Missouri Republicans vote 104-39 to reject open-carry amendment

[We Never Know]

Which has literally no relevance to the point being made. Other than to highlight that: yes, we put restrictions on things like cars and guns in order to prevent or limit deaths.

I mean. Yes. That's obvious.

Your post was....

"Which is why you are generally required to have a license, or be supervised, and follow a long string of safety precautions, and there are strict limits to where you can drive a car. Are you in favour of those for guns?"

So yes it has relevance to your post

 

[We Never Know]

Again, you do not have to quote me twice.

Yes, for someone who is 16. And 17. Because here you have to be 18 to get a driver's license.

That's there, not here.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You aren't reading very well. Its legal for a 17 year old to go squirrel hunting.

I never once said otherwise. You asked why it might be necessary for a 17 year old to require adults supervision when carrying a firearm in a national park.

You however don't like that and want it changed only because you think at 17 they aren't responsible and need adult supervision (I disagree).

Now I know you're not reading my posts. I never said anything about the legality of any of this.

Pay attention in future.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your post was....

"Which is why you are generally required to have a license, or be supervised, and follow a long string of safety precautions, and there are strict limits to where you can drive a car. Are you in favour of those for guns?"

So yes it has relevance to your post

No, it doesn't. Pointing out that people die in car accidents means nothing to the point that the reason we put safety requirements and precautions in place is to reduce that number.

This is a really dumb argument.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

To obtain a hunting license when I was younger one had to participate in a hunting safety course and it could be taken at school given by department of wildlife conservation or one could go take it there.

I left that off to give you less to complain about.

So now go....

Edit...that driver training must suck

Teen driver safety is a topic that affects all drivers on the road. With 7.8% of all fatal crashes occurring among drivers ages 15 to 20, motor vehicle deaths are the second-leading cause of death for this age group.

Teen Driving Facts and Statistics 2022 | Bankrate

In fairness, there's a big difference between a vehicle and a firearm. One is transportation, the other a weapon. Teens lack life experience, can be emotionally volatile, and are very impacted by social issues. That they misuse vehicles (something required for transportation) is a good indication that they are also likely to misuse firearms, which are weapons.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't learn how to use them safely and get experience with hunting. It means they ought to be supervised and guided in this since a hunting accident or firearm misuse is a high stakes incident. This includes accidents and violence to self and others.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

That's there, not here.

And where is "here"? Because Nationally - that's across the entire United States with the exception of three states - federal law states that drivers under the age of 18 are not permitted to drive unless a parent, guardian or licensed driver over the age of 25 is also present.

 

[Curious George]

If you give a squirrel a beer, he’ll probably want a smoke to go with it.

 

[We Never Know]

No, it doesn't. Pointing out that people die in car accidents means nothing to the point that the reason we put safety requirements and precautions in place is to reduce that number.

This is a really dumb argument.

Lets try this one more time.

Your post..." Sure. Which is why you are generally required to have a license, or be supervised, and follow a long string of safety precautions, and there are strict limits to where you can drive a car. Are you in favour of those for guns?"


My reply...hint..the first sentence is key..

that driver training must suck

Teen driver safety is a topic that affects all drivers on the road. With 7.8% of all fatal crashes occurring among drivers ages 15 to 20, motor vehicle deaths are the second-leading cause of death for this age group.

Teen Driving Facts and Statistics 2022 | Bankrate

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Lets try this one more time.

Your post..." Sure. Which is why you are generally required to have a license, or be supervised, and follow a long string of safety precautions, and there are strict limits to where you can drive a car. Are you in favour of those for guns?"


My reply...hint..the first sentence is key..

that driver training must suck

Teen driver safety is a topic that affects all drivers on the road. With 7.8% of all fatal crashes occurring among drivers ages 15 to 20, motor vehicle deaths are the second-leading cause of death for this age group.

Teen Driving Facts and Statistics 2022 | Bankrate

You really aren't understanding what I'm writing, are you?

PERSON A: "Why should we put restrictions on things that are dangerous?"
PERSON B: "To make them potentially less dangerous."
PERSON A: "But some people still die. Look at these statistics."
PERSON B: "So? They're still being made less dangerous."
PERSON A: "BUT SOME PEOPLE STILL DIE. LOOK AT THESE STATISTICS."

I mean, I'm finding it hard to believe I'm having this discussion. ***STAFF EDIT***

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

motor vehicle deaths are the second-leading cause of death for this age group.

Get ready to start seeing that change to gun related violence and accidental death.

 

[We Never Know]

And where is "here"? Because Nationally - that's across the entire United States with the exception of three states - federal law states that drivers under the age of 18 are not permitted to drive unless a parent, guardian or licensed driver over the age of 25 is also present.

Do some research.. There are around 15 states that at 16 you can have a full license.

How Old Does Your Teen Need to Be to Legally Drive?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Do some research.. There are around 15 states that at 16 you can have a full license.

I'm well aware that state laws differ from federal law. That still doesn't answer where "here" is; you're very bad at answering questions asked of you.

 

[We Never Know]

You really aren't understanding what I'm writing, are you?

PERSON A: "Why should we put restrictions on things that are dangerous?"
PERSON B: "To make them potentially less dangerous."
PERSON A: "But some people still die. Look at these statistics."
PERSON B: "So? They're still being made less dangerous."
PERSON A: "BUT SOME PEOPLE STILL DIE. LOOK AT THESE STATISTICS."

I mean, I'm finding it hard to believe I'm having this discussion. ***STAFF EDIT***

***STAFF EDIT***

You bought up trainig for driving. I showed that training must suck. I never once said the training isn't needed.

How many 17 year old out squirrel hunting kill people?

 

[We Never Know]

I'm well aware that state laws differ from federal law. That still doesn't answer where "here" is; you're very bad at answering questions asked of you.

I don't need to tell you where I am. Its one of those 16 states.... Which should be obvious

 

[ImmortalFlame]

***STAFF EDIT***

You bought up trainig for driving. I showed that training must suck.

Well, no you didn't. You just said that, and then went on to post vehicle death statistics as if it proved anything. It doesn't.

Do you or do you not agree that the reason we put numerous restrictions on driving is to reduce the likelihood and occurrence of accidents, injuries and deaths associated with driving? Yes or no?

I never once said the training isn't needed.

I never accused you of saying that. I wouldn't, because I honestly have no idea what point it is you think you're making. "We do things to make a thing more safe but even if we do sometimes accidents happen anyway, soooooo....?"

How many 17 year old out squirrel hunting kill people?

I have no idea. You'd need to speak to the seventeen year-old squirrel hunting society. But they tend to be cagey about that stuff.

 

[We Never Know]

Get ready to start seeing that change to gun related violence and accidental death.

Yeah I know. The are 17 year old teens out squirrel hunting and killing everyone they see

 

[We Never Know]

***STAFF EDIT***


Well, no you didn't. You just said that, and then went on to post vehicle death statistics as if it proved anything. It doesn't.

The training sucks or there would be less deaths and not the second leading cause

Do you or do you not agree that the reason we put numerous restrictions on driving is to reduce the likelihood and occurrence of accidents, injuries and deaths associated with driving? Yes or no?

That answer is obvious,, unless you're 12.

I never accused you of saying that. I wouldn't, because I honestly have no idea what point it is you think you're making. "We do things to make a thing more safe but even if we do sometimes accidents happen anyway, soooooo....?"

Exactly!

I have no idea. You'd need to speak to the seventeen year-old squirrel hunting society. But they tend to be cagey about that stuff.

If you don't know, why are you complaining?
Do you always complain about things you don't know?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The training sucks or there would be less deaths and not the second leading cause

Okay then. Good to see you care, I guess.

That answer is obvious,, unless you're 12.

Which is exactly why your above statement is not a contradiction of my argument. Glad you got there!

Exactly!

Exactly... what? You have no conclusion?

If you don't know, why are you complaining?
Do you always complain about things you don't know?

Where have I complained? All I did was literally answer your question.

Geez, stop being so emotional. Facts over feels, please.

I mean, I also don't know how many people are killed by five year olds using grenades, but I still think it's pretty obvious to say a law preventing adults from giving grenades to five year olds is designed to prevent those five year olds from killing people with grenades.

I mean... Obviously.

 

[We Never Know]

Okay then. Good to see you care, I guess.


Which is exactly why your above statement is not a contradiction of my argument. Glad you got there!

We do things to make a thing more safe but even if we do sometimes accidents happen anyway, soooooo....?"
Exactly... what? You have no conclusion?



Where have I complained? All I did was literally answer your question.

Geez, stop being so emotional. Facts over feels, please.

I mean, I also don't know how many people are killed by five year olds using grenades, but I still think it's pretty obvious to say a law preventing adults from giving grenades to five year olds is designed to prevent those five year olds from killing people with grenades.

I mean... Obviously.

I see only three things here to reply to

We do things to make a thing more safe but even if we do sometimes accidents happen anyway

1. My exactly was in response to that.

2. If you don't know anything about 17 year olds hunting squirrel, don't dictate what they need

a law preventing adults from giving grenades to five year olds

3. That's common sense. Its sad you think a law is needed for that not to happen.
Have a good day

 

[ImmortalFlame]

1. My exactly was in response to that.

Your arguments make no sense.

2. If you don't know anything about 17 year olds hunting squirrel, don't dictate what they need

So you don't think requiring supervision for minors with guns on national parks may reduce gun-related deaths or accidents?

3. That's common sense. Its sad you think a law is needed for that not to happen.

I'm fairly certain there are already laws in place about giving weapons to five year olds.

Are you under the impression that it's legal to give an active grenade to a five year old?