To be fair to RK, Saildesign drew that comparison to begin with, which I pointed out at the time the logic is lacking.RK3369:
We shouldn't be even comparing operating motor vehicles and the lawful carrying of firearms on one's person while going about their daily business. There are far more chances of an individual getting into a motor vehicle accident than from a firearm going off while it is being carried in public. Obviously while driving there are a lot of others that are on the road doing the same thing many are not doing it in a safe manner. How many times can you count that you've been cut off, tailgated, have another vehicle swerve into your lane, have someone run a red light, pull out in front of you from a parking space or intersection, almost run over you in a parking lot, or any number of other things while driving? Now compare that with how many close calls you've had by someone lawfully carrying a gun. Besides driving is a privilege and not a right. Because of that government has every legal right to regulate and require a license for driving. But in spite of licensing and testing people still have an awful lot of motor vehicle accidents.
I was not trying to argue that people who drive a Class A motorhome shouldn't have to have a license for that type of vehicle. Motorcyclists have to have a separate license to operate one. More than likely they will injure or kill themselves in a collision with another motor vehicle. A Class A motorhome involved in an accident could more than likely because of it's size kill a lot more people. Commercial vehicles, in particular tractor trailers and 10 wheel dump trucks require a considerably higher level of skill to drive because of their weight and size. Most of the time in order to stop you must down shift quickly before applying the air brakes. If the driver relies on the air brakes too often you will lose air pressure causing the brakes to either lock up or overheat. It takes quite a bit of practice downshifting as you have to match the RPM's with the speed you're traveling along with double clutching. Miss a gear and you're "free wheeling" a dangerous situation indeed especially with a fully loaded trailer heading down hill. Owners and drivers of motorhomes do not have to deal with this as they are equipped with automatic transmissions making them a lot easier to drive. I don't believe that their owners should have to obtain a CDL for this. But should have to prove their competency in operating such a large vehicle. Most of the people who own these vehicles are also elderly which poses it's own set of problems.
We seem to think an awful lot alike on a lot of issues, dm.GCBHM:
You are absolutely correct. There are many common objects and practices that people can injure themselves and others with. The use of alcohol or drugs, power equipment, household chemicals and cleaners, prescription and non prescription drugs, pools, automotive tools, safety stands, jacks, ladders, sports equipment, recreational equipment, the distraction of using cell phones and texting even while crossing the street etc. If the our main interest is in preventing accidents we may as well regulate and require a license along with proof of competency of any and all objects that could injure, kill, or maim not only yourself but others along with any and all activity that could cause death or serious bodily harm. Is this the type of society that we want to live in? Why single out firearms? Accidental deaths or injuries with firearms are very low especially when taken into consideration the 10's of millions of them that are already in private hands and the percentage of those that are involved in accidents. If firearms accidents are that prevalent you can be damn sure that the media which has an anti gun agenda wouldn't hesitate in sensationalizing each and every one.
We sure do my friend, we sure do. I'm surprised that a lot of these control freaks don't spend most of their time railing against the use of alcohol or cigarettes which kill far more people than firearms do. Oh, that's right they already tried that, it was called "prohibition". Worked great now didn't it? When you come right down to it I'll bet that alcohol abuse is probably the root cause of most of society's problems, family break ups, spousal and child abuse, DWI's, suicides, murders of passion, arguments, you name it. Alcohol or drugs are the fuel. Maybe we should require that anyone that purchases any type of alcoholic beverage have a license to do so and receive the proper training in responsible alcohol consumption. Every alcoholic beverage must be registered and limited to one alcoholic beverage a month. What say you? I also do not see these same people railing against bars whose only real purpose is for people to drive to, get inebriated and then drive home. Instead they're just terrified that some law abiding citizen is walking around with a sidearm. You just can't keep passing laws to alleviate everyone's perceived fears. "SailDesign" might end up getting hit in the ass by his own jib and knocked overboard. Do we ban or regulate jibs?We seem to think an awful lot alike on a lot of issues, dm.
You've got it!Could it be that their agenda really isn't to protect society, but to control it?
Back when I was first out of high school, I had a Class B license which was straight truck over 26000 GVW. Drove for a living for a couple years, also ran a road sander/dumptruck for two winters for the local highway dept during the winter months. You can't honestly believe that just anybody with no training should be able to take off down the road with a Class A, can you? I don't care if it's an automatic, or an 18 spd road ranger, it's just not the same as driving a car. You know that it's not the same thing and to just give the keys to somebody and say have a nice day is foolish. Same thing with gun training, imo. How can anyone argue that even the smallest amount of safety training does not make you, and society in general, safer? If training doesn't work, why are we still doing driver ed classes in the schools? Why do insurance companies give young drivers a discount if they go through driver training? It's been proven through statistics that safety training is a positive influence and lowers the overall level of risk of an unsafe outcome.RK3369:
. A Class A motorhome involved in an accident could more than likely because of it's size kill a lot more people. Commercial vehicles, in particular tractor trailers and 10 wheel dump trucks require a considerably higher level of skill to drive because of their weight and size. Most of the time in order to stop you must down shift quickly before applying the air brakes. If the driver relies on the air brakes too often you will lose air pressure causing the brakes to either lock up or overheat. It takes quite a bit of practice downshifting as you have to match the RPM's with the speed you're traveling along with double clutching. Miss a gear and you're "free wheeling" a dangerous situation indeed especially with a fully loaded trailer heading down hill. Owners and drivers of motorhomes do not have to deal with this as they are equipped with automatic transmissions making them a lot easier to drive. I don't believe that their owners should have to obtain a CDL for this. But should have to prove their competency in operating such a large vehicle. Most of the people who own these vehicles are also elderly which poses it's own set of problems.
No, no one is arguing that training does not reduce risk. I think we have argued that training is good, but training alone, especially when mandated by government, is not going to reduce anything. I lived in TN for seven years, and in order to obtain a state conceal carry permit you must complete a 40 hour training course, undergo a background investigation, and pay a lot of money.Back when I was first out of high school, I had a Class B license which was straight truck over 26000 GVW. Drove for a living for a couple years, also ran a road sander/dumptruck for two winters for the local highway dept during the winter months. You can't honestly believe that just anybody with no training should be able to take off down the road with a Class A, can you? I don't care if it's an automatic, or an 18 spd road ranger, it's just not the same as driving a car. You know that it's not the same thing and to just give the keys to somebody and say have a nice day is foolish. Same thing with gun training, imo. How can anyone argue that even the smallest amount of safety training does not make you, and society in general, safer? If training doesn't work, why are we still doing driver ed classes in the schools? Why do insurance companies give young drivers a discount if they go through driver training? It's been proven through statistics that safety training is a positive influence and lowers the overall level of risk of an unsafe outcome.
What you guys are arguing against is "government mandated training". I don't want to see more government mandates either. I think you are arguing against a basic scientific fact that training reduces risk, but you are objecting to that fact because you don't want the government to tell you "you have to do it." I don't want them to tell me I have to do it either, but they tell us under the guise of increasing the "overall safety of the general public". Call it what you will, while I don't want to see more mandates either, you can not argue with the fact that safety training reduces risk. The point I'm trying to make is separate from the issue of whether the government should be able to tell you that you must be trained in safe operation.
No, no one is arguing that training does not reduce risk. I think we have argued that training is good, but training alone, especially when mandated by government, is not going to reduce anything. I lived in TN for seven years, and in order to obtain a state conceal carry permit you must complete a 40 hour training course, undergo a background investigation, and pay a lot of money.
Would you be surprised to know that does little to reduce violent crime committed with guns?no, I would not be surprised. someone who is going to commit a crime with a gun has no reason to use it in a safe manner.
I understand completely what you are saying but you are citing statistics which are the result of crimes committed apparently by those who shouldn't have or are not legal owners or carriers of guns. We are never going to stop that problem without killing all of them off, and I'll be the first to say that anyone committing a gun crime should be severely punished by being put to death. It may not stop the problem but it will stop that perpetrator from ever doing it again. Eventually enough of them will be put to death and the word of the associated risk will get out into the criminal community. That might have an effect.Would you also be surprised to know that the majority of that gun related violent crime is committed by people who did not submit to those requirements, but still somehow carried guns? [quote}
not surprised by that one either. Legal carriers are not the problem, illegal carriers, aka "criminals" are the problem. They don't care about training because they don't care about safety.
[quote}While training may reduce risk, it does not ensure safety. It is absolute nonsense to have government mandated training to be able to carry guns. Like all other gun control measures (and that is what it is), it simply does not work.
Nothing ensures safety, I also agree with you in that regard. Our government has the role of trying to determine how and to what extent to regulate our lives. You think that training should not be necessary. While I agree that it should not be a governmental mandate, I do think that safety training is the responsible thing for everyone to do to prove that they have at least some common sense about not injuring someone else by their actions. If they want to put the gun to their own head and pull the trigger, I say "go for it, have a ball". I don't care.
So how do we balance those positions between us? Well, maybe the "government" looks at the issue and says, "well, we think that some level of safety training is better than no training, so we think everyone should have some basic safety training in gun handling, safety and use."
I'm a CPA, have been licensed for 30+ years in NY and licensed in SC for a couple years since I moved down here. The state tells me that I have to complete 40 hours a year of mandatory continuing education classes in order to maintain an active license to practice as a CPA in each state. So how do you feel about that one? Do you think that me, as a CPA, should not have to undergo ongoing continuing education the focus of which is to maintain a current standard of professional knowledge to be able to provide the best service to my clients, or do you think that, once you pass the exam (which I did back in 1980), and got licensed originally, that should be good enough?
What if I were specializing in tax work (which I don't)? Do you think that the state should be able to tell me that I have to be educated in the current tax regulations to provide good service to the public , or do you think that I should be good to go because I got licensed 30 years ago when the tax laws were drastically different than they are now, but that's ok, I'm a CPA so I should know everything about current rules, right?
If you think that the state shouldn't demand that for CPA's who actively practice, then I think you are fine going to the local tax return preparer who also does real estate sales, property management and runs a vending business on the side. I'm sure they know what they are doing.
I don't like having to be forced into regular training, it's work and money out of my pocket but I understand the worth of it for the general public. At least the public has some assurance that a licensed CPA has maintained a knowledge base of current professional standards in the field, and has at least heard of an considered the changes in the regs from year to year so that they can provide valuable service to the public. Kinda hard to argue with that one. How would you feel if your doctor who started practicing 30 years ago didn't ever go to any current education conferences or training on current medical procedures and treatments? But you had been going to him for 30 years and things are good, right? Without current training, how does he know who to send you to when you exhibit a particular symptom which he's never encountered before?
No, no one is arguing that training does not reduce risk. I think we have argued that training is good, but training alone, especially when mandated by government, is not going to reduce anything. I lived in TN for seven years, and in order to obtain a state conceal carry permit you must complete a 40 hour training course, undergo a background investigation, and pay a lot of money.
Would you be surprised to know that does little to reduce violent crime committed with guns?Do you believe everyone who is a CPA is a good CPA? I hope not! But comparing CPAs to gun owners is simply ridiculous. As is the case with driving, being a CPA is not a natural, God-given right protected by the Bill of Rights, and no amount of training is going to ensure you are getting a good CPA anymore than it will ensure safety. I'm really stunned that this is still having to be discussed! I really do not believe you're that daft.no, I would not be surprised. someone who is going to commit a crime with a gun has no reason to use it in a safe manner.
I understand completely what you are saying but you are citing statistics which are the result of crimes committed apparently by those who shouldn't have or are not legal owners or carriers of guns. We are never going to stop that problem without killing all of them off, and I'll be the first to say that anyone committing a gun crime should be severely punished by being put to death. It may not stop the problem but it will stop that perpetrator from ever doing it again. Eventually enough of them will be put to death and the word of the associated risk will get out into the criminal community. That might have an effect.
Nothing ensures safety, I also agree with you in that regard. Our government has the role of trying to determine how and to what extent to regulate our lives. You think that training should not be necessary. While I agree that it should not be a governmental mandate, I do think that safety training is the responsible thing for everyone to do to prove that they have at least some common sense about not injuring someone else by their actions. If they want to put the gun to their own head and pull the trigger, I say "go for it, have a ball". I don't care.
So how do we balance those positions between us? Well, maybe the "government" looks at the issue and says, "well, we think that some level of safety training is better than no training, so we think everyone should have some basic safety training in gun handling, safety and use."
I'm a CPA, have been licensed for 30+ years in NY and licensed in SC for a couple years since I moved down here. The state tells me that I have to complete 40 hours a year of mandatory continuing education classes in order to maintain an active license to practice as a CPA in each state. So how do you feel about that one? Do you think that me, as a CPA, should not have to undergo ongoing continuing education the focus of which is to maintain a current standard of professional knowledge to be able to provide the best service to my clients, or do you think that, once you pass the exam (which I did back in 1980), and got licensed originally, that should be good enough?
What if I were specializing in tax work (which I don't)? Do you think that the state should be able to tell me that I have to be educated in the current tax regulations to provide good service to the public , or do you think that I should be good to go because I got licensed 30 years ago when the tax laws were drastically different than they are now, but that's ok, I'm a CPA so I should know everything about current rules, right?
If you think that the state shouldn't demand that for CPA's who actively practice, then I think you are fine going to the local tax return preparer who also does real estate sales, property management and runs a vending business on the side. I'm sure they know what they are doing.
I don't like having to be forced into regular training, it's work and money out of my pocket but I understand the worth of it for the general public. At least the public has some assurance that a licensed CPA has maintained a knowledge base of current professional standards in the field, and has at least heard of an considered the changes in the regs from year to year so that they can provide valuable service to the public. Kinda hard to argue with that one. How would you feel if your doctor who started practicing 30 years ago didn't ever go to any current education conferences or training on current medical procedures and treatments? But you had been going to him for 30 years and things are good, right? Without current training, how does he know who to send you to when you exhibit a particular symptom which he's never encountered before?
Wrt my reference to the violent crime being committed by those who do not go through approved channels to obtain firearms, this is the case in nearly every major metropolitan area in the US. Most violent crime is committed in urban areas by those who are not law abiding citizens. These non-law abiding citizens, otherwise knowns as criminals, simply do not abide by the law. They are not going to take any classes, go through any training, or purchase a gun by any legal means. How anyone can think mandating training is going to reduce violent crime is simply astounding. Again, I really can't believe this is actually a topic for discussion.
apparently it's not. I'm not comparing CPA's to gun owners. I'm using CPA mandated continuing education to make a point. If you don't think that it serves your interest to require your CPA to have current training, then go to someone who got licensed back when I originally did, because you can certainly expect that he knows everything about current financial statement and tax standards, right? Hope you have a good result on your tax return this year. I'm done. (for good this time. Should have kept my nose out of it but you know how those overtrained folks are, convinced they know more than everyone else.)No, no one is arguing that training does not reduce risk. I think we have argued that training is good, but training alone, especially when mandated by government, is not going to reduce anything. I lived in TN for seven years, and in order to obtain a state conceal carry permit you must complete a 40 hour training course, undergo a background investigation, and pay a lot of money.
Would you be surprised to know that does little to reduce violent crime committed with guns?
Do you believe everyone who is a CPA is a good CPA? I hope not! But comparing CPAs to gun owners is simply ridiculous. As is the case with driving, being a CPA is not a natural, God-given right protected by the Bill of Rights, and no amount of training is going to ensure you are getting a good CPA anymore than it will ensure safety. I'm really stunned that this is still having to be discussed! I really do not believe you're that daft.
Wrt my reference to the violent crime being committed by those who do not go through approved channels to obtain firearms, this is the case in nearly every major metropolitan area in the US. Most violent crime is committed in urban areas by those who are not law abiding citizens. These non-law abiding citizens, otherwise knowns as criminals, simply do not abide by the law. They are not going to take any classes, go through any training, or purchase a gun by any legal means. How anyone can think mandating training is going to reduce violent crime is simply astounding. Again, I really can't believe this is actually a topic for discussion.
You're missing the point, which is that your point is invalid. Training does not ensure you're getting what you pay for. I know a lot of CPAs who are in jail right now, who all had required training, licensing, etc., yet it did not stop them from doing bad things, completely disregarding their training. Their training did nothing to ensure their clients got good tax returns.apparently it's not. I'm not comparing CPA's to gun owners. I'm using CPA mandated continuing education to make a point. If you don't think that it serves your interest to require your CPA to have current training, then go to someone who got licensed back when I originally did, because you can certainly expect that he knows everything about current financial statement and tax standards, right? Hope you have a good result on your tax return this year. I'm done. (for good this time. Should have kept my nose out of it but you know how those overtrained folks are, convinced they know more than everyone else.)
Seriously. Do yo even understand what you're saying? You should have been done before you got started. The point is that no matter how much training you give someone, it does not ensure they will live by it. And again, no government controlled program, training, whatever you want to call it, is going to ensure safety. Gee WHIZ!
Here's what I said:You can't honestly believe that just anybody with no training should be able to take off down the road with a Class A, can you?
I hope that answers that question. However driving and carrying a gun for personal protection are two different things. From my earlier post:I don't believe that their owners should have to obtain a CDL for this. But should have to prove their competency in operating such a large vehicle.
As far as mandating government required training and permits to carry a gun, it opens up a whole system of abuse by politicians who wish to control people's lives. I do not trust nor worship at the alter of any politician either Republican or Democrat. Many will jump at the chance to make it as difficult as possible to obtain a concealed weapons permit. All in the name of public safety. Who gets to determine how much training is adequate and at what cost? Chuck Schumer? Diane Fienstein? Carolyn McCarthy? Eric Holder? Barack Obama? Should an individual who wishes to carry for their own personal protection require the same training as a member of a swat team or SEAL Team 6? People will just give it up by government fiat. That's their real intent. Sure you can exercise your 2nd Amendment rights as long as you meet certain conditions or if you are politically well connected. The right then becomes a privilege granted by government. What government giveth, government can taketh. Eventually government will indeed taketh. Just look at all of the gun control laws that have been passed since the gun control act of 1968? Have things really gotten better? Are we any safer? Hell, back then you never heard of any school shootings. That law was passed to protect the sorry asses of politicians following the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Bobbie Kennedy.How many times can you count that you've been cut off, tailgated, have another vehicle swerve into your lane, have someone run a red light, pull out in front of you from a parking space or intersection, almost run over you in a parking lot, or any number of other things while driving? Now compare that with how many close calls you've had by someone lawfully carrying a gun. Besides driving is a privilege and not a right. Because of that government has every legal right to regulate and require a license for driving. But in spite of licensing and testing people still have an awful lot of motor vehicle accidents.
Statements like that scare the hell out of me. I guess that would depend on who is in charge of government. Suppose another Hitler or Stalin got elected what then?Our government has the role of trying to determine how and to what extent to regulate our lives.