Diest TKO wrote:McGentrix wrote:Diest TKO wrote:I'm not the one that claims any fool can build a fire. Further, not all parents teach their children how to build a fire safely. How many parents demonstrate poor fire safety in front of their kids?
Just poor some kerosene on and light a match. NO.
If you really want to ay that guns are like starting a fire, I will still say that you should not be setting fires unless you are trained on how to do so safely.
T
K
O
You are so close to actually getting the point of my post. Try just a bit harder and you will get it.
I understood your point fine. My point though is that ultimately a gun is not fire, it's a gun. There are many things that a gun owner/operator needs to know that a parent may not be able to provide and in the interest of the user and the public, a standardized process must be put into place to both educate and certify users.
You can't be so careless with a gun, it's a liability that should not be taken so lightly. It's a responcibility and I am surprized to hear opposition to the notion that we should educate people on gun safety and document gun sales etc.
You or cjhsa may think you are qualified to teach gun safety, and even if I were to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are you'd still have to agree with me that not everyone parent is going to teach good gun safety skills. Would you want a parent with poor skills or no skills teaching their child about guns? I doubt you do.
Why would anyone be threatened about state or federal sponsored gun training/licensing?
I think the fault of liberals when it comes to guns is that they have shyed away and let people like cjhsa define what gun ownership/responsibility is and is not.
T
K
O
The problem with your logic is that you want everyone to have to fall to the lowest common denominator. A common liberal belief. If one parent isn't capable of doing something, the government should step in and take care of an issue for every child.
Who gave you your first gun? Was it your parents? Why didn't they teach you how top use it properly?
If they didn't have the skills, obviously there was a place for you to voluntarily go and receive training. That is good. You took it upon yourself to go and find the training you felt you needed. Cjhsa knows how to handle fire arms and is teaching his children to do the same, just as I am with my children. Why do you feel that is objectionable?
BTW, in NYS, though you are not required to take a hand-gun training course before applying for a pistol permit, your odds of receiving one go way up if you do however. Long guns do not require any sort of training or permits. Yet, my children know how to safely handle both because I taught them how and did not require the government to step in and do it for me.
cjhsa wrote:I disagree with woiyo on one point - I don't lock my guns away at home. Some, yes, but not all. They do me no good locked away in a self defense situation.
Yeah, I keep my loaded gun under my pillow.
Diest TKO wrote:McGentrix wrote:Diest TKO wrote:I'm not the one that claims any fool can build a fire. Further, not all parents teach their children how to build a fire safely. How many parents demonstrate poor fire safety in front of their kids?
Just poor some kerosene on and light a match. NO.
If you really want to ay that guns are like starting a fire, I will still say that you should not be setting fires unless you are trained on how to do so safely.
T
K
O
You are so close to actually getting the point of my post. Try just a bit harder and you will get it.
I understood your point fine. My point though is that ultimately a gun is not fire, it's a gun. There are many things that a gun owner/operator needs to know that a parent may not be able to provide and in the interest of the user and the public, a standardized process must be put into place to both educate and certify users.
You can't be so careless with a gun, it's a liability that should not be taken so lightly. It's a responcibility and I am surprized to hear opposition to the notion that we should educate people on gun safety and document gun sales etc.
You or cjhsa may think you are qualified to teach gun safety, and even if I were to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are you'd still have to agree with me that not everyone parent is going to teach good gun safety skills. Would you want a parent with poor skills or no skills teaching their child about guns? I doubt you do.
Why would anyone be threatened about state or federal sponsored gun training/licensing?
I think the fault of liberals when it comes to guns is that they have shyed away and let people like cjhsa define what gun ownership/responsibility is and is not.
T
K
O
The problem with your logic is that you want everyone to have to fall to the lowest common denominator. A common liberal belief. If one parent isn't capable of doing something, the government should step in and take care of an issue for every child.
Who gave you your first gun? Was it your parents? Why didn't they teach you how top use it properly?
If they didn't have the skills, obviously there was a place for you to voluntarily go and receive training. That is good. You took it upon yourself to go and find the training you felt you needed. Cjhsa knows how to handle fire arms and is teaching his children to do the same, just as I am with my children. Why do you feel that is objectionable?
BTW, in NYS, though you are not required to take a hand-gun training course before applying for a pistol permit, your odds of receiving one go way up if you do however. Long guns do not require any sort of training or permits. Yet, my children know how to safely handle both because I taught them how and did not require the government to step in and do it for me.
You are exactly WRONG about what I am saying here. I'm not saying that the dumbest parent's teachings become the acceptable standard, I'm saying the smartest parent's standard becomes the standard and that standard is taught formally.
Guns are not issues for every child, not every child will own a gun. It's not about the government doing what the parent can't it's about doing what the government should be doing to promote security and safety. Frankly I don't care how skilled you are, I still don't think you are qualified to teach.
Would you let the son of a doctor do surgery on you? What if the doctor told you that his son had been taught everything he knew? The doctor might be the best in the world at what he does, but the son should still have a license to practice medicine.
McGentrix wrote:
Who gave you your first gun? Was it your parents? Why didn't they teach you how top use it properly?
Yes, it was my father. He didn't teach me because he thought I'd get a better education elsewhere.
McGentrix wrote:
If they didn't have the skills, obviously there was a place for you to voluntarily go and receive training. That is good. You took it upon yourself to go and find the training you felt you needed. Cjhsa knows how to handle fire arms and is teaching his children to do the same, just as I am with my children. Why do you feel that is objectionable?
I don't object that you assist in their education, but I think that they should still attend gun safety courses. Hell, even in regards to technique, you might think you are a crackerjack shot, but I'm sure there are techniques that are teachable which could improve your own skill. What about diversity in education. Getting all of your information on a subject from one source isn't good. It's good to teach your kids about guns but why not expose them to others with a different experience than you. For instance, I think that if you had a friend in police enforcement they could maybe come with you to the range and talk about other gun topics such as the law and other safety issues which you yourself may not know about.
Bottom line: You want your kids to be educated, why not offer them the best education? for that matter, I imagine you want all users to have the best education. If you think that you offer the best education, then I hope you've got an open schedule. Why not make it mandatory? Why not just make it a part of the process?
McGentrix wrote:
BTW, in NYS, though you are not required to take a hand-gun training course before applying for a pistol permit, your odds of receiving one go way up if you do however. Long guns do not require any sort of training or permits. Yet, my children know how to safely handle both because I taught them how and did not require the government to step in and do it for me.
You are basing your politics on your experience, which I understand, but it's not a universal experience and the exceptions define the rules. Your children could have received the same education with my idea. If at the end of their gun education you still felt that they weren't up to par, nothing would stop you from supplementing their education. At least the state would know that one more gun user is aware of the laws and safety standards involving guns, as well as having forensic data to add to their database and a record of the gun's location.
You have to remember, it's not just your safety and the safety of your child, it's the safety of the general public too. I think the fear of guns would be a whole lot less if the public knew that the people who owned them had to recieve training and pass a test.
T
K
O
Diest TKO wrote:You are exactly WRONG about what I am saying here. I'm not saying that the dumbest parent's teachings become the acceptable standard, I'm saying the smartest parent's standard becomes the standard and that standard is taught formally.
Guns are not issues for every child, not every child will own a gun. It's not about the government doing what the parent can't it's about doing what the government should be doing to promote security and safety. Frankly I don't care how skilled you are, I still don't think you are qualified to teach.
The State of New york would disagree with you, but that's beside the point. What you are proscribing, IS state mandated education for a basic right as stated in the constitution. An education is nice to have regarding gun safety, and I would heartily agree that it is nice to have, but should remain voluntary.
Diest TKO wrote:Would you let the son of a doctor do surgery on you? What if the doctor told you that his son had been taught everything he knew? The doctor might be the best in the world at what he does, but the son should still have a license to practice medicine.
I have fired a gun and I can tell you from first hand experience it is nothing like heart surgery. That's a pretty silly analogy to make.
Diest TKO wrote:McGentrix wrote:
Who gave you your first gun? Was it your parents? Why didn't they teach you how top use it properly?
Yes, it was my father. He didn't teach me because he thought I'd get a better education elsewhere.
That was his and your decision to make. Wasn't it nice to be able to make that decision for yourself instead of having the state tell you you HAD to?
Diest TKO wrote:McGentrix wrote:
If they didn't have the skills, obviously there was a place for you to voluntarily go and receive training. That is good. You took it upon yourself to go and find the training you felt you needed. Cjhsa knows how to handle fire arms and is teaching his children to do the same, just as I am with my children. Why do you feel that is objectionable?
I don't object that you assist in their education, but I think that they should still attend gun safety courses. Hell, even in regards to technique, you might think you are a crackerjack shot, but I'm sure there are techniques that are teachable which could improve your own skill. What about diversity in education. Getting all of your information on a subject from one source isn't good. It's good to teach your kids about guns but why not expose them to others with a different experience than you. For instance, I think that if you had a friend in police enforcement they could maybe come with you to the range and talk about other gun topics such as the law and other safety issues which you yourself may not know about.
Bottom line: You want your kids to be educated, why not offer them the best education? for that matter, I imagine you want all users to have the best education. If you think that you offer the best education, then I hope you've got an open schedule. Why not make it mandatory? Why not just make it a part of the process?
Because the process is flawed. Look how many drivers have licenses, yet we still have car accidents (going back to Cycloptichorns analogy). Does having a drivers license and driver education make people better drivers? In some cases yes, some no. What makes you think a 3rd party education would be any more useful for guns? Most responsible gun owners will provide their family and friends with a more then sufficient education. That will also ensure they have the knowledge as without it, they will most likely not be firing any weapons.
The problem lies ion the fact that liberals like to look at the bad apple and assume all apples must be bad. irresponsible gun owners give the responsible ones a black eye, but that does not mean they should be punished for the actions of those that act irresponsibly and that what you are suggesting.
Diest TKO wrote:McGentrix wrote:
BTW, in NYS, though you are not required to take a hand-gun training course before applying for a pistol permit, your odds of receiving one go way up if you do however. Long guns do not require any sort of training or permits. Yet, my children know how to safely handle both because I taught them how and did not require the government to step in and do it for me.
You are basing your politics on your experience, which I understand, but it's not a universal experience and the exceptions define the rules. Your children could have received the same education with my idea. If at the end of their gun education you still felt that they weren't up to par, nothing would stop you from supplementing their education. At least the state would know that one more gun user is aware of the laws and safety standards involving guns, as well as having forensic data to add to their database and a record of the gun's location.
You have to remember, it's not just your safety and the safety of your child, it's the safety of the general public too. I think the fear of guns would be a whole lot less if the public knew that the people who owned them had to recieve training and pass a test.
T
K
O
When my children are old enough to drive, I will teach them to drive. I will be sure they have the knowledge and skills neccesary for them to navigate the highways and byways safely. I will also do the same for their gun education and do not need the government to do this for me.
For those that do, there are classes for them to take. I see no reason to make any additional rules to the process.
Are you claiming that a gun is less deadly then a car?
cyclo said...
Quote:Are you claiming that a gun is less deadly then a car?
Lets look at the numbers and find out.
Acording to the CDC, there were 30,694 firearms deaths in the US in 2005...
http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe
There were 45,520 deaths caused by a motor vehicle in the same year.
http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe
So going by that, a gun IS less deadly then a motor vehicle.
mysteryman wrote:cyclo said...
Quote:Are you claiming that a gun is less deadly then a car?
Lets look at the numbers and find out.
Acording to the CDC, there were 30,694 firearms deaths in the US in 2005...
http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe
There were 45,520 deaths caused by a motor vehicle in the same year.
http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe
So going by that, a gun IS less deadly then a motor vehicle.
Uhm. No.
That's like saying that last year, 2,481,000 Americans died, but only 256 people in Liechtenstein, and concluding that therefore living in Liechtenstein is less deadly than living in the United States....
cyclo said...
Quote:Are you claiming that a gun is less deadly then a car?
Lets look at the numbers and find out.
Acording to the CDC, there were 30,694 firearms deaths in the US in 2005...
http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe
There were 45,520 deaths caused by a motor vehicle in the same year.
http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe
So going by that, a gun IS less deadly then a motor vehicle.
old europe wrote:mysteryman wrote:cyclo said...
Quote:Are you claiming that a gun is less deadly then a car?
Lets look at the numbers and find out.
Acording to the CDC, there were 30,694 firearms deaths in the US in 2005...
http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe
There were 45,520 deaths caused by a motor vehicle in the same year.
http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe
So going by that, a gun IS less deadly then a motor vehicle.
Uhm. No.
That's like saying that last year, 2,481,000 Americans died, but only 256 people in Liechtenstein, and concluding that therefore living in Liechtenstein is less deadly than living in the United States....
Nope, not unless there are the same number of people living in Liechtenstein.
When the numbers from the CDC are compared, using the same population numbers as a base, then according to the CDC motor vehicles are more dangerous then guns, as both a total number of deaths, deaths per 10,000 ratio, and as a percentage of the ppulation.
First off, I appriciate the detailed reply.
McGentrix wrote:Diest TKO wrote:You are exactly WRONG about what I am saying here. I'm not saying that the dumbest parent's teachings become the acceptable standard, I'm saying the smartest parent's standard becomes the standard and that standard is taught formally.
Guns are not issues for every child, not every child will own a gun. It's not about the government doing what the parent can't it's about doing what the government should be doing to promote security and safety. Frankly I don't care how skilled you are, I still don't think you are qualified to teach.
The State of New york would disagree with you, but that's beside the point. What you are proscribing, IS state mandated education for a basic right as stated in the constitution. An education is nice to have regarding gun safety, and I would heartily agree that it is nice to have, but should remain voluntary.
A state mandated education would be me saying that all children and individuals would have to take the courses. What I am saying is that the lawful ownership and operation of a firearm should include a formal education and license.
The point that MM, and his gun loving cohorts miss while attmpting to draw an equivalence between gun deaths and autombile deaths is that a gun is, by design, a killing device, whereas an automobile is, first and foremost, a method of transportation.
Gee, I didnt know I had "cohorts".
I was simply responding to Cyclo's question about guns being more deadly then cars.
I provided the actual numbers from the CDC that showed that more people die from motor vehicle accidents then from firearms (as of 2005).
Where did I draw any type of equivalence between the 2?
The primary purpose of a vehicle is not to kill, it is to move people an products to different places.
The primary purpose of a gun is to kill whatever is facing it when it goes off.
Agreed!
It is the most absurd thing to attempt to argue that gun related deaths are somehow acceptable, or that guns shouldn't be banned, because cars cause people to die as well. The primary function of cars and guns differ in such a fundamental manner that the mere attempt at drawing an equivalence between them in any respect is so asinine it barely deserves qualification.
... a gun is less deadly then a car?
OE, you have to go to the CDC website to get the stats I used.
