Very good article on AWB written by a Democrat!

No, you missed my point entirely.

There are empirical studies showing that texting and driving have a quantifiable impact on safety, as in people who text and drive are many times more likely to have an accident than people who do not text and drive.

The measured percentage increase in risk is equal to or greater than the increase in risk with BAC over .08.

Your idea does not have any such studies to back it, and there are no actual numbers to prove any impact.

This is not a hard concept. You need hard evidence, and you do not have it.
 
From NCWildlife.org - Due to hunter education, hunting accidents have decreased by over 50% during the last twenty years making hunting one of the safest recreational activities.

Edit: Oklahma Wildlife says that number is 70% in the past 30 years.

I'm assuming since there wasn't a study reporting on the effectiveness of a ban on texting while driving before there WAS a ban on texting while driving, I hope you will concede that hunter education is a fair comparison to an introductory firearms ownership course.

If using the Hunter Ed course as a roadmap, changing out the hunting specific curriculum for home defense- say Tree Stands for lethal force permissibly. bow hunting for firearms storage and so on, we would have a fairly similar idea of a syllabus for the course.
 
Last edited:
Hunting accidents typically fall into one of two categories:

1 - carrying a weapon in a less than safe condition, such as climbing a fence with a hunting long gun with chambered round; or

2 - failing to properly identify target or backstop.

So those tend to be the focus of hunter safety training.

People keeping firearms in the home or on their perso s I. Holsters do not typically run afoul of the first; people forced to use firearms in self defense are, unlike hunters, always under pressure with regard to the second.

So, again, your example fails.

Seriously, we have had carry in constitutional carry or no-training-required carry states for years - decades, even. If you wanted to find it, you could find statistical data that is directly on point and supports (or refutes) your idea. You obviously do not want the bother.

I, on the other hand, do not want the bother of allowing further governmental infringement of a right that shall not be infringed. The onus is on you.
 
Likewise, you could easily link to it. Easier than I could in fact, as you seem to feel its out there and know where to look for it.

Meanwhile could you tell me how carrying a weapon in a less than safe condition while hunting is prevented by the basic rules of gun handling, but the carrying of a weapon in home defense isn't? They're universal rules fora reason aren't they?
 
Many hunting arm safety devices are trigger blocks. They are often not drop safe. Hunters routinely navigate terrain that is much more treacherous than sidewalks.

Additionally, the right to hunt is not guaranteed by the Constitution. The right to keep and bear is.

And, though you don't like it, the rules of formal debate put the requirement for proof on the proponent of an idea, much like the burden of proof is on the prosecution in a criminal case. You are advocating for the new idea, and additional restriction, so yours is the burden.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top