Also note: the list of the war dead from recent World War I actions on the same page as the comic. The US had entered in April 1917. By September 1918, Germany's last great offensive had failed and the Allied Hundred Days Offensive was in progress; this would lead to the Armistice of 11 November 1918, and the Treaty of Versailles the following year. By that point over 20 million people will have died and about the same number wounded.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I really think gun licenses should have a similar process to driver's licenses. When I got my driver's license, I had to do 32 hours of classroom teaching, then 8 hours of student driving, and then pass a written and practical test. A gun license should be the same, or more stringent, and also require renewal through an office like the DMV every few years. And if the licensing instructor doesn't think you'll be a safe gun owner at the end of the test, then no license for you, go back to class and you can take the test again in 6 months.

I think this would be a lot more effective gun control than all the piecemeal regulations about various types or technical features of guns.

[–] ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com 1 points 1 month ago

In my state you can take a class that gets a special marker put on your driver license forever (took it when I was maybe 10 and it's marked today) but so far as I gather it's just some sort of trophy badge rather than having any function. Even something like that as a pre-req wouldn't be a bad start when the baseline now is just don't be a felon.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Ah the war to end all wars as it was known. The great war! You don't need anymore wars after THIS world war!

.........why are you guys calling it World War 1??! THERE'S A SEQUAL???

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Unfortunately, most of WW1 dead were from diseases, followed closely by artillery.

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Thanks for this! I also noted the ad for Asbestos Insulation for your heating pipes.

[–] Rolando@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not to mention the newsvertisement for a vegetable compound titled: "Woman Works 15 Hours a Day". "I get up in the morning at four o'clock, do my housework, then go to a factory and work all day, come home and get supper and feel good"!

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

One of those vegetables is probably cocaine

[–] Buelldozer 3 points 1 month ago

but if you have to go hunting you should at least know how to shoot straight.

I'm almost certain that every single State requires passing a Hunter Safety program before you can get any kind of Hunting License. The laws have changed a lot since 1917.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 27 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I love that line.

It's not about being able to hit things you aim at, it's about missing the things you AREN'T aiming at.

[–] Rolando@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

"Empty your mind, do not stir your feet,

And miss the things you are not shooting at."

Everett True, Taoist Master

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago (4 children)

When I turned 12, my dad took me to a hunter safety course. I didn't really think I was all that interested in hunting but he was, so we went.

We went hunting a few times. I usually ended up falling asleep on a log or something, so he just went without me.

I've never owned a gun while living in my own, but I know how to safely use one if I have to.

I really don't know why it isn't mandatory.

[–] Buelldozer 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I really don’t know why it isn’t mandatory.

In the United States firearms education should be mandatory. It's not because the anti-gun crowd loses their fucking minds whenever it comes up.

The NRA has funded and run a program called "Eddie Eagle" for decades that teaches basic firearms safety and accident reduction to kids and it's been slowly driven out of schools.

You can find a plethora of articles online but here's an example: https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2022/02/15/bill-require-gun-safety-nra-eddie-eagle-program-schools/6800808001/

Here's another example from Kansas: https://www.kmbc.com/article/kansas-bill-would-require-school-gun-safety-program/39432200

The legislature passed it, the Dem Governor VETOED it!

Wrap your head around this for a minute. Here's Republicans and the NRA (fuck those guys) trying to do a "common sense" thing and getting lambasted for it. I can understand having an issue with the NRA (fuck those guys) but there's been absolutely no counter proposals or attempts at creating something similar without NRA involvement.

We NEED firearms education in this country but we're losing what little we did have and attempts at adding more are continually thwarted by the very people screaming from the rooftops about "Common Sense Reform".

It the same stupidity that Republicans have with Sex Ad. It's education vs ignorance. We need education.

[–] sxan@midwest.social 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

2A types generally lose their minds over anything that might imply a restriction on ownership. I think it's not because they don't approve of the thing -- whatever it is -- but they see it as a slippery slope, and that The Liberals will just keep adding more straws to the camel's back until it's not practically legal.

For instance, if you troll around in the pro-gun forums, you'll often come across people saying things like, "every gun owner should also own -- and know how to use -- a trauma kit"; or jumping down the throats of any poster posting a picture where someone isn't practicing trigger discipline; or derides the people in a video where someone inadvertently (thoughtlessly) waves a gun at someone else. Even presumably "pro" gun YouTubers are usually careful to show that the weapon they're handling is unloaded when they're doing something with it that isn't shooting, and it's not because of YouTube's increasingly stringent gun video rules: it's because otherwise their comment section will be filled with gun people criticizing good gun ownership habits. So it's demonstrable that the wider gun-owning community is pro gun education and safety, and you'd think adding laws that support these beliefs would be no-brainers -- but they aren't. It's when it comes to codifying the socially-enforced rules into law that the community stomps on the brakes and becomes mulish.

Personally, I believe that this is a silly position to take; relatively few people object to drivers being required to take driving tests, and nobody complains about driver's ed classes in pub ed. Cars are dangerous. So are guns. IMO you should need to take a test, get a gun license, and then be able to buy and carry (concealed if that's what floats your boat). Just like a driver's license, you'd need to retake the test whenever you move to a new state, but otherwise it's essentially a one-time test. Just put the same restrictions on guns that we do cars, and do away with most of the other laws. Maybe rifles are like basic licenses, handguns are like motorcycles, and machine guns are like tractor-trailer semis: you take a different test to get a different kind of license allowance for each. And treat guns like cars: when you buy a gun, you register it just like you'd do a car, whether it's a private or commercial sale. Move to a new state, register your guns there, just like you have to do with cars.

Gun control is a massive source of contention between liberals and conservatives, and we're never going to overturn the 2A in the states. I don't know if the 2A crowd would agree to treat guns like cars if it meant eliminating a whole mess of other legislation around guns which are of questionable efficacy to begin with. Absolutely, getting rid of all of the guns in the states would have a huge public safety impact, but I don't believe it's a realistic expectation that will ever happen; whereas mandatory training/education, testing, and licensing I think would improve things, and might be a reasonable middle-ground acceptable by both sides. Like they say in Lower Decks: "if both sides are equally unsatisfied with the negotiation... THAT'S A COMROMISE!"

[–] Buelldozer 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

So it’s demonstrable that the wider gun-owning community is pro gun education and safety, and you’d think adding laws that support these beliefs would be no-brainers – but they aren’t.

Gun Owners generally do support firearms education, both for kids and adults. The stuff for kids is increasingly being removed and blocked by the Democrats as shown in the links I provided.

The problem with requiring education / training for adults is that the anti-firearms folks broke trust on the issue. In places that have, or had, such requirements the barrier to entry was being continually raised while more firearm types and accessories are being restricted.

It's reached the point that some states who have the requirements are now being sued for failure to issue permits in accordance with their own law.

If you're a Pro-2A person you'd have to be outright stupid to hop back in the pot for another round of "Boil the Frog".

...whereas mandatory training/education, testing, and licensing I think would improve things, and might be a reasonable middle-ground acceptable by both sides. Like they say in Lower Decks: “if both sides are equally unsatisfied with the negotiation… THAT’S A COMROMISE!”

There's no trust between the groups which makes compromise nearly unobtainable. The Anti folks will not offer any compromises and the Pro folks wouldn't trust them, and rightly so, even if they did.

Its an intractable problem.

[–] Yggnar@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Firearms education is only necessary when there are guns all over the place. The people you're complaining about don't want guns around to begin with. Not to mention the inherent propaganda that is 100% built into any children's content produced by Republicans and the NRA. If the goal of Democrats is to increase gun control and reduce the amount of guns among the general populace, it doesn't really make sense for them to want NRA propaganda in schools. That said, I do agree that while there are all these guns around, parents should generally do a better job to make sure their children get this information, whether their family owns a gun or not.

[–] Buelldozer 4 points 1 month ago

Firearms education is only necessary when there are guns all over the place.

True but that condition is absolutely positively 100% not going away at any time in the next 50 years. The 2A could be repleaded and private firearm ownership made federally illegal tomorrow and there would still be firearms in closets, dresser drawers, and attics in 2074.

it doesn’t really make sense for them to want NRA propaganda in schools.

That's completely fair but nothing is being created to replace it. If they don't want the NRA involved that's cool and I completely get it...but that doesn't clear them to do nothing while blocking what already exists.

It's frustrating as all get out.

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Evvert must be welled known because this guy with gun did just as he was told with no arguments.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Which is impressive since HE was the one packing heat!

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Think you're mistaken. Everett True hands have been labeled deadly weapons. Hence why the man handed over his fire arm and did as he was told.

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I agree, but I do know why it isn't mandatory in the US: It would be against the constitution because it would restrict the right to bare arms and would disproportionately impact second amendment rights of lower income Americans.

[–] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No, it wouldn’t.

Having to take a class sometime during school does not disproportionately affect anyone.

You don’t have to tie it to gun OWNERSHIP just to everyone in general, like health class

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This wouldn't be included in school and you know it. People would have to pay for it. Take time off of work for it.

[–] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I’m 100% for it being taught in school.

What classes are the government both forcing you to take and to pay for?

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Nothing now, but you're the one talking about making something mandatory, which would be the government forcing us to do it. And again, it would not be covered in schools, certainly not all schools. People would have to pay for it themselves.

[–] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Why wouldn’t it?

We take mandatory classes already.

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And anything deemed remotely non-essential is constantly at risk of being cut. I don't know how old you are, but I'm old enough to know that classes which were required for me (woodshop, home ec, typing, music) are largely no longer required, or even available, in most places.

[–] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Every single one of those is available here, just with different names now.

My kids even have to take and pass the us citizenship test to pass high school, which I think is just awesome.

Most of the people I know, myself included probably, couldn’t do that and we have voting abilities

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 1 points 1 month ago

Well, kids in your school district are lucky.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I really don't know why it isn't mandatory.

Yeah you do: corruption and demagoguery.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

But, my freedumbs!