Mock

(01-22-2016, 03:28 PM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]How come there are no seat belts on school buses? should cops have guns with fingerprint security?

I detest using the old clique "comparing apples to oranges. Comparing seat belts on school buses doesn't come close to the issue of firearms. The sole purpose of a gun is to kill.....Humans are killed in a myriad of ways and by something designed for another purpose. ....just stop making illogical comparisons, please. Seat belts are added to these vehicles for safety to the humans who use them.

These comparisons do nothing to improve safety of firearms......let's focus on guns and what we can do to prevent unnecessary deaths. It really is the goal, after all.....Seat belts on school buses should be in general category of safety issues......and thus, belong in a different thread....not in a thread titled Guns don't kill................Love, BBH

Lets see if I can get this right. Duch mentions helmets, I say that is a topic for another thread, Sally compares helmets to seatbelts, Maggot asks a question about the seatbelts that were just mentioned and somehow it now all Maggots fault we are talking about seatbelts in a gun thread. Hmmm, I think I got it now.

(01-22-2016, 05:07 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]Lets see if I can get this right. Duch mentions helmets, I say that is a topic for another thread, Sally compares helmets to seatbelts, Maggot asks a question about the seatbelts that were just mentioned and somehow it now all Maggots fault we are talking about seatbelts in a gun thread. Hmmm, I think I got it now.

Maggot doesn't mind playing the role of moron from time to time.

(01-22-2016, 05:07 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]Lets see if I can get this right. Duch mentions helmets, I say that is a topic for another thread, Sally compares helmets to seatbelts, Maggot asks a question about the seatbelts that were just mentioned and somehow it now all Maggots fault we are talking about seatbelts in a gun thread. Hmmm, I think I got it now.

Well, of course! What is wrong with you? You have never heard of "go with the flow?" Jeez.........I am sure glad I don't have to drive on the same highways with you behind me, in front of me or beside me......

P.S. I am sure glad you don't drive a school bus.....

(01-22-2016, 05:29 PM)blueberryhill Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-22-2016, 05:07 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]Lets see if I can get this right. Duch mentions helmets, I say that is a topic for another thread, Sally compares helmets to seatbelts, Maggot asks a question about the seatbelts that were just mentioned and somehow it now all Maggots fault we are talking about seatbelts in a gun thread. Hmmm, I think I got it now.

Well, of course! What is wrong with you? You have never heard of "go with the flow?" Jeez.........I am sure glad I don't have to drive on the same highways with you behind me, in front of me or beside me......

P.S. I am sure glad you don't drive a school bus.....

Now that made me Laugh out Loud.

ETA . . . I am glad I don't have to drive by you also. I would hate to have to shoot out your tires because you piss me off by getting in my way. Beep Beep BOOM.

Some people take the moral high ground so that everything else seams evil because they say so. I don't mind though I've seen it before and I'm fine with it.

I don't even wear my seatbelt sometimes, but I can understand it being a law and I'm ok with being made to do it or getting a ticket. The same way I'd be ok with going through a process to obtain a gun versus just handing them my ID and picking whatever I want, the same way I'm pro-choice but I'd be ok with cutting off abortions at a certain date because it's perfectly rational and reasonable not to abort viable babies. So I only brought up seatbelts because Duchess mentioned the helmets and it made me think of it and it was also in response to FU saying I don't know the difference between being made to do something and asked to do something. Well some things I think you should be made to do.

I still refuse to wear a seatbelt. Fuck em, ticket me!

I'd definitely wear a helmet on a motorcycle, I just don't think it should be enforced. If you want to go flying off your bike with no helmet on it's fine by me. I know a few people it's happened to and they definitely would have been better off with the helmet on though.

(01-22-2016, 05:52 PM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]Some people take the moral high ground so that everything else seams evil because they say so. I don't mind though I've seen it before and I'm fine with it.

Mags, you've pulled the moral high ground card when we've had differences of opinion on controversial topics more than anyone I can recall.

But, I'm fine with it too and it never makes me feel evil or immoral to view things with logic as opposed to emotion or religious belief. We all have different drivers.

Plus, taking what you consider the moral low ground would strike me as weird for you (thankfully).

(01-22-2016, 02:52 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]What's your point? Do you object to investment in research of child safety features for guns?

No, my point is that the prez wants to simplify things with easy analogies because that's what the public relates to. In this case, his chosen analogy demonstrates the issue. Safety features are only useful when they add a speed bump that adults can cross but kids can't. The reasons kids are more likely to ingest their grandparents medication is because old people have trouble opening child proof caps, so they made easy open caps that fit child-proof bottles. Old people and kids are pretty similar in terms of product development.

Dad may keep his rifle on top of the armoire so kiddo can't reach it, but grandpa isn't climbing up there to get his. Dad may buy a new gun with a locking mechanism that he eventually won't be able to open with arthritis he develops. So he'll stop using it.

That aside, if you add speed bumps to guns, people who think they'll need their gun at a moment's notice won't use them or they'll find a way around them. Want to know the safest safety-measure available for guns? Don't keep them loaded! If a toddler can load and fire a gun, well, he's clearly just emo and fed up with life. I think fingerprint recognition and tech like that is cool only because it reminds me of Judge Dredd. If I had a gun, I'd certainly keep it unloaded in a locked case, or maybe with a trigger lock, but I don't think others should be forced to. Can we ban people from having kids? That'd put a stop to kid-related deaths.

Yeah, I see your points.

My clients (seniors) often don't put the caps all the way on their pill bottles because they can't open them on their own in many cases. Some of them have little ones visiting from time to time, so we put them on a high shelf in a flip lock box that is easy for adults to open, but would be hard for kids to both reach and open.

But, my understanding is that the technology child safety features on guns would be built in, like with the fingerprint recognition function. It wouldn't require any extra effort for the user, but would block the wrong hands from firing the gun. I see more value in the fingerprint security feature than the cool factor in terms of childproofing and theft deterrence, but that's just based on what I've read. I guess we'll need to see what ends up getting proposed.

(01-22-2016, 08:00 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]But, my understanding is that the technology child safety features on guns would be built in, like with the fingerprint recognition function.

Honestly, I have no problem with the tech itself. These days I'm all about innovation and design. Requiring pressure on the top and bottom of a grip (to require an adult hand), fingerprint tech, inlaid safeties... they're all cool. It just seems somewhat redundant, unless you're mandating that all weapons have such features. People that aren't safe with guns won't buy those features. People that actually show precaution can keep kids safer much cheaper by simply storing it unloaded, in a locked case.

Now, if one wants to claim that those features should be federally required, then it's back to the old argument. Otherwise, I guess I'm just irritated by people that blame poor parenting (or grandparenting) on the "lack of safety devices". Keep the gun unloaded and your kid would be alive. Is it really that hard?

Cutz Wrote:pid='420779' dateline='1453512170'
Now, if one wants to claim that those features should be federally required, then it's back to the old argument. Otherwise, I guess I'm just irritated by people that blame poor parenting (or grandparenting) on the "lack of safety devices". Keep the gun unloaded and your kid would be alive. Is it really that hard?

Apparently it's very hard. So what's wrong with just making the safety features federally required? The only thing I see it hurting is maybe FU's delusional mind that Obama is out to take all his guns.

Unfortunately, for some parents and grandparents, expecting them to keep their weapons unloaded or locked up is too much to ask Cutz. It is too hard for them.

And, some parents and grandparents think they're less safe if the guns aren't loaded at all times, though many more family members than intruders wind up getting killed with loaded guns in the home.

So, if there's technology that can allow the stupid, negligent, and/or extremely fearful to keep their weapons loaded in the house with fewer kids and other family members paying the price for that decision, I'm all for the investigation into it too.

ETA: sorry sal, posting at the same time.

If the stupid could be regulated people would know how to handle a 4 way stop sign without a traffic light and nobody would ever sit at an intersection waiting for a light to tell you when to go. But..........we have carbon monoxide testers in the apartments next to traffic lights warning people that traffic is backing up at lights that hold back traffic because we cannot regulate stupid people. Books have been written and burned filled with discussions of idiots with ideas about how things could be better if we just shot the stupid people before they ruined someone else's day or life. Stupidity cannot be regulated but restrictions can be implemented.

State Gun Control / Safety Push - Washington

I don't think the Georgia ban bill will pass.

But, I think the very similar Washington state ban bill proposed the same day has a little better chance of getting through, maybe with some scale backs.

Washington's governor is a Democrat, and while its state Senate is narrowly majority Republican, its House is narrowly majority Democratic.

BAN: Bill 2354 would ban a great many semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols that accept detachable magazines. Like the Georgia bill, the ban includes not only purchase and transfer of such items, but also possession.
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2...s/2354.pdf

CONTROL/SAFETY: Washington state's House Judiciary Committee is also considering a measure requiring the safe storage of firearms to avoid tragedies like school shootings, teen suicides and gun accidents. 37 other states now have such measures on the books. Also under consideration is a measure that would allow relatives, law enforcement and others to secure a protection order to prevent a high-risk individual from possessing a firearm. http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news...gun-bills/

More child-on-child shootings -- back to back


^ 5-year-old Kadin Tige Mann from Alaska was shot and killed Monday by an 11-year-old who got a hold of a .22 rifle in the house. Police have not identified who owned the gun. Investigation underway. RIP Kadin Mann. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...r-old.html


Shortly after Kadin was shot and killed by another child in Alaska, a 7-year-old boy was shot and kllled by another child in Tennessee. Mom and stepdad left the 4 kids in the car while they went in to pay their Verizon bill. The kids found a loaded semi-automatic pistol in mom's purse (also left in the car) and the 8-year-old reportedly tried to unload it by removing the cartridge, but he shot his brother in the head instead. Poor kids, all of them. No names yet given. Investigation underway. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/boy-...ld-n504361


I don't care about the geography/demography or what kind of guns were used, both sets of parents/adults are equally negligent, in my book. I'm past ready for those child-proofing features.