Mass shooting in Jacksonville.

[Dr. Dickie]

How many people in Florida died in an auto wreck yesterday? About 8, according to statistics.

In the US, 4.5 children under the age of 16 die in vehicle-related accidents daily. Driving is the most dangerous thing we do. More people in the world die in vehicle-related accidents annually than from all homicides, including all deaths from war and military conflict.

Self-driving cars will do more to save lives in the next 20 years than any law, any military action, any government action, or any medical advancement. It's where all of our focus should be- but its not. We're used to car wrecks, and it's not sensational; it's a routine part of life.

If it were truely about saving lives, they would raise the driving age to 21, not the age to purchase guns.

[P5 Guy]

Dr. Dickie brings up a good point that I'll expand on.
Why isn't the age of majority the same across the board?

[Taco]

[

And it will never happen! I think there would be way too much resistance from both private citizens (who like to drive and the feel of being in control of their own vehicle), and auto manufacturers, who stand to lose a bunch of $$$ on high end sports and some luxury cars etc. etc. Self Driving cars are an affront to our personal freedoms (i.e. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). Just like anti gunners who want to attack and regulate the tool, rather than the human operating it... Vehicles don't kill... people do. You want to reduce "vehicle violence..." train people to be better drivers and to not drive drunk/stoned, or when fatigued, or when the emotions are riding a tad too high. Train people to allow for enough time to reach their destination safely and not speed to get there. Train people to keep their cool when encountering stop & go "rush hour" traffic.

Yeah, I know.... Fat Chance. But I think mandating self-driving cars is the same as having gun control. it penalizes law abiding citizens. If you want to make self-driving cars "voluntary" and create separate roadways for them (you really can't have both types of cars on the same highways - there would be way more accidents)... then that might work. But again, Fat Chance.

That's not true at all. First, we've already made a decision as a society that some death from vehicles is an acceptable part of the culture. We could, in a day, cut vehicle deaths significantly by going the draconian route and mandating an 8 mph federal speed limit with speeding reclassified as attempted murder- think of the children. Instead we all agree that we would prefer to be a little less safe to enable the freedom of motion around this great country of ours. I think we do a great job here at making everything, but the driver, safer.

Second, we already have limited automated driving systems on the road with us cavemen, and they may be more common then you realise. It's not just the one off Google completely autonomous vans. It's everything from Tesla's Autopilot down to adaptive cruise control and automated breaking systems. It's becoming more and more common every day and these systems are already starting to make us safer by taking over control of the vehicle from human control to prevent or reduce crashes caused by humans being human. Self driving vehicle systems are already dealing with how poorly humans drive and are doing so much safer, mile for mile, than another human would.

We may, in several decades, get to a point where we have lanes only for automated vehicles with extraordinarily high speed limits compared to the regular lane. How would you like to be sitting in the human lane at 65 and get passed by a vehicle train at 155 where all the occupants are watching Netflix or taking a nap? May make you reconsider. The real freedom isn't driving, its traveling.

Eventually hand driven vehicles will likely be confined to local roads and race tracks- I imagine many more race tracks will open around the country to satisfy the desire for old folks to putter around by hand. But yes, human driving is going to stay around a while.

[FfNJGTFO]

That's not true at all.

What isn't true? I haven't stated any facts, only beliefs/opinion. Facts can be judged as true/false. Beliefs/Opinions are just that, and we're all entitled to them.

First, we've already made a decision as a society that some death from vehicles is an acceptable part of the culture. We could, in a day, cut vehicle deaths significantly by going the draconian route and mandating an 8 mph federal speed limit with speeding reclassified as attempted murder- think of the children. Instead we all agree that we would prefer to be a little less safe to enable the freedom of motion around this great country of ours. I think we do a great job here at making everything, but the driver, safer.

And all I'm saying is, it's the driver that should get our focus. Because I believe that's what will be most effective in reducing/minimizing traffic accidents/injuries/death. If people would drive defensively and with a lot more courtesy, it would go a long way.

Second, we already have limited automated driving systems on the road with us cavemen, and they may be more common then you realise.

I know that. And as long as they stay at their present level (and for their present purposes... unattended deliveries, stats gathering (although I do oppose Google's use to spy on citizens and photographing their houses, etc.)), I'm Ok with it. It might be a little frustrating having to pass one of these vehicles safely at times, but I'll manage. What I don't want is a mandate to require driverless car for transporting me or mine to wherever I am going. I want to be in control of that vehicle. I like driving. I do it safely, because I've seen what can happen if you don't (I'm a retired EMT.. trust me, I've seen what can happen). Will we get to that point (ie only driverless cars)? IDK, but I sure hope not. Not in the remainder of my lifetime, anyway. Are they (driverless cars) safer? Perhaps (one has to factor in the potential for accidents from those attempting to get around them), but IMHO, the safety we gain doesn't compare at all to the freedom we lose.

[Taco]

I was referring to the need for separate roadways for autonomous driving. We don't need that at all, cars are already autonomously dealing with sharing the road with inferior drivers.

People used to go down to the river to beat their clothes with rocks to wash them. I imagine that was an activity that some folks enjoyed. You're outside, it's peaceful, it's a workout. When was the last time you did that?

Eventually, driving won't be a thing, but that is likely a very distant reality. The good news is when your car is driving itself you will be able to play Need for Speed 61 with 360 screens and your cars steering wheel and controls.

[FfNJGTFO]

I was referring to the need for separate roadways for autonomous driving. We don't need that at all, cars are already autonomously dealing with sharing the road with inferior drivers.

We will need them if the number of driver-less cars gets so great that they impeed other drivers on the highways, etc. If three driverl-less cars are all in front of a block of traffic on an Interstate... all driving the "slow, safe speed," and with no way to get around them, that's a problem. They become an obstacle. That's when people will truly start to do stupid and dangerous things to get around them, leading to more accidents. This is why I believe they should have their own roadways... at least their own highways.

People used to go down to the river to beat their clothes with rocks to wash them. I imagine that was an activity that some folks enjoyed. You're outside, it's peaceful, it's a workout. When was the last time you did that?

A faulty comparison. First, it's not mandatory that I use a modern washing machine. I can still go down to that stream and rock if I choose to do so. I still have that choice, and that's all I want here... the ability to drive the car of my choice, manually, wherever and whenever i choose. Second, the modern "washing machine" alternative offers me greater utility and efficacy in re: getting my clothes clean. I can do my laundry wherever I want, and get them as clean as I can. Why would I not use it? i just don't see the same utility and efficacy in re: driver-less cars from my perspective. With as much traffic on the roads today as there is, for driver-less cars to work, I believe the speed limits would have to be lowered to almost a snail's pace. as well as there being specific routes and times I could take. That puts limits on me that currently don't exist. It's a much worse alternative. No thanks! I'll do it myself.

Eventually, driving won't be a thing, but that is likely a very distant reality. The good news is when your car is driving itself you will be able to play Need for Speed 61 with 360 screens and your cars steering wheel and controls.

That's not good news for me. I don't need/want to play games. I want to drive. I don't want to be in anywhere a vehicle wherein a human is not in control and is among other vehicles. If on their own track/way (as in some airport trams) that's fine. But even those are, at least, monitored by other humans. I just see diver-less cars as a net loss to our personal freedoms and I cannot and will not ever support that effort.

[flcracker]

"Mass shooting in Jacksonville"....

Back to the actual topic of this discussion....

Before the single-subject-per-day media went into primary election results mode today, the latest that we were hearing about the shooter was that he had been treated for mental illness as a teenager. Folks were starting to discuss whether he actually obtained his guns legally or not, based on his history of mental health treatment and whether he had lied on the Form 4473 when he bought his handguns in Maryland.

The BATFE is clear that "committed to a mental institution" does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or by voluntary admission. https://www.atf.gov/file/58791/download

It seems that he not only was not disqualified under Federal law, he was also not disqualified under Maryland's stricter laws: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla ... tory.html#

So.... Federal law was apparently followed in the purchase. Maryland law was apparently followed in the purchase. Federal and Florida law were apparently followed in the transportation of the handguns from Maryland to Florida. It was only when the shooter concealed the handguns on his person that a law was first broken. There is no prohibition against carrying firearms in an e-sporting event (no fucking way THAT would be considered an athletic event ), so if the shooter had obtained a Florida non-resident CWL, he would have been completely legal until the moment that he drew his firearm with the intent to use it in an unlawful manner.

Can someone please pin down Andrew Gillum, Sean Shaw, and even RINO Ashley Moody and ask them what laws, exactly, we now need to pass to prevent this from happening again?

[Dr. Dickie]

"Mass shooting in Jacksonville"....

Back to the actual topic of this discussion....

Before the single-subject-per-day media went into primary election results mode today, the latest that we were hearing about the shooter was that he had been treated for mental illness as a teenager. Folks were starting to discuss whether he actually obtained his guns legally or not, based on his history of mental health treatment and whether he had lied on the Form 4473 when he bought his handguns in Maryland.

The BATFE is clear that "committed to a mental institution" does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or by voluntary admission. https://www.atf.gov/file/58791/download

It seems that he not only was not disqualified under Federal law, he was also not disqualified under Maryland's stricter laws: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla ... tory.html#

So.... Federal law was apparently followed in the purchase. Maryland law was apparently followed in the purchase. Federal and Florida law were apparently followed in the transportation of the handguns from Maryland to Florida. It was only when the shooter concealed the handguns on his person that a law was first broken. There is no prohibition against carrying firearms in an e-sporting event (no fucking way THAT would be considered an athletic event ), so if the shooter had obtained a Florida non-resident CWL, he would have been completely legal until the moment that he drew his firearm with the intent to use it in an unlawful manner.

Can someone please pin down Andrew Gillum, Sean Shaw, and even RINO Ashley Moody and ask them what laws, exactly, we now need to pass to prevent this from happening again?

State law also disqualifies someone from buying a handgun who has been involuntarily committed for mental health treatment. Court records show no indication Katz had been involuntarily committed.

If that is true, then that is different than what the media has been indicating, as I have heard them say he was "committed" to a mental hospital. But then that is the media so....

[zeebaron]

Exact language being used is everything in law.

[flcracker]

Jacksonville shooter legally armed himself in state with one of USA's toughest gun laws

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/201 ... 127528002/

Maryland goes a few steps beyond federal laws – which prevent the sale of weapons to those “adjudicated as a mental defective" – and restricts sales to anyone with a history of violent behavior or those who voluntarily have spent more than 30 days in a mental health facility.

Katz also was taking an anti-psychotic drug used to treat bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, according to court records.