dimreepr

That's not a personal attack, it merely attacks your argument.

It’s no accident that recent terrorist attacks in the UK are committed with knives rather than guns. In what way is this a "personal attack"?

None of which are random. So you’re happy to give terrorists all the guns they want? This thinking isn’t so much cultural as it is idiotic. “One often meets ones destiny on the path one chooses to avoid it”

This is what I don’t understand, which is possibly/probably cultural; why do you resist, so vehemently, the idea of a check for competency when you’re so obviously competent? Surely you’d rather a gun owner is safe to own it rather than risk your family with an idiot who just randomly pulls the trigger for fun?

Case in point, I’d never considered it from this POV. Intuition tells us it would be the baby’s mother who would naturally object most vociferously, whereas the most appropriate custodian isn’t always the mother but is always the most vociferous objector.

I think wisdom resembles knowledge, we will always have something more to learn.

I do realise that our reality/culture differs and that creates a natural barrier to understanding, but such an obvious and fundamental moral question ordinarily bridges that barrier. So suggesting an objection to the, avoidable, death of innocents is mere pious posturing, says rather more about you than I imagine you wanted to display.

Rito.

This is a philosophical question, hence the chosen fora.

So wisdom has limits?

Would that change your answer?

I do like to ask questions with enough ambiguity to provoke interesting tangents, but in this case I think the tangents would cloud the purpose. It’s not so much a question of a final choice but one of an initial choice. Yes.

No. And to throw a spanner in the works, one can choose another to join one.

My bad, an ill defined question, Ok let’s assume one can choose the age you want immortalised and stay that age.

If so why, if not why not?

Who knew gunfighters were quite so young?

Not really, since a salary depends on employment. So what’s your argument?

This thread is about accidental gun injuries/deaths of children, so this argument is off topic, nevertheless the abundance of guns, in America, clearly and directly contribute to these incidents; surely you can see the benefit of changing the current status quo to profit your children, even if that means you have to prove your competence to own a gun?

Indeed, I sometimes think it should be true of cyclists as well since they ride on the pavements, without consideration, I recently had to pay over £1,000 on vet bills when one hit my dog.

http://www.moneysupermarket.com/car-insurance/blog/the-cost-of-learning-to-drive/ http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/car-insurance/young-drivers Insurance here is mandatory.

Whistle-blowing in the NHS can lead to bullying, threats and sometimes unemployment; I applaud them but it does require a lot of thought before one blows that whistle.

Here in the UK the average cost of a getting a license, car and insurance is nearly £6,800 ($9,692). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/motorinsurance/11340679/Young-driver-Thatll-cost-6768-car-insurance-is-not-the-only-rising-expense.html

Really, have I conflated the gun lobby with the NRA? Looking from the outside that’s how it seems, please explain my mistake. That certainly seems to be the position of everyone on this thread, (I may have missed one or two with a stronger position) nevertheless, please explain how you know my position.

Whilst we blame the NRA and manufacturers for nailing and bracing the key log in place, we don’t blame all the other logs, but we do question them for allowing it to happen. My point is your extremist argument isn’t valid, because whilst one side is taking the extreme position of letting anyone own a gun, even those incapable of being responsible, the rest of us aren’t demanding an absolute ban, which is the other extreme; we’re merely suggesting checks on the responsibility of potential owners and limiting children’s access to them, that seems to be a very reasonable position (far from extreme).

If you have a logjam you wouldn’t call the logger trying to find the key log, an extremist.