Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States

Vermont Bill Would Ban Cellphone Use For Anyone Under 21 (nypost.com) 171

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
A Vermont lawmaker has introduced a new bill that would ban the use of cellphones by anyone under the age of 21. From a report: State Sen. John Rodgers' proposal would punish anyone under the age threshold found with a cellphone with up to one year in prison, a $1,000 fine or both, news station WPTZ reported. Rodgers argued that young people are too immature to use cellphones, citing the role the devices play in fatal car crashes.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Vermont Bill Would Ban Cellphone Use For Anyone Under 21 More

Vermont Bill Would Ban Cellphone Use For Anyone Under 21

Comments Filter:

  • OK Boomer (Score:4, Funny)

    by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Thursday January 09, 2020 @04:21PM (#59604418) Journal

    Otherwise known as the Now Get Off My Lawn Bill.

    • It's click bait. He wouldn't vote for it (Score:5, Informative)

      by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Thursday January 09, 2020 @04:44PM (#59604540) Journal

      The guy who filed the bill said he wouldn't actually vote for it. He just did it as click bait and drum up discussion about texting and driving, etc.

      • Can't he just put forward a motion? Does he really need to draft a bill to get a debate going on cell phone use in vehicles? I never understand why creating junk bills is needed for legislative debate.

      • The guy who introduced this said the legislature is hell-bent on taking away people's second-amendment rights, and that a cell phone is more dangerous than a gun.

        • Re:It's click bait. He wouldn't vote for it (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Cyberax ( 705495 ) on Thursday January 09, 2020 @04:56PM (#59604588)

          a cell phone is more dangerous than a gun

          This is actually literally true. Cell phones cause far more deadly crashes than the total number of gun deaths.

          • Not actually or literally true or even close. The total number of US gun deaths in 2017 (the latest year I could find data for) was approximately 39,773. Distracted driving was cited as a major factor in 3,477 traffic deaths in 2018, and this includes more than just cell phones (i.e. eating, changing clothes, doing makeup, interacting with passengers etc).

            • Re:It's click bait. He wouldn't vote for it (Score:5, Informative)

              by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Thursday January 09, 2020 @05:20PM (#59604676)

              >"The total number of US gun deaths in 2017 (the latest year I could find data for) was approximately 39,773. "

              Which includes intentional suicides (which is the majority, 60% ), and justified (defensive) killings. So, the actual [meaningful] number is more like under 14,000. And a huge number of those remaining are "bad-on-bad" violence (meaning there wasn't an "innocent" person involved, all/both parties were breaking the law and seeking violence). It is still more than distracted driving, however.

              Also of note are the 200,000 to 1.5 million gun "uses" per year which stopped crime and averted death, without killing anyone (overwhelmingly with no shots even fired). Distracted driving doesn't do that.

              • Re:It's click bait. He wouldn't vote for it (Score:5, Interesting)

                by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Thursday January 09, 2020 @05:36PM (#59604724) Homepage Journal

                >"The total number of US gun deaths in 2017 (the latest year I could find data for) was approximately 39,773. "

                Which includes intentional suicides (which is the majority, 60% ), and justified (defensive) killings.

                So, the actual [meaningful] number is more like under 14,000.

                And a huge number of those remaining are "bad-on-bad" violence (meaning there wasn't an "innocent" person involved, all/both parties were breaking the law and seeking violence). It is still more than distracted driving, however.

                Also of note are the 200,000 to 1.5 million gun "uses" per year which stopped crime and averted death, without killing anyone (overwhelmingly with no shots even fired). Distracted driving doesn't do that.

                Thank you...I was just about to put these facts up myself, but you did a much better and precise job of it.

                On your last point there..it is almost fascinating that just last month, there was only a brief report on TV about a gunman that came into a church, I think in TX and was about to start shooting the place, but was stopped by multiple folks in the congregation with carry concealed firearms that put the fucker down before he did much damage.

                I think one good guy was hurt....but these other good guys with guns prevented more deaths.

                It was the same day as the guy with a machete in a Jewish home hurt a lot of people, you heard about that for days, but the story of good guys with guns stopping a bad guy......*crickets"

                • It was at a town in TX called White Settlement (named by the native americans). It was at a Church of God pentecostal church. The perp was wearing a fake beard and fake mustache which alerted the assigned security people to a potential risk. When he stood up and started firing, one member of the security team, a former reservist and reserve sheriff deputy, Took him down with a single shot to the head. People were scattering so that was his only opening. From the time the incident started till the time the p

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by rv6502 ( 5793142 )

                  but the story of good guys with guns stopping a bad guy......*crickets"

                  Yep, good news isn't good for ratings & ad impressions.

                  And also: If a mass shooting is prevented, is it a mass shooting?
                  Does it count in the statistics?

                • On CNN the Texas shooting got the same, if not more, coverage.

                  and it was an off duty officer who doubled as security... not a random gun carrying citizen. My father was a police officer, the training they go through prepares them for stressful situations. Joe blow with a conceal carry license doesn't have that. How many friendlies are hurt from well meaning citizens?

                  CCW classes are a joke.
                • To be fair, it was the headline story on CNN (top spot on their website with larger text) for a little over a day. I remember because I was surprised they were running it as their headline, when in the past they've buried similar stories.

                  Also worth pointing out that statistically, the long-term average of K-12 students killed in mass school shootings [nytimes.com] is 4 per year. For comparison, 41 high-school age students (15-19 years old) died due to complications from pregnancy (p.3) [cdc.gov] in 2017. (You can look up st

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by iwbcman ( 603788 )
                  cool, finally we get some real antichristians, christians carrying guns to church....

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by Kiuas ( 1084567 )

                  On your last point there..it is almost fascinating that just last month, there was only a brief report on TV about a gunman that came into a church, I think in TX and was about to start shooting the place, but was stopped by multiple folks in the congregation with carry concealed firearms that put the fucker down before he did much damage.

                  I think one good guy was hurt....but these other good guys with guns prevented more deaths.

                  It was the same day as the guy with a machete in a Jewish home hurt a lot of peo

                  • Individuals have attempted to talk about the larger socio-economic issues that relate to gun violence. If you look at the statistics on firearms you'll find that around 60+% are suicides while less than 10% of the deaths are cause by longarms. That 60% figure is indicative of a larger problem that ends up being ignored. Rather than trying to solve the mental health issue that is leading to all these suicides the idea is that by eliminating a tool the issue would just disappear. That's intellectually dishone

              • Re: (Score:3)

                by teg ( 97890 )

                >"The total number of US gun deaths in 2017 (the latest year I could find data for) was approximately 39,773. "

                Which includes intentional suicides (which is the majority, 60% ), and justified (defensive) killings. So, the actual [meaningful] number is more like under 14,000. And a huge number of those remaining are "bad-on-bad" violence (meaning there wasn't an "innocent" person involved, all/both parties were breaking the law and seeking violence). It is still more than distracted driving, however.

                Also of note are the 200,000 to 1.5 million gun "uses" per year which stopped crime and averted death, without killing anyone (overwhelmingly with no shots even fired). Distracted driving doesn't do that.

                A suicide with a gun is still a gun death - with strict gun control, this easy means of suicide would no longer be so easy available. Some would find another way, of course, but some suicides would be avoided.

                Norway has strict gun control: You need permission to have a gun, and you'll only get it if you are a licensed hunter or an active member of a gun club. Guns should be stored locked inside a gun safe when not in use, and I ammunition should be stored separately.

                The homicide rate in Norway is 1/10th

                • >"A suicide with a gun is still a gun death "

                  Yes, and it is not a violent crime against another. So although tragic, it isn't something I worry about or need protection from.

                  >"The homicide rate in Norway is 1/10th of the rate in the US."

                  Which has far less to do with "strict gun control" and far more to do with being a far, far, far more homogeneous society. You simply cannot compare most countries to the US in that regard. And if you start looking at those countries, especially in Western Europe, t

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Cederic ( 9623 )

                Well, the people using a cellphone while driving are breaking the law so unless they killed someone else there wasn't an "innocent" person involved there either.

                So I'm feeling confident that even allowing your exclusions there are more firearm deaths than distracted driving ones.

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by lgw ( 121541 )

              Not actually or literally true or even close. The total number of US gun deaths in 2017 (the latest year I could find data for) was approximately 39,773. Distracted driving was cited as a major factor in 3,477 traffic deaths in 2018, and this includes more than just cell phones (i.e. eating, changing clothes, doing makeup, interacting with passengers etc).

              Yeah, but remove gun deaths in cities perpetually controlled by Democrats, and there's only a few gun deaths left (dang, I was joking, but looking up firearm homicides by city, wow, stay the heck away from Dem strongholds!).
              .

          • Dumb fucks are causing those crashes!
            Who the hell thinks reading on their phone while driving is a good idea??

            The contant running down of the educstion and science budget, while gifting massive gigantic tax breaks to those who need it the least an rising military and pork spending budgets caused those deaths!

            The assholes doing those changes caused those deaths!

            The morons who allowed these assholes to be in office, caused those deaths!

            You do the next one.

      • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday January 09, 2020 @05:14PM (#59604648)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Doesn't sound like it from the article. Sounds like he's more of a libertarian:

        just as the General Assembly has concluded that persons under 21 years of age are not mature enough to possess firearms, smoke cigarettes or consume alcohol

        • just as the General Assembly has concluded that persons under 21 years of age are not mature enough to possess firearms

          When I was 18 years old, the government gave me a fully automatic assault rifle, six high capacity magazines, and several thousand rounds of ammunition.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by BranMan ( 29917 )

            And grenades! Don't forget the little happy balls of WMD goodness.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dryeo ( 100693 )

            Likely with some training too. I don't mind people who know what they're doing being armed but there are a lot of idiots who shouldn't be allowed to possess a gun. Like people who set up targets without considering whats behind the target.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dcw3 ( 649211 )

            Yeah, I was 18 in the military as well. That isn't any indication of your maturity, or your brain growth (which goes well into your twenties). Fitness to fight, fix airplanes, drive tanks, follow orders, etc., comes much earlier. There's nothing magical about 18, 21, or any other age, but the comparison you (and many others) make is illogical.

        • > Doesn't sound like it from the article.

          Are you reading the article that quotes him "I wouldn't vote for it myself, probably"?

      • Trump was given a set of options by military officials, one of which was designed to make all others more appealing, but wasn't intended as an actual option to be chosen.

        Guess which option he picked...

      • I feel like this makes him an even bigger pile of shit.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        The guy who filed the bill said he wouldn't actually vote for it. He just did it as click bait and drum up discussion about texting and driving, etc.

        That is exceptionally dangerous.

    • That's more like VT Boomer, isn't it?
    • K-O Millenial

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by schwit1 ( 797399 )
      Technically, he's not baby boomer, born in 1965. The Baby Boom generation is most often defined as those individuals born between 1946 and 1964.Wikipedia

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      Thanks Bernie Sanders. Now get off my lawn

  • Ummmm (Score:4, Informative)

    by PuddleBoy ( 544111 ) on Thursday January 09, 2020 @04:23PM (#59604426)

    OK, I read the (very short) article. He's trying to make a point, not expecting it to pass.

    I thought maybe I had accidentally eaten some mushrooms....

    • I didn't read the article. What was his point, politicians are dumbasses?

      • His point was gun control is stupid. He started talking about how a cell phone is more-dangerous than a gun because of terrorists.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Bert64 ( 520050 )

          Cell phones could be a convenient remote trigger mechanism for a bomb...
          But before cellphones were widely available, bombs still existed and were still used, they just used other mechanisms for remote or delayed triggering.
          OTOH if the authorities become aware of a cellphone triggered bomb having been planted, they can shut off the network in the area until the bomb can be dealt with,

    • I thought maybe he had accidentally eaten some mushrooms.

    • I thought that sounded fairly messed up until I read TFA. I guess if the point is to grab everyone's attention so a real discussion of how to deal with cellphones and their impact on society can be started then he managed to do what he intended. He may have gone over board with the attention seeking but he has it now.

      • I guess if the point is to grab everyone's attention so a real discussion of how to deal with cellphones and their impact on society can be started then he managed to do what he intended.

        He's protesting gun control. He's a strong second-amendment advocate and says it's goofus bullshit to try to regulate guns because it won't make anyone safer.

        • He's a strong second-amendment advocate and says it's goofus bullshit to try to regulate guns because it won't make anyone safer.

          Well, unless they ere to ban ALL guns and confiscate them....it really won't do any good making anyone any safer.

          The bad guys will always have them, and it is just taking them away from the vast majority of folks which are law abiding citizens and good guys that actually obey laws.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by Bert64 ( 520050 )

            Even if they tried to confiscate guns, there are simply too many in the country that they'd never be able to find them all. Criminals would find ways to evade the confiscation.
            Even in countries where guns are tightly controlled, there is a black market for them.

      • The risk is that if you engage in too much hyperbole and ridiculous posturing people shut you down and wonâ(TM)t listen to any valid point you may later make. Bull show up for a platform to preach while the other side sticks their fingers in their ears. And then it is back-and-forth like that all night.

    • Re:Ummmm (Score:4, Insightful)

      by cmdr_klarg ( 629569 ) on Thursday January 09, 2020 @04:37PM (#59604502)

      So, a clickbait bill?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Merk42 ( 1906718 )
      That's a really bizarre way of making a point, why not just issue a statement?
      Now he'll just be remembered for coming up with a terrible bill, that, as SuperKendall shows, plays right into the opposition parties hands.

      • That's a really bizarre way of making a point, why not just issue a statement?

        Because everyone would ignore yet another statement from yet another 2nd amendment fan.

      • Yep! Heâ(TM)s going to be as famous as that guy they got up in the Senate and talked about the tubes on the Internet being clogged by spam.

  • But we'll still allow them to vote and allow them to sign up to be drafted into the armed services so they can go die half way across the world if necessary.
    • Lets ban them also from plastic straws, plastic bags, voting republican, having a business or owning a gun.
      By the way just a small point if you sign up you were not drafted.
      • You might want to read up on Selective Service [wikipedia.org]. It's not likely that the U.S. will institute a draft again, but you're still required to register as available for conscription.

        Even putting that aside, it's still ridiculous to let them voluntarily sign up for military service if you won't trust them with a cell phone.

        • Shit they wont trust them with the weapon. Cant carry on base. A police officers can go wherever he wants in or out of uniform carrying a weapon. That same police officer spends less than one hour every six months at the range to qualify. Most of them are actually pretty terrible shot. Meanwhile those in the military often spend several hours a week on the range practicing very advanced drills. I would trust the military to carry while off duty 100 times more than I would trust a police officer. Less chance

      • Males in the US have to register at 18 for what is basically the draft. You are thinking of enlisting which is different.

      • Re:Sure (Score:5, Informative)

        by Holi ( 250190 ) on Thursday January 09, 2020 @04:42PM (#59604526)
        Bullshit, you had to sign up for Selective Service when you turned 18, it was a crime not to.

        https://www.sss.gov/Registrati... [sss.gov]

        Selective Service was the draft.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rv6502 ( 5793142 )

          Bullshit, you had to sign up for Selective Service when you turned 18, it was a crime not to.
          https://www.sss.gov/Registrati... [sss.gov]
          Selective Service was the draft.

          Maybe nonBORG is female. This legal and deadly obligation doesn't apply to them.

          And some men don't notice they signed up as it was part of the driver license forms.

  • Is a year in prison less harmful? (Score:4, Funny)

    by vidnet ( 580068 ) on Thursday January 09, 2020 @04:24PM (#59604430) Homepage

    anyone under the age threshold found with a cellphone with up to one year in prison

    The theory being that a year in prison will be less harmful than phone use?

  • Young people are too immature to use cellphones? What about the adults too?
  • If there was ever a law made by old people, this is it. Although I do agree with confiscating phones during class time.

    • I'm sure schools are more than empowered to deal with that issue, and hardly need a state legislature to assist them.

  • Stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by twocows ( 1216842 ) on Thursday January 09, 2020 @04:33PM (#59604466)
    Cell phones are a part of the modern world. Kids having access to them is good because it's something they'll be expected to understand and operate when they're older. Limits on how frequently and how long they can be used may be prudent, but that should be for parents to decide, not the government.

    As far as car crashes, most states have laws against texting and driving already that are sufficient. If people are breaking the law to text and drive, I find it unlikely that they'll respect an additional law that says they can't use a cell phone at all.

  • Whats worse for a child? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Holi ( 250190 ) on Thursday January 09, 2020 @04:37PM (#59604504)
    Using a cellphone or spending a year in jail?

  • Some of this I kind of agree with so young people work on one-on-one social skills and helicopter parents. Trouble is in today's messed up world having a way to contact someone when a messy situation happen is important. Again its another law trying do what the parents should be doing, but problem the parents are just as bad about living with their face buried in a screen. So to me the cons outweigh the positive so forget it and leave things alone.

  • The bill was missing the /s tag (Score:3)

    by pipedwho ( 1174327 ) on Thursday January 09, 2020 @04:52PM (#59604578)

    Clearly he intended this bill as a talking point.

    It would have been funnier if he remembered to include the /s sarcasm tag in the legislation.

  • Key part of the article explaining why he introduced this bill:

    just as the General Assembly has concluded that persons under 21 years of age are not mature enough to possess firearms, smoke cigarettes or consume alcohol

    • just as the General Assembly has concluded that persons under 21 years of age are not mature enough to [...] consume alcohol

      In their defense, Vermont was among the last states to abandon the 18 year-old drinking age. It was the federal government that blackmailed the states into changing their drinking ages to 21 ("You can have whatever drinking age you want, but we won't give you highway funds if it's under 21...").

  • What, precisely, does the wording of the bill propose making illegal?

    For example, is an Android tablet with LTE data connectivity, but no actual software for making a voice telephone call using the PSTN legally a "phone"? OK, how about a rootable, reflashable Android device whose "dialer" app was removed? How about a non-LTE-equipped tablet or laptop with WhatsApp, Google Voice, or Skype installed?

    How about a 20 year old Palm Pilot? It might lack realtime connectivity, but he could always write a message

  • The author of the bill said they wouldn't even vote for it themselves. This is just a total bullshit publicity stunt.

  • I'll just use my smartphone instead.

  • It takes a lot of "courage" to introduce a nanny state bill you know will fail and you yourself would not vote for just to make a statement. If I were your political opponent I would ring your neck with it in the next election. What a shitty way to make a statement.

  • If you're truly serious about lowering car fatalities due to distracted driving with a cell phone, it would make more sense just to ban
    the damn things ( driver only ) completely while the car is in motion. ALL ages apply.

    A $1k fine per violation should have every officer there is watching for violations like a hawk.

    ( Of course we would have to get the police off their phones first before this would work :| )

  • New bill will bring in a law stopping senators from introducing fecking stupid laws, and will punish them with up to life in prison.

Slashdot Top Deals

In practice, failures in system development, like unemployment in Russia, happens a lot despite official propaganda to the contrary. -- Paul Licker

Close