skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 344
|
Post by skyth on Feb 6, 2024 5:58:38 GMT -5
You mean state-required, but privately founded....like the drivers training and maintenance/registration/insurance of your car, right? If you want a car gun, you have to pay, right?
Driving classes are often provided for free in high school.
They used to be. A lot of schools have gone away from offering it any more.
|
|
herzlos
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 700
|
Post by herzlos on Feb 6, 2024 6:13:02 GMT -5
I think state-funded gun training is reasonable. You mean state-required, but privately founded....like the drivers training and maintenance/registration/insurance of your car, right? If you want a car gun, you have to pay, right? Everything state funded comes from the population anyway via tax. But I guess you're right, I was thinking more like the DoT driving test, but you still need to pay a nominal fee for that. I wouldn't be against the state funding the curriculum and providing some funding too run the actual courses. It'd be a lot cheaper in the long run than dealing with the fall out. But then I'm also not against a small charge to the gun purchase - you're likely spending $500 anyway, so what's $10? I do like the idea of teaching gun safety in schools too - if you're going to treat them as a part of US life you may as well commit to doing it properly. You can't rely on parents keeping kids safe from guns so teach gun safety at an appropriate age is going to be a good thing. That could be as simple as "don't touch guns" in K/elementary, and moving up to safe handling later on. I fully support everyone having first aid training, though will note that you can't do a lot of first aid with most gunshot wounds.
|
|
Haighus
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 902
|
Post by Haighus on Feb 6, 2024 7:21:54 GMT -5
I fully support everyone having first aid training, though will note that you can't do a lot of first aid with most gunshot wounds. I don't think this is true, but the military thought pretty much the same thing until the last 20 years. However, as with any major injury first aid can only buy a bit more time until advanced life support and ultimately definitive treatment is available. A gunshot to a thigh, for example, can be life threatening if it hits the femoral artery and/or vein. But basic first aid with applying pressure to the area and/or a tourniquet, plus elevating the other leg to increase blood pressure, will absolutely buy time to reach a surgeon. Edit: said nerve when I mean vein.
|
|
|
Post by dabbler on Feb 6, 2024 12:14:07 GMT -5
I fully support everyone having first aid training, though will note that you can't do a lot of first aid with most gunshot wounds. I don't think this is true, but the military thought pretty much the same thing until the last 20 years. However, as with any major injury first aid can only buy a bit more time until advanced life support and ultimately definitive treatment is available. A gunshot to a thigh, for example, can be life threatening if it hits the femoral artery and/or nerve. But basic first aid with applying pressure to the area and/or a tourniquet, plus elevating the other leg to increase blood pressure, will absolutely buy time to reach a surgeon. Assuming the heavily militarised police don't fuck around for hours because the firearm the guy inside has is too scary for them
|
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 344
|
Post by skyth on Feb 14, 2024 17:19:26 GMT -5
There was a shooting at the celebration of the Chief's Superbowl win. Not really surprised with all the conspiracy theories floated about it...
|
|
|
Post by bobtheinquisitor on Feb 14, 2024 17:50:27 GMT -5
Is Taylor Swift okay?
|
|
|
Post by pacific on Feb 15, 2024 9:42:34 GMT -5
OK but recovering from guiding the Chiefs to their SB win!
|
|
|
Post by easye on Feb 15, 2024 10:14:15 GMT -5
Three suspects in custody and the Police do not feel it was related to "terrorism".... whatever that means in today's environment.
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Feb 15, 2024 10:18:41 GMT -5
Clearly a deepstate op to make Taylor Swift openly declare in favor of gun hater Biden, because her boyfriend was in danger.
|
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 344
|
Post by skyth on Apr 11, 2024 8:09:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Apr 11, 2024 11:17:23 GMT -5
Whaaaaaat but we were all told here that the gun show loophole doesn't exist!
|
|
|
Post by Hordini on Apr 14, 2024 8:56:18 GMT -5
Whaaaaaat but we were all told here that the gun show loophole doesn't exist! That's because it doesn't. It's a misleading term used by people who want to ban private sales. This will definitely be challenged in court.
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Apr 14, 2024 10:52:38 GMT -5
Whaaaaaat but we were all told here that the gun show loophole doesn't exist! That's because it doesn't. It's a misleading term used by people who want to ban private sales. This will definitely be challenged in court. Well, first, because you're quoting me I assume you're ready to have a conversation for real, unlike your conversation with everyone else where you got challenged and then oh so bravely ignored their responses... but I'm sure you're still planning on responding to them, just like you always say you are (but never do. Weird, huh?) Second, just because you dislike how it's named doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We've been over this, you can stop pretending otherwise. Seriously, you whine about me being mean, but here you are being dishonest and pretending the dozens upon dozens of posts about this don't exist. It absolutely exists, you just don't like the name. If it was called "private seller loophole" or whatever, you wouldn't throw a single bitchy fit about this... but you would still defend the ability to sell guns to criminals. Like, it isn't even up for debate on whether or not it happens, we have lots of evidence it does. And before you complain I'm being unfair, if you're not required to run background checks, how do you know you're not selling to a criminal? Do you expect them to self-identify when they go to buy one? Also, "banning private sales"? No, the goal isn't to ban private sales, it's to ban saless that don't require any background checks is what people want to ban. You're strawmanning this topic and refusing to engage with what anyone has been saying for years. Imagine railing against something that will prevent criminals from getting easier access to guns. If you want a legal gun, go and buy it through a licensed seller. Anyways, you can go off about how mean I am again, and how I was super mean again because you engaged with me (not the other way around).
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Apr 14, 2024 14:28:10 GMT -5
Also, "banning private sales"? No, the goal isn't to ban private sales, it's to ban saless that don't require any background checks is what people want to ban. Private sellers do not have access to the background check system so yes, it is effectively a ban on private sales.
(Technically it isn't a total ban but the rules on what makes you an unlicensed dealer are so vague, probably to the point of making the law unenforceable, that you're risking serious criminal charges if you ever try.)
Not really. Your linked article hypes up "368 shooting cases" but that's out of over 45,000 homicides by gun in that same 4 year period, meaning the illegal sales this law prevents are less than 1% of total homicides. And that's assuming every "shooting case" is a homicide, if that number includes attempted murder, robbery in which the gun is not fired, etc, that 1% number drops even lower.
|
|
|
Post by A Town Called Malus on Apr 15, 2024 6:50:09 GMT -5
Why would it be unlawful? The second amendment makes no mention of the right to privately sell your arms, after all. So, based on the courts reading of other rights which are inferred (such as the right to an abortion), they must if they remain consistent say that the 2nd amendment does not grant the right to sell your guns, only to keep and bear them.
|
|