On a side note: this is also why teenagers should not be driving cars. She was 17 and able to driver her friends around? WTH?
Until she’s 18 she should not have a driver’s license
Once 18 she should, until 21, only be able to drive around with an adult over 21 next to her to monitor her driving
Cars are 2 tonnes of death on wheels, why do we allow irresponsible teenagers to play around with that?
Well then again, this is the US were talking about, teenagers can get near military grade weapons as well and nothing ever goes wrong with that, so what am I complaining about rite?
The vast majority of teenagers are fine and require transportation to get to work/school. I wouldn’t argue against restrictions on passengers but completely stripping them of driving would fuck up so many things. How does a 18-21 year old get back and forth to college without a car for example?
Public transportation is the standard here in europe for that kind of stuff, almost nobody among my classmate come by car. They all use the tramway, busses or bikes
That is an Americas problem. All the cities there are very badly designed, just for cars. In Europe (holy hell, the Netherlands) you can get everywhere by bike or public transportation or just plain walking and it’s awesome. In the US things are the way they are because of bad city design and lack of any public transportation.
Yes, minimum driving age should be 18 and even then require adult supervision.
8 year olds go to school in the same town they live in and the school district has busses to go pick them up or their parents can go drop them off quickly. The same can’t be said for a student going to a college in a different town/city there’s not going to be a public transportation option that just goes straight to their school or to their job from school or whatever they need to do. They might be able to accomplish it by switching busses a couple times or something but that will add a ton of time to their commute. It’s not practical.
On top of that, pushing the driving age back will just result in a bunch of inexperienced 18/21 year old drivers and we’ll be having the same conversation about them after a few years go by.
I used to ride 25 kms (16 miles, give or take?) to and from work, every day. These distances aren’t extreme eitherloads of kids would (and do) drive that to school every day as well.
The thing that makes that possible is safe and comfortable bike lanes. More than 30 kms? use busses. If you have a good public transportation system, these busses will have direct connections and drive every 15-30 minutes during school hours.
I know, this sounds insane in the US but that is because car manufacturers have brainwashed US citizens with the nonsense that this is how it must be. Your cities are godawful, all of them, because every city is Designed for cars, not for humans. If you get into a city designed for humans you’ll be amazed. I know because every American is amazed by how beautiful cities can be when they see them.
I did it every time in around 45 minutes. First week was heavy and slower, then I got used to it. I had windy days which cost me either more or less time, depending on of I had the wind in my back or not. I had rainy days where I could get wet, or if I had a poncho, get a bit wet. But it was always doable and a great exercise.
Imagine this, my mother when she was 65 would regularly go ride with my sister. They literally said (and did) that for less than a 100kms (say, 60 miles) they wouldn’t even change into their special biking clothes as that wouldn’t be worth it. On many occasions they would do well over 60 miles in a day, just driving “slowly” in their bikes for fun to see the landscape and all. Super healthy for body and mind.
This is what happens when you have a country designed for people instead of cars.
So it’s about half as slow as a car. When I was in my last years of college my school was 20 miles in one direction from home and then I worked in another town ~15 miles from there and then another 20 miles back home. If I had been trying to manage that on a bike/public transport it would have been much harder to schedule that and there’d have been no time for anything besides traveling and work/school. It was rough even going by car but that was the only place I could find in the field I wanted to get into that would hire me without having finished my degree.
Sure, it won’t work for everyone but bikes and public transportation typically works well for most people if only they’d try it. Cycling is very healthy and much better for the environment and frankly, car dependent cities as we have them now simply are unsustainable
Nobody is saying that cars should be completely banned. Cycling should be encouraged. Governments should sponsor buying bikes, build loads of GOOD cycling infrastructure (look at the Netherlands for examples for gods sake, cycling infrastructure in the Americas is a dangerous joke), make owning and using a car more expensive, make it easier to arrive to destinations by bike than by car. Invest heavily in public transportation.
The US could have had all that the Netherlands has now but it doesn’t. It has huge and ugly cities that can only be used by car owners. If you don’t own a car you’re a second class citizen. You will mill out on good jobs. All that is insane to me. I never NEEDED a car. I can have one, but bikes are easier 100% of the time in sub 15 mile radius.
I guess that’s a point but not the one you think it is. I think it’s telling of the abysmal state of public transportation and cycling infrastructure that a car is required to almost survive at this point, or at the least to be a functional member of society… It shouldn’t be like that
It doesn’t matter what age is it. It’s not like people suddenly stop being reckless and careless at 21. I’ve heard enough horror stories of people who are way ahead of legal age doing dangerous stuff.
Generally speaking, people get more responsible when they get older. Yes of course there are exceptions, some people bever grow up, but seriously… Giving a 16 year old a sports car? Are they nuts?
In Germany you can drink beer before you can drive a car. Usually people still will kill people with a car when they are old enough to drive. Drunk or not.
Point is that young people cause disproportionally more accidents due to lack of experience driving, lack of experience living, lack of knowledge, and lack or responsibility
The 11th Circuit ruling quoted those passages and asserted that “the use of these medications in general — let alone for children — almost certainly is not ‘deeply rooted’ in our nation’s history and tradition. Although there are records of transgender or otherwise gender nonconforming individuals from various points in history, the earliest recorded uses of puberty blocking medication and cross-sex hormone treatment for purposes of treating the discordance between an individual’s biological sex and sense of gender identity did not occur until well into the twentieth century.” The ruling also said that the Alabama law does not amount to discrimination based on sex or transgender status and is therefore subject only to the lowest level of constitutional review.
That Dobbs ruling is just going to infect everything conservative judges touch, isn’t it?
Listen, gay rigths just aren’t deeply rooted into our culture, so no one in LGBT+ has any rights whatsover now.
Also, labor laws really weren’t a thing before the 20th century, so effectively immediately you are all property of your corporate overlords.
Also, slavery is deeply rooted into our cultural history, so effective immediatly all black people should report to their closest slave distribution center for allocation to a member of the superior race.
P.S. Clarence Thomas is legally considered to be a white man. We will not be responding to inquiries regarding this ruling.
It’s this actually. Just like a tiger or leopard or any other uniformly multicolored mammals. It’s a mutation of a gene that’s supposed to tell the cells to stop being that color at certain points.
Attorney John Eastman and co-defendant Scott Hall, two of the 18 co-defendants charged in the Georgia election interference case alongside former President Donald Trump, have been booked at the Fulton County Jail, according to the Fulton County Inmate Record Database.
Eastman is charged with nine counts, including two counts of conspiracy to commit forgery in the first degree. The indictment names him as among those allegedly involved in a scheme to **solicit public officers to unlawfully appoint Georgia presidential electors. ** “He is going to trial, there will be no plea deal,” Eastman’s attorney told ABC News.
Hall, a Georgia bail bondsman, is charged with seven counts, including two counts of conspiracy to commit election fraud. He is among those accused of conspiring to commit election fraud in Coffee County.
Get rid of the GI Bill, or at the very least, tie it to the draft. As in, you don’t get post service benefits unless there’s a draft going on. Otherwise you just volunteered.
Then, provide those same benefits we provided since 1944 to the legal and medical professionals. Kids enter into service at 18-20 and come out as public defenders, nurses and doctors, where they are subject to working in poor areas to help the underserved.
Nearly two-thirds of the deaths in 2021 were homicides, although unintentional shootings have killed many children. No matter how young the victims, pediatric gun-related deaths have left their mark on nearly every corner of the U.S.
More than 80% of the gun deaths were among males 19 and younger. Black male children were more likely to die from homicide. White males 19 and younger were more likely to kill themselves with guns.
We can see two issues here.
First: Suicide rates are rising sharply among white boys. Why?
Second: Crime is rising sharply for black boys. Why?
Removing guns doesn’t solve the problems leading to suicidal ideation or the problems that lead to homicide. We have the ability to fix those issues without undermining 2A protections. We know that poverty in dense areas is a strong predictor of criminal behavior, and that education is a strong counterbalance to that. We also know that both parties are choking off funding to poor, urban school districts, albeit for different ideological reasons. (Republicans want to cut all public educations. Democrats want to keep school funding local so that property taxes in wealthy areas aren’t funding schools in poor areas, ensuring that wealthy areas have access to better schools.)
Thank you for a well thought out comment. Ita refreshing to read something like this sometimes. Sometimes it feels like everyone is on their own radical side.
I’d also add strickter punishments for the owner of the firearm if it was used in a crime by their child. I have a kid. I plan to buy a gun. If my kid kills someone with my gun, then as far as I’m concerned I’d be directly at fault. In addition to that I think parents should be legally liable for any violent crime their child does. If the parent has the legal authority over their child, they should also be held liable.
My kid is learning to drive and I was surprised he doesn’t need insurance. But the reason is I’m still the “driver” while he is operating the car. Im responsible for issues, my insurance pays any claim, and of course I can’t have a couple beers despite not being behind the wheel. We have an example
Why can’t we model responsible Gun ownership after cars and driving?
Because the right to keep and bear arms is an individual constitutional right. It would be like modeling your right to join and raise your kid in a religion off of licensing requirements for being a doctor. (And hey, religion will fuck kids up for the rest of their lives, even if they manage to escape.)
Ok, then free speech. Also in the Bill of Rights as an individual right the government can’t infringe.
Yet there are limits, there are consequences, non-government entities do not need to abide. The classic example is you can’t yell “FIRE!” In a crowded theater. Your right to free speech ends when it endangers someone else.
Similarly, your right to bear arms should be limited when it endangers someone. If you bring a weapon to a bar, a crowded space, carry in a city, brandish it during road rage, or when someone rings the doorbell, or if someone is able to access your weapon or you keep your ammo in the same place as your weapon, or you let someone use it without training, or you do something stupid when people are around, or you hunt by. Blasting away at every rustling bush, or you hunt where your bullet can co e down where there are people, then you are endangering people. You not respecting the tool and its capabilities shows that you are not fit to carry. There are consequences, and they need to happen before you actually hurt or kill someone
So, restrict rights before they can potentially be used in a way that might cause injury to someone, correct?
So, it would be reasonable to have a political literacy test before allowing someone to vote, since their voting patterns have the potential to cause real harms, correct? Or to ensure that you aren’t allowed to read about Nazi ideology, so you can’t copy it?
or you keep your ammo in the same place as your weapon,
…Isn’t that the entire point of having a firearm if you intend to use it to defend your life? I literally have a gun beside my door that I put in my pocket before I get the mail because we have aggressive bears in my area that are too comfortable with people. I’ve had bears on my front porch, I had one that tried to come in through a window screen.
Consequences can not happen before; consequences are something that happen after the fact. You can’t redefine consequence as something that happens to you in order to prevent you from doing a thing that you might not have done in the first place. What you’re proposing would be like preemptively jailing someone because they fit the patterns of someone that might be more likely to commit a crime at some point in the future.
or you keep your ammo in the same place as your weapon, …Isn’t that the entire point of having a firearm if you intend to use it to defend your life?
Sure, that’s the big contradiction n trying to keep a firearm for self-defense. If it’s readily accessible, odds are more likely someone will be shot on accident or a moment of emotion, than that you’ll defend yourself. If it’s locked up, with the ammo elsewhere, you’re following best practices to keep your family and friends, and yourself safe, but then can’t use it to defend yourself
I have mixed feelings about this, because I can see that it would applied in a racial manner by law-and-order Republicans. E.g., black parents in a high-crime area have a gun for protection–since cops don’t give a shit–kid steals the gun and shoots someone, and there’s an immediate judicial lynching of the parents.
I’m in favor of locking guns up around kids, but I’m generally opposed to laws that mandate it, both because of costs (a gun safe that’s worth a damn easily costs $1500, and a good one starts at about $4500), and because some people–e.g. women that are being stalked–may need to have ready access to a gun at all times.
I completely understand the concern regarding this being applied in a racial manner. I don’t really know how to get around that, though. Any law that could be abused, will be abused, so we should be very careful, but I personally am not knowledgeable enough to come up with a solution. I do think that in the example you’ve provided is valid and can and does happen. But to avoid that we would need a change in culture, and that happens slowly. Maybe stricter punishments for parents of kids that commit crime could lead to a change where people start taking more responsibility for their children. Maybe it’ll lead to just increased incarnation of minorities. I don’t know. I’m glad that I’m not in charge of making those decisions.
Regarding locking guns up and having laws about how to safely store a gun in your own home, I oppose those. I’m willing to accept the risk if the punishment for mishandling them is severe enough. But like I said, I don’t know where that like should be drawn. I think my main point is that I’m for personal responsibility, and we should be encouraging that, instead of removing the choice completely.
But to avoid that we would need a change in culture, and that happens slowly.
Yes, it does. But that’s the real solution.
It’s like getting physically fit; you don’t throw out your television and XBox because you’re fat and sit on your ass instead of going to the gym. You change your habits. The television and XBox are not themselves the problem.
Maybe it’ll lead to just increased incarnation of minorities.
That seems to be the most likely outcome, esp. since prosecutors have fairly broad discretion on charging. I think that making a case for gross negligence would be a different category though, e.g., you knew your child was directly involved in violent criminal behavior and you knowingly left a firearm where you had reason to believe your child could access it easily then you are guilty of being an accessory. But I’d want that bar to be pretty high.
Democrats want to keep school funding local so that property taxes in wealthy areas aren’t funding schools in poor areas, ensuring that wealthy areas have access to better schools
I’ve seen D’s increasingly propose more state and national funding for schools, exactly the opposite of your claim. That’s in addition to increased state and federal funding for expanding pre-school, for school lunches, for at least some free college
I lived in Chicago. I saw Chicago moving more funding to charter and magnet schools rather than funding schools properly. Charter schools et al. don’t have to take all students, so CPS lost the funding, and still had to take the most difficult cases.
I think that the most rational approach is to, first, eliminate all state funding for private education, charter school, magnet schools, etc., ONLY fund public schools. And second, pool all of the tax revenue state-wide–which means that you also need to make property taxes a state issue rather than a local-school-funding issue–and the divide taxes based on the number of students in each school, with allowances made for differences in costs (e.g., it’s more expensive for a teacher to live in L.A. than it is in Blythe, so there needs to be some kind of allowance for higher teacher pay in L.A. than in Blythe).
no, i dont think. civilians handling any firearms is a hobby. The government will always have enough stupid teenagers to murder anyone who opposes them, if they really want to (a la russia). The concept of a ‘militia’ could possibly be effective, but I would expect that to be organized, not 19 year olds buying assault rifles. since the one and only purpose of a firearm is death (or, if you wish to split hairs, the threat of death), it means the hobby, firearms, is actually the hobby, death.
Strangely enough there is another baby murdering nurse in UK prison called Beverley Allitt who in 1993 killed children the same way. She’s been inside for 30 years and is actually eligible for parole since she hasn’t received a whole life order (i.e. to die in prison). Doesn’t mean she’ll get parole but expect an outcry if she ever does.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.