Time to register/ban Pressure Cookers?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Tell us how expanded background checks or stronger penalties for straw purchases would deny YOU any right.

As discussed (another thread, I believe) today, private party transfers are difficult and expensive to do in California. If you can get an FFL willing to do them, it's routinely $75 + state fees, and often a local requirement to buy another $13 trigger lock to add to the collection, so we're looking at $100 to exercise an constitutional right.

For comparison, the Federal courts struck down Mississippi's $2 (1966 = $14.xx today) poll tax for black voters.

[mistercwood 287]

Quote

Quote

Who goes hunting with a pistol as their primary weapon?? No one,

I have half a dozen friends that do.

Just talked to one a couple nights ago and he got special sights put on his .44 revolver (I'm old school.....guns are collectibles and the history is important, rifles should have wood stocks and the black plastic crap looks horrible to me......so I was dismayed that he marred such a nice piece with modern sights. But he said it was for function)

You really are talking out your ass on this topic. Let alone the strawman/emotional argument that 'gun are designed for killing' - it's such a dodge and non-starter. The comment is solely to question another person's right to own property and determine for themselves how it's used.

Fair enough, I stand corrected. I guess I was thinking more big game ie bears, deer etc, but apparently some people like to hunt bears with pistols (won't the bear hear their balls clanking together? ).

You seem to misunderstand me though - I'm not advocating removing your right to responsibly own guns. Own as many as you damn well please! There seems to be very little attention paid to the responsibility part. There's maybe a half dozen states in America that require a safety course when purchasing a firearm, that's it. It's not like my FJC consisted of "Here's your rig, when the ground looks too big grab this bit here and pull it out."

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[normiss 883]

There's no constitutional amendment giving us the right to bear rigs though.

[mistercwood 287]

Yeah I know that, and I should've realised someone would bring that up when making the analogy. What's your thoughts on my concern though? Would you object to mandatory safety training accompanying the purchase of a firearm? Not every time, just the first time. Assume no cost to yourself other than time.

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]Tell us how expanded background checks or stronger penalties for straw purchases would deny YOU any right.

[normiss 883]

That's the path I took and I fully support it.

AFAIK it is a requirement for a CWP.

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

Quote

I have put tens of thousands of rounds through pistols and have yet to kill anybody. Either I am terrible at using handguns or you are wrong with your assessment of their purpose.

Come on. You say you're a former LRS soldier, so I'd bet that in firing most of those rounds you were practicing killing people.

No I was practicing on influencing a situation. As a LRS team leader I understand that if a shot if fired the mission is compromised. As an old operator told me many years ago: Demonstrate your Superior skills and abilities, by avoiding situations where you would have to demonstrate your Superior skills and abilities.

• Quote

[billvon 3,095]

>While some people see a straw as simply a delivery vehicle for drugs....most of us are
>smart enough to realize that's not the only way they are used.

Right. Most people see them used as a way to drink things - because that's what they are designed for. People who think straws aren't designed for drinking are just as foolish as people who think that guns aren't designed to kill people.

>I've never slit my wrists with razor blades, but they can be used for that.

Yes. Most people use them to shave. People who think they aren't designed to shave with are either foolish - or have an agenda that requires that they claim that they're not.

You're making my point here.

>Do we stop when we take a cop home to simply supervise our use of any item to
>make sure we behave?

If you like. Seems a little extreme.

[billvon 3,095]

>Not so fast Bill, a reserve is designed to catch air, inflate quickly, and reduce ones decent rate.

Ah, so a reserve that blows to bits when you open it - but slows you to 80mph - is working as designed? You must have a different standard for reserves than I do.

Reserves are designed to save your life, even if you never use it for that. Guns are designed to kill people, even if you never use it for that.

>I have put tens of thousands of rounds through pistols and have yet to kill anybody.
>Either I am terrible at using handguns or you are wrong with your assessment of their
>purpose.

I have only used my reserve 3 times. (Used a tandem reserve 3 times as well.) I haven't used most of my reserves at all, but have made thousands of jumps. Go figure.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Yeah I know that, and I should've realised someone would bring that up when making the analogy. What's your thoughts on my concern though? Would you object to mandatory safety training accompanying the purchase of a firearm? Not every time, just the first time. Assume no cost to yourself other than time.

Time is money, particularly if you make it poorly accessible. If, say, the proposal requires that you get signed off by the Sheriff's Department at a range and you live in rural areas, he's not nearby. If you're in the city, he's busy. So that's a "reasonable" requirement that is really meant as a barrier.

California has long required passing a safety training test to buy a handgun. Consider it akin to the written driver's test. In the 90s it was called the BFSC and it was valid for life, as you suggest this one should. But in the last decade someone decided it would be a great idea to replace it with an HSC card, invalidating the old one, and this one expires in 5 years. A nuisance $25 affair.

But the beauty was that someone decided to make the certificates themselves scarce as rain in the desert. On 3 occasions I went by the local gun range (the only one within 30 miles of San Francisco) to take it and they were out. One time I called and they said they had one left - 10 minutes later I get there an it's gone. This is a perfect example of "reasonable requirements" that are really about putting up as many barriers for the sake of barriers as possible to gun ownership.

End result, anytime I hear a suggestion like your's, the bullshit detector goes off. California already has it. Nearly any state with a CCW program requires it for that permit. Frankly there really aren't that many incidents that a safety training class will address...it certainly won't have any impact on mass shootings, or drug related crime. And when you look at the accidental shootings, these tend to be by people who should know better. Hunters usually have to take a hunter safety class to get their tags, for example.

So what's your motivation, other than to impose a burden?

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Gasoline is pretty easily obtained. No ratios to worry about, either.

If you want to make a fire with gasoline, you're right.
If you want to make an explosion with gasoline, you're wrong.

But if you want to make explosions with gasoline vapors, your right...

Edited to add:
All you need is a pressure cooker....

I think the OP's point was that controlling things is not the solution because those bent on doing harm will just go down the thing list to something else.

I don’t know if anyone really answered one of the early questions about what a pressure cooker is for. Water boiling under pressure boils at a higher temperature. Food will cook faster if boiled under pressure. This can be very important if you are at higher elevations trying to cook.

and here I thought it was to cook it with steam so as not to lose the nutrients by boiling them away...

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[normiss 883]

Seems a little extreme.

We crossed that line a LOOONG time ago.

[mistercwood 287]

I'm not interested in throwing up extra barriers, I actually think the change to California law you mentioned was pointless. You do seem to have picked the most pessimistic interpretation of my proposal though. By time, I meant a couple hours training. And I had no intention of impacting mass shootings or crime with this, it is in fact the accidental shootings I expect to be reduced.

Last I checked there were something like 35-40 gun related deaths in the US per day. Let's say just one of those, per day, is prevented because of mandatory basic safety training - currently only required in a half dozen states. In roughly a decade, you'll have saved the same amount of lives as were lost on 9/11. Not to mention non-fatal injuries caused by lax safety standards, and the reduced burden on your medical system by their prevention. You can't prevent every tragedy. It's lazy not to try.

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I'm not interested in throwing up extra barriers, I actually think the change to California law you mentioned was pointless. You do seem to have picked the most pessimistic interpretation of my proposal though. By time, I meant a couple hours training. And I had no intention of impacting mass shootings or crime with this, it is in fact the accidental shootings I expect to be reduced.

Last I checked there were something like 35-40 gun related deaths in the US per day. Let's say just one of those, per day, is prevented because of mandatory basic safety training - currently only required in a half dozen states. In roughly a decade, you'll have saved the same amount of lives as were lost on 9/11. Not to mention non-fatal injuries caused by lax safety standards, and the reduced burden on your medical system by their prevention. You can't prevent every tragedy. It's lazy not to try.

there are, on average, 2 such deaths per day in the country. But as I wrote, this is in spite of preexisting training requirements. It's not very different from the swooping/wingloading deaths in skydiving. We know the problems...and yet it continues. Throwing an extra barrier up front doesn't stop people from making a chain of errors that leads to such a disastrous outcome.

It's worth noting the NRA has long provided training materials for children that would be beneficial if guns weren't demonized in the schools.

[mistercwood 287]

Training requirements that exist in only 6 states. Which means 88% of US states have zero training requirement. So do you believe expanding those requirements would have absolutely no impact on accidental deaths? Or just not enough? I'm not sure I'd be comfortable having the NRA effectively marketing direct to kids - I had a hard time taking their website as anything other than propaganda. I do feel that if you're a gun owner and a parent, you damn well should be teaching your kids firearm safety and storing the weapons securely. Anything less is just negligent.

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[quade 4]

Quote

It's worth noting the NRA has long provided training materials for children that would be beneficial if guns weren't demonized in the schools.

Last time I checked, there was nothing stopping parents from exercising responsibility in educating their kids.

But of course, this is a lot like sex education; some parents aren't willing or don't know how...which is where government comes in...which is a conundrum for society.

I have no answer to this, but at some point I think we have to recognize the government does need to play a role in education of several items some parents don't actually want them to know. So how does that work?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[sfzombie 3]

last one i read about that made the news was where a 4 year old got a cop's gun from the bed and shot his mom. 4 year olds cannot take the safety course and you would think the cop had safety training. so much for reducing anything...

http://kitswv.com

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

last one i read about that made the news was where a 4 year old got a cop's gun from the bed and shot his mom. 4 year olds cannot take the safety course and you would think the cop had safety training. so much for reducing anything...

but if it saves one kid...

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[champu 1]

Well, that's one anecdote.

I think we can agree that the idea of a firearms safety course is a good one. You can agree with that and still maintain that courses and permitting can, and have been, intentionally used as de facto bans. As I've said before, BASE jumping in national parks is not illegal, you just have to get a permit first. Imagine going to vote, you get there, and they say, "Well, everything is in order for you to vote, but we're out of ballots, sorry."

There was an interesting story posted here (a year ago today, as it happens) that didn't get a whole lot of discussion, but illustrates the problem with what sounds like a simple "common-sense" regulation.

And you can ask, "suppose all of those problems were addressed, then would you be for a course/test/demonstration of safety proficiency?" and I'd say, "fine."

[OHCHUTE 0]

You need to be finger printed to buy fertilizer and diesel fuel. You need to take a training class and pay an annual fee, license to own these items.

Aren't the chemists at work to de-frag fertilizer when fuel is added to it! They need put an additive in there to prevent this from happening.

[brenthutch 444]

Not true, Instant cold pack + Etch-a-sketch + knowledge = IED

Hair coloring + finger polish remover + knowledge = IED

I could go on and on but if one is determined one may create a great deal of mischief with common house hold items.

[normiss 883]

After seeing the lies our government tells us as a society with regards to drugs (all drugs for that matter), I'm glad I kept them out of my children's sex and gun educations.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Training requirements that exist in only 6 states. Which means 88% of US states have zero training requirement. So do you believe expanding those requirements would have absolutely no impact on accidental deaths? Or just not enough? I'm not sure I'd be comfortable having the NRA effectively marketing direct to kids - I had a hard time taking their website as anything other than propaganda. I do feel that if you're a gun owner and a parent, you damn well should be teaching your kids firearm safety and storing the weapons securely. Anything less is just negligent.

for an Aussie you seem to have very specific knowledge of US requirements. Or did you get that off a political website? I question its accuracy and will also point out that California alone represents more than 10% of the population. Treating it at 2% is an error.

You're also quick to dismiss the NRA material, without having even viewed it. Seems a bit closed minded.

But yes, my opinion is that your (not really spelled out) proposal will have no measurable incremental impact on accidental shootings, but will burden millions.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

It's worth noting the NRA has long provided training materials for children that would be beneficial if guns weren't demonized in the schools.

Last time I checked, there was nothing stopping parents from exercising responsibility in educating their kids.

But of course, this is a lot like sex education; some parents aren't willing or don't know how...which is where government comes in...which is a conundrum for society.

I have no answer to this, but at some point I think we have to recognize the government does need to play a role in education of several items some parents don't actually want them to know. So how does that work?

Is this an argument against Mr Cwood's proposal?

Gun safety is a lot easier to teach than sex ed. I've trained (corrupted if you prefer) many Canadians as well as locals. The instructional part is less than an hour, the shooting part a couple more.

It's not rocket science
1- assume all guns are loaded, check when you pick one up
1a - removing the magazine does not remove the round in the chamber
2- never point at anything you don't want to shoot (per #1)
3- finger off the trigger until you're ready to fire
4- check downrange of where you intend to fire

the vast majority of accidents are violations of these 4 rules. Though to be honest, to accidentally shoot someone because of one of these is so stupid that I wonder how many of them were intentional.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Guns are designed to kill people,....

You want to re-write that with a little more fact and less emotional scare tactic?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239