billvon 2,991 #226 March 14, 2012 >The 800 killed by cars and 400 killed in pools would disagree. Nor would the 3000 kids a year killed by guns. But still we'd see a lot more without those laws. Car seats alone increase survivability 71% for infants and 54% for toddlers during crashes. So those hundreds of toddlers and infants who are NOT dead are probably pretty happy that that law was in place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #227 March 15, 2012 QuoteBut still we'd see a lot more without those laws. How many is 'a lot more'? QuoteCar seats alone increase survivability 71% for infants and 54% for toddlers during crashes. So those hundreds of toddlers and infants who are NOT dead are probably pretty happy that that law was in place. Let's pass even MORE car seat laws, then...surely with enough laws we can get that down to zero!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #228 March 15, 2012 QuoteLet's pass even MORE car seat laws, then...surely with enough laws we can get that down to zero! Since it isn't zero, the laws are clearly not working and should therefor be taken off the books. Even with mandatory education, doctors still make mistakes. Lets do away with mandatory training. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #229 March 15, 2012 Quote Since it isn't zero, the laws are clearly not working and should therefor be taken off the books. or you could start where many gun enthusiasts suggest: Enforce existing laws, don't make new ones.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #230 March 15, 2012 Quoteor you could start where many gun enthusiasts suggest: Enforce existing laws, don't make new ones. You mean like enforcing car seat laws better and increasing fines for non-compliance. That option wasn't given by one of our resident gun-nuts above. But why have any laws, according to the 2nd Amendment it really should be an unrestricted right. Nobody is willing to have that discussion though. At least not on here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #231 March 15, 2012 QuoteQuoteor you could start where many gun enthusiasts suggest: Enforce existing laws, don't make new ones. You mean like enforcing car seat laws better and increasing fines for non-compliance. That option wasn't given by one of our resident gun-nuts above. well, the discussion didn't swing to medical training until some other nut brought it into the discussion. So yeah. More enforcement and increased fines. Quote But why have any laws, according to the 2nd Amendment it really should be an unrestricted right. Nobody is willing to have that discussion though. At least not on here. That's referred to by many as "Constitutional Carry". The idea being (as you stated) that the constitution gives them the right to keep and bear arms and any governmental institution that makes rules or laws to restrict that right on public property is infringing on their constitutional rights. I can see both sides of the argument there. Just as some people are dangerous behind the wheel of a car (my wife if the car is in reverse), some people are dangerous behind the trigger. However, if a state made a law saying that an individual could not participate in any public protests without a permit (that cost $140 processing fee) would that be restricting someone's right to free speech? If yes, why is one right unduly restricted by a permit and a fee, when for another right it "just makes sense". What about a federal law that permits Secret Service agents to designate any place they wish as a place where free speech, association and petition of the government are prohibited. And it permits the Secret Service to make these determinations based on the content of speech.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #232 March 15, 2012 >How many is 'a lot more'? Depends on the age group and year. 14,600 kids below the age of 5 would likely have died in 2009. >Let's pass even MORE car seat laws, then...surely with enough laws we can get that >down to zero! You can never get it down to zero. A 71% reduction is pretty good though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #233 March 16, 2012 Quote>Let's pass even MORE car seat laws, then...surely with enough laws we can get that >down to zero! You can never get it down to zero. A 71% reduction is pretty good though. That makes the assumption that every accident would have resulted in a fatality.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #234 March 16, 2012 QuoteThat makes the assumption that every accident would have resulted in a fatality. You made the assumption that since death rate isn't ZERO, the law is faulty and now you worry about assumptions? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #235 March 16, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote QuoteIt all depends on what ATF is authorized to do by Congress. Why do you think it OK for ATF to exceed its statutory authority? Like I said before... Show where I said it. All I said is you have a double standard. STRAWMAN. Where did I approve ATF exceeding its authority with respect to firearms? Provide a link to a single post where I did that. EVERY SINGLE POST you make regarding NICS for all sales, as that is not part of Federal law. If the ATF exceeded its authority on NICS checks, I would be against that. I am not aware that it has - so please enlighten us as to the event(s) you have in mind.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #236 March 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote QuoteIt all depends on what ATF is authorized to do by Congress. Why do you think it OK for ATF to exceed its statutory authority? Like I said before... Show where I said it. All I said is you have a double standard. STRAWMAN. Where did I approve ATF exceeding its authority with respect to firearms? Provide a link to a single post where I did that. EVERY SINGLE POST you make regarding NICS for all sales, as that is not part of Federal law. If the ATF exceeded its authority on NICS checks, I would be against that. I am not aware that it has - so please enlighten us as to the event(s) you have in mind. ATF only requires NICS checks for dealer sales - since your sole solution to any gun issue appears to be "NICS checks for ALL sales" it is clear that you have no problem with ATF exceeding it's mandate where *guns* are concerned, but not with your rocket motors.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #237 March 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote QuoteIt all depends on what ATF is authorized to do by Congress. Why do you think it OK for ATF to exceed its statutory authority? Like I said before... Show where I said it. All I said is you have a double standard. STRAWMAN. Where did I approve ATF exceeding its authority with respect to firearms? Provide a link to a single post where I did that. EVERY SINGLE POST you make regarding NICS for all sales, as that is not part of Federal law. If the ATF exceeded its authority on NICS checks, I would be against that. I am not aware that it has - so please enlighten us as to the event(s) you have in mind. ATF only requires NICS checks for dealer sales - since your sole solution to any gun issue appears to be "NICS checks for ALL sales" it is clear that you have no problem with ATF exceeding it's mandate where *guns* are concerned, but not with your rocket motors. Very poor logic. I want the MANDATE changed so that existing prohibitions on who can legally buy guns can be properly enforced instead of circumvented. I have not asked for ATF to exceed its mandate.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #238 March 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteATF only requires NICS checks for dealer sales - since your sole solution to any gun issue appears to be "NICS checks for ALL sales" it is clear that you have no problem with ATF exceeding it's mandate where *guns* are concerned, but not with your rocket motors. Very poor logic. I want the MANDATE changed so that existing prohibitions on who can legally buy guns can be properly enforced instead of circumvented. I have not asked for ATF to exceed its mandate. Since you're evidently no longer demanding that NICS checks be completed on all sales, what's the new "mandate" you're talking about?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #239 March 18, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteATF only requires NICS checks for dealer sales - since your sole solution to any gun issue appears to be "NICS checks for ALL sales" it is clear that you have no problem with ATF exceeding it's mandate where *guns* are concerned, but not with your rocket motors. Very poor logic. I want the MANDATE changed so that existing prohibitions on who can legally buy guns can be properly enforced instead of circumvented. I have not asked for ATF to exceed its mandate. Since you're evidently no longer demanding that NICS checks be completed on all sales, what's the new "mandate" you're talking about? Closing a very obvious loophole in ATF's mandate that makes enforcement of existing laws difficult and circumvention of those existing laws trivially easy. But you knew that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #240 March 19, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteATF only requires NICS checks for dealer sales - since your sole solution to any gun issue appears to be "NICS checks for ALL sales" it is clear that you have no problem with ATF exceeding it's mandate where *guns* are concerned, but not with your rocket motors. Very poor logic. I want the MANDATE changed so that existing prohibitions on who can legally buy guns can be properly enforced instead of circumvented. I have not asked for ATF to exceed its mandate. Since you're evidently no longer demanding that NICS checks be completed on all sales, what's the new "mandate" you're talking about? Closing a very obvious loophole in ATF's mandate that makes enforcement of existing laws difficult and circumvention of those existing laws trivially easy. But you knew that. NOT a loophole - but you knew that....and it's STILL over-reaching their mandate...but you knew that too.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #241 March 20, 2012 Why do you want it to be trivially easy for felons and the mentally disturbed to get guns? What's in it for you?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #242 March 20, 2012 Quote Why do you want it to be trivially easy for felons and the mentally disturbed to get guns? What's in it for you? How about you show us the numbers of GCA-68 banned individuals that subsequently purchased, first? And no, your google search doesn't count. GCA 68 bans only.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #243 March 20, 2012 QuoteQuote Why do you want it to be trivially easy for felons and the mentally disturbed to get guns? What's in it for you? How about you show us the numbers of GCA-68 banned individuals that subsequently purchased, first? And no, your google search doesn't count. GCA 68 bans only. GCA or no GCA, people shot dead by nutters with guns are still very dead. All you do is emphasize the problem with the current process, yet you continue to defend it. Everything you post suggests that you just don't care. Why do you want it to be trivially easy for felons and the mentally disturbed to get guns? What's in it for you?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #244 March 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote Why do you want it to be trivially easy for felons and the mentally disturbed to get guns? What's in it for you? How about you show us the numbers of GCA-68 banned individuals that subsequently purchased, first? And no, your google search doesn't count. GCA 68 bans only. GCA or no GCA, people shot dead by nutters with guns are still very dead. All you do is emphasize the problem with the current process, yet you continue to defend it. Everything you post suggests that you just don't care. Why do you want it to be trivially easy for felons and the mentally disturbed to get guns? What's in it for you? what I keep seeing in this back and forth you two engage in constantly is that you, prof, want the federal government to step in and control gun sales nation wide. Even if it were to be a private transaction between two individuals outside of a gun show or a dealership. The other side of the story is that states have a right to enact their own laws, and choose to make NICS checks required for all firearms transfers. You appear to wish to weaken (at minimum... abolish more likely) the 10th amendment rights of states to control what happens inside their state borders that isn't already a power assigned by the constitution to the federal government.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
