredibly fast cars, even though many people speed in them a kill people.
True, and your point? Remember, I am a proponent of stricter vehicle laws. Using what is currently legal for vehicles that is nothing but dangerous, isn't exactly scoring you any points here, my friend.

Quote:
Agreed, and rightfully so.
At least you seem to be willing to entertain the idea of stricter laws, and better enforcement of those laws, thereby rendering the "fire" point moot, just like your points about what is currently legal with cars is moot.

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.

Last edited by Nihilianth; 21st January 2013 at 07:03 PM.
Nihilianth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2013, 07:28 PM   #56
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
Originally Posted by Nihilianth View Post
The point is, guns are only meant for one thing: To kill.
No Sir. Target shooting. (sorry if it's Ma'am)
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
Brian-M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2013, 07:34 PM   #57
triforcharity
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)
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2013, 07:36 PM   #58
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
(It's a .22 cal, damn near useless for self defense)
Might be useful for killing vermin.
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim
Brian-M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:40 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.