Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

[PainRack]

I see these normally extremely well educated individuals revert to mouth breathing, drooling morons when it comes to guns. They refuse to use proper terminology rather reverting to buzz words that make people feel bad, even going as far as ignoring supreme court decisions that oppose their personal view.

This is one of the tantrums anti-gun control advocates like to throw that just drives me absolutely insane. If you are an expert on guns, there are going to be plenty of fine technical terminological distinctions that aren't going to be readily understood by laypeople. This isn't unique to guns, this is literally true of every single fucking field of human knowledge in which some people are experts and some people are not. If you see terms being abused, it is all well and good to offer corrections. But I usually just see people stamping their feet and shrieking that so-and-so described a type of gun stock with a slightly incorrect word and acting like that is such an inexcusable faux pas that it isn't worth working with that person anymore. It's childish. Get the fuck over it. And this is speaking as someone who works in a technical field that is CONSTANTLY being misrepresented by news media and public policy due to lack of general scientific literacy.

This isn't about minor technical details. This is full on creationist equivalent stupidity. The term "assault weapon" is a nonsense political term just like "intelligent design". It's entire purpose is selling a lie. When people say: "Evolution is just a theory." they are correctly mocked and derided for it by the well educated liberals. When others say: "We don't want to take your hunting rifles we just want sensible bans on assault weapons." those same liberals go "yes yes good idea." Meanwhile here in the real world the poster child for "assault weapons" the AR-15, is the most popular and widely owned hunting rifle in the US today.

Here's a question for those against strict gun control, is there some way that the US would be worse off if the 2nd amendment was never passed and the US had Canadian (or UK as it would have been for much of this time span) gun control laws from that point to the present day?

The northern boarder states in the US that share similar population densities to Canada have the same low homicide rates without any of the gun control laws.
The UK's homicide rate is basically the same as it was 100 years ago before they started toward modern gun control.
So if a measure is effectively a feel good do nothing measure, why pursue it at all?

Dramatically lower mass shootings in UK or Canada ?

Here's the thing. It's important to understand which pieces of gun control is targeted at which result. Britain gun control for example was intended to reduce mass shooting, NOT homicide. So, waiting periods reduce homicide. Gun safes reduce access to mass shooters and MAY have an impact on suicide. Red flag laws are aimed primarily at mental health and WORKS.

Indeed. I find the whole due process irritating, because the alternative thrown out is pysch holds. Psych hold laws is even more outrageous in the forms of civil liberties

All red flag laws for example require a warrant signed by a judge. As California shows, they can't confiscate ALL the weapons but must be the weapons signed off by the judge, in particular, the case series shows one case where a Judge refused further weapons detention or a search despite two other weapons being registered.
Meanwhile, only 22 states require a court hearing for psych holds.

https://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/ful ... .201500205#

You don't need a judge in all the states to commit you to involuntary psych detention, just a police officer. And only 9 states require a judge to sign off on involuntary detention BEFORE the hold is executed.
To put it in context, 17 states, aka, ALL red flag laws require judges to sign off on a warrant for red flag, only 9 require a judge before and 22 require a judge AFTER.

And for California, you need yearly renewal of red flag laws and the renewal period HAS lapsed. For psych holds, IF a hearing is done, you there until deemed medically fit.


Guns are treated with more reverence than personal liberty, and this ignores just how damaging a former psych hold is on your employment prospects AS well as how forcible detention is damaging to your mental health.


While weapons bans and registration, even background checks due to the antiquated and fragmented nature of the US system are problematic, red flag laws aren't. They work well.

If it wasn't for the 2A, we would be viewing holdouts as akin to proponents of leaded gasoline complaining. Even the NRA favours red flag laws, they just holding out for a utopian treat guns as more important than lives and human liberty due process,

[PainRack]

[quote="Lord Insanity" post_id=4095347 time=1582083119
50 years ago when access to guns was far easier the US didn't have a mass shooting problem.[/quote]
Ahem.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... ted_States

In fact, violence was common enough that the Wild West implemented gun control to control it.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ ... 180968013/

There's even a statistical study which showed that towns which implemented gun control had less homicides than towns which didn't, despite the NRA bringing up Tombstone and the OK corral fight.

Total suicide rates do not correlate to gun ownership rates at all. Sure gun suicides are more common in places with easy access to guns but non-gun suicides are more common in places with restricted access to guns. Taking gun suicides out of context of the total suicide rate is completely dishonest.

Thats.... Highly misleading.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magaz ... d-suicide/

The PROBLEM however is that gun suicides are MUCH MORE LETHAL than other forms of suicide, and this has a major factor for teen suicide .

https://www.aappublications.org/news/20 ... cide101419

While majority of gun suicide is amongst adults, teens represent a unique aspect . Most suicide attempts aren't repeated for this group and deaths amongst the youth hollows out demographics, making anything that threatens their lives more damaging to society.so, 2nd leading cause of death amongst teens represent a highly important aspect of gun control and here, the means of red flag, gun safes and trigger locks as well as advising to store ammo and weapon separately ISNT that restrictive.

The complaint of how this hurt DGU would require better data on DGU to consider pro and cons, but Kellerman study shows that guns in household aren't that protective and Kleck infamous millions of DGU has majority of it being concealed carry and outdoors.

Also. I kinda like to remind you that based off gun ownership, suicide rates in the US was actually HIGHER in the past. They're actually equal now.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/249 ... a-firearm/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/187 ... ince-1950/

Well I was going off the data for 1919 to 1986 from the book Targeting Guns. I honestly forgot the data was that old, I still think of that book as having just come out a few years ago. What you posted shows exactly what I said though. The homicide rate is basically the same. If anything your chart shows it is trending slightly higher over the last 50 years. That is not exactly a ringing endorsement that gun control has done anything useful.

God's.... I did a harrowing analysis of ONS data for England once

Let's put it this way. The NHS data cited there shows that knife attacks are infinitely less lethal than guns are. Gun crime in the UK is defined differently, because air rifle is counted as possession. Ditto to the violence stats and etc. However, when gun attacks drop as a result of improved criminal initiatives targeting criminals, homicides drop. An increase in knife violence "doesn't" have that same increase in homicide.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... eofweapons

Despite a 2% increase in firearm offences, only 19 people died, more importantly, out of the 2300 offences, only 10% involved the banned handguns. And the majority of the times it was used as a threat .

19 people died to guns that year, out of 163 injured. And this figure includes air rifles....

For knives, out of 26 thousand offences, only 3614 were admitted to hospital.
80 deaths in 2017 for a higher rate of crime .

To summarise, trying to link homicides in the UK with guns cannot be done, as majority of attacks were and remain knives, but a huge amount of homicides in the US was gun related although the drop in gun homicide has dropped significantly more.

Again. Just as pro right activists accurately argue that you cannot replicate Australia or other countries gun control policies and expect the same result in the US because of the differences, the SAME APPLIES WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE UK.

[Jub]

The northern boarder states in the US that share similar population densities to Canada have the same low homicide rates without any of the gun control laws.
The UK's homicide rate is basically the same as it was 100 years ago before they started toward modern gun control.
So if a measure is effectively a feel good do nothing measure, why pursue it at all?

I think your homicide rates argument is ignoring the role guns play in how militarized the US police have become as well as the obvious case of mass shootings. Then we also need to look at the less obvious factors such as suicide rates and people killed in situations that weren't technically crimes. Run your numbers again with these points factored in and get back to me.

50 years ago when access to guns was far easier the US didn't have a mass shooting problem.

Total suicide rates do not correlate to gun ownership rates at all. Sure gun suicides are more common in places with easy access to guns but non-gun suicides are more common in places with restricted access to guns. Taking gun suicides out of context of the total suicide rate is completely dishonest.

The CDC stats for the year 2017 list the total number of accidental deaths at 169,936. Accidental discharge of firearms is the lowest accidental cause at 486.

Uh. Would you mind backing those claims up with numbers and sources?
For England and Wales I can easily find data back to the 1970s and it does not support your claim.

I refer to fig 1 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... gmarch2018 and it's accompanying notes. (Homicide includes Shipman's patients, the Hillsborough victims of police and immigrants suffocated in lorries)

If you are making your claim for the UK as a whole, I will be interested how you consider the Troubles in Northern Ireland impacted by gun control / righteous Rebellion by militia against despotic martial law (as the IRA gun smuggling court case in USA found)

Well I was going off the data for 1919 to 1986 from the book Targeting Guns. I honestly forgot the data was that old, I still think of that book as having just come out a few years ago. What you posted shows exactly what I said though. The homicide rate is basically the same. If anything your chart shows it is trending slightly higher over the last 50 years. That is not exactly a ringing endorsement that gun control has done anything useful.

Others have handled the response to this better than I could have but seriously, you're coming in with a 34-year-old book and using that data as if it means anything... Yikes.

[MKSheppard]

Here's the thing. It's important to understand which pieces of gun control is targeted at which result. Britain gun control for example was intended to reduce mass shooting, NOT homicide. So, waiting periods reduce homicide. Gun safes reduce access to mass shooters and MAY have an impact on suicide. Red flag laws are aimed primarily at mental health and WORKS.

7 day waiting periods and lengthy process to get a handgun owner permit don't stop homicide in Baltimorgue.

As for stopping mass shootings? Well, no.

The VA Tech shooter back in 2007 bought both of his pistols back when Virginia had it's "one handgun a month law". He simply waited and purchased them a month apart.

The San Bernandino CA shooters back in 2015 had someone straw purchase the S&W AR-15 and DPMS AR-15 for them months apart -- the actual dates are November 14, 2011 for the S&W and February 22, 2012 for the DPMS. Additionally, CA has a 10 day waiting period for all firearms purchases. Likewise, the 9mm Llama Model XI-B pistol and 9mm Springfield XD pistol used in the San Bernandino shooting were purchased by the shooter himself (no straw purchase there) in 2011 and 2012 from a gun store in CA (again, that pesky 10 day waiting period, plus he bought them widely separated by time).

[Jub]

Here's the thing. It's important to understand which pieces of gun control is targeted at which result. Britain gun control for example was intended to reduce mass shooting, NOT homicide. So, waiting periods reduce homicide. Gun safes reduce access to mass shooters and MAY have an impact on suicide. Red flag laws are aimed primarily at mental health and WORKS.

7 day waiting periods and lengthy process to get a handgun owner permit don't stop homicide in Baltimorgue.

Do all of the areas around Baltimore follow the same firearms control laws? Also, did the laws involve the buyback and destruction of controlled firearms? If not, they aren't really comparable to the laws in place in Canada or the UK.

As for stopping mass shootings? Well, no.

The VA Tech shooter back in 2007 bought both of his pistols back when Virginia had it's "one handgun a month law". He simply waited and purchased them a month apart.

Stopped if you don't allow the purchase of handguns without specific reasons for ownership, such as:

Accepted reasons for owning a restricted gun

The RCMP only accept a handful of reasons for owning a restricted gun, including target shooting and collection.

Target shooters have to show they practise or compete at an approved gun club or range, while collectors must prove they "know the historical, technical or scientific features" of the guns in their collection, consent to occasional inspections and comply with regulations on practices like storage and record keeping.

In a limited number of situations, a person can get legal authorization to have a restricted gun as part of their profession or to "protect life."

Ban handguns for any purpose that isn't sporting or collecting, ban the open carry of a loaded weapon regardless of type and call it a day.

[Patroklos]

When is the last time a murder was carried out by an open carrier?

[Jub]

When is the last time a murder was carried out by an open carrier?

How many hours has it been since the last time a police officer in the US shot somebody? They're all open carriers after all.

[MKSheppard]

Do all of the areas around Baltimore follow the same firearms control laws?

This isn't 1945, when Baltimore constantly complained about the rest of Maryland. Basically, want to buy a handgun in maryland, you need to have a Handgun Qualification License for the last 7 years. To get a HQL, you need to be fingerprinted.

Also, Maryland State Police have had registration of all handguns (new/used) via their Form 77R on top of the Background Check they (and the FBI) run since 1996, some 24 years by now.

Also, did the laws involve the buyback and destruction of controlled firearms? If not, they aren't really comparable to the laws in place in Canada or the UK.

See above. All handguns in MD have been registered for the last generation. If you weren't born before 1975, there's no way you could have gotten a handgun legally in a private sale off the MSP 77R.

Ban handguns for any purpose that isn't sporting or collecting

Supreme Court ruled against that in Heller. We have a right to own a handgun in the house. It's not for nothing that Handgun Control Inc changed their name to the Brady Campaign.

ban the open carry of a loaded weapon regardless of type and call it a day.

Want to know something funny?

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-conten ... sition.pdf

1. Marylanders who are otherwise qualified to
own a firearm may possess, wear, carry, and
transport handguns for any purpose in their homes,
at their businesses, and on any property they own, all
without a permit. Md. Code Ann., Criminal Law
(“CR”) § 4-203(b)(6). Marylanders also may carry
handguns in public, without a permit, in connection
with a wide range of statutorily-enumerated activities,
including hunting, trapping, target shooting,
formal or informal target practice, sport shooting
events, certain firearms and hunter safety classes,
and organized military activities. CR § 4-203(b)(3)-(7).
Maryland law generally requires a permit to wear
and carry a handgun in public places for purposes
unconnected to these specified activities. CR § 4-
203(a), (b)(2). This permit requirement applies only to
handguns, not rifles, shotguns, or other “long guns.”

[PainRack]

Here's the thing. It's important to understand which pieces of gun control is targeted at which result. Britain gun control for example was intended to reduce mass shooting, NOT homicide. So, waiting periods reduce homicide. Gun safes reduce access to mass shooters and MAY have an impact on suicide. Red flag laws are aimed primarily at mental health and WORKS.

7 day waiting periods and lengthy process to get a handgun owner permit don't stop homicide in Baltimorgue.

Hi. Here's a peer reviewed study saying yes it does
https://www.pnas.org/content/114/46/12162
Using the AWB implementation of waiting periods, we can compare not only before and after, but between states which did and didn't to show that yes, there was an impact. Where's your evidence?

As for stopping mass shootings? Well, no.

The VA Tech shooter back in 2007 bought both of his pistols back when Virginia had it's "one handgun a month law". He simply waited and purchased them a month apart.

Red herring. Did I even say that waiting periods reduce mass shooters? I said GUN SAFES .
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-polic ... tings.html
BTW, before we go into how Rand said the analysis might had been misleading or how it wasn't peer reviewed, remember that the title of the book AND Lott previous book was about how guns reduce crime. He has published a study that compares gun ownership by household and crime trend, showing a mild impact on reduction in crime before.

We can point to red flag laws that show that yes, suicide has dropped. California published a case series which suggested 800 lives were saved from mass shooting. These are all peer reviewed, published articles that say yes, these aspects of gun control WORKS.

If the NRA will stop blocking gun research, perhaps we can answer more questions. Furthermore, like it or not, some of these would require natural experimentation, which the democracy of America with its state and county base system IS designed for.

[Jub]

Do all of the areas around Baltimore follow the same firearms control laws?

This isn't 1945, when Baltimore constantly complained about the rest of Maryland. Basically, want to buy a handgun in maryland, you need to have a Handgun Qualification License for the last 7 years. To get a HQL, you need to be fingerprinted.

Also, Maryland State Police have had registration of all handguns (new/used) via their Form 77R on top of the Background Check they (and the FBI) run since 1996, some 24 years by now.

Does this prevent somebody from going to another state and bringing a weapon into Maryland?

See above. All handguns in MD have been registered for the last generation. If you weren't born before 1975, there's no way you could have gotten a handgun legally in a private sale off the MSP 77R.

Registered or not hardly matters when there are ample handguns in circulation. To really solve the issue you have to start removing weapons from the system.

Supreme Court ruled against that in Heller. We have a right to own a handgun in the house. It's not for nothing that Handgun Control Inc changed their name to the Brady Campaign.

There are many places where it isn't an enshrined right and they do just fine. Perhaps the US needs to admit that it isn't special and actually make major changes.

Want to know something funny?

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-conten ... sition.pdf

1. Marylanders who are otherwise qualified to
own a firearm may possess, wear, carry, and
transport handguns for any purpose in their homes,
at their businesses, and on any property they own, all
without a permit. Md. Code Ann., Criminal Law
(“CR”) § 4-203(b)(6). Marylanders also may carry
handguns in public, without a permit, in connection
with a wide range of statutorily-enumerated activities,
including hunting, trapping, target shooting,
formal or informal target practice, sport shooting
events, certain firearms and hunter safety classes,
and organized military activities. CR § 4-203(b)(3)-(7).
Maryland law generally requires a permit to wear
and carry a handgun in public places for purposes
unconnected to these specified activities. CR § 4-
203(a), (b)(2). This permit requirement applies only to
handguns, not rifles, shotguns, or other “long guns.”

I could quote similar Canadian law right back at you. The difference is that one nation basically doesn't have mass shootings while the other has them as a routine part of the weekly news cycle.

[Lord Insanity]

Here's the thing. It's important to understand which pieces of gun control is targeted at which result. Britain gun control for example was intended to reduce mass shooting, NOT homicide.

See in the US gun control advocates routinely point out the low homicide rates of other countries as proof gun control works. If the gun control they are pointing to wasn't even intended to specifically address homicide, clearly their entire talking point is even more wrong than I assumed.

50 years ago when access to guns was far easier the US didn't have a mass shooting problem.

Ahem.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... ted_States

You just posted a link to a list of mass shootings that shows more in just 2019 that in the five decades of the 1920s through the 1960s combined.

Total suicide rates do not correlate to gun ownership rates at all. Sure gun suicides are more common in places with easy access to guns but non-gun suicides are more common in places with restricted access to guns. Taking gun suicides out of context of the total suicide rate is completely dishonest.

Thats.... Highly misleading.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magaz ... d-suicide/

Yet the World Health Organizations data (organized far better on wikipedia) on suicides by country doesn't line up to gun ownership rates at all.

Also. I kinda like to remind you that based off gun ownership, suicide rates in the US was actually HIGHER in the past. They're actually equal now.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/249 ... a-firearm/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/187 ... ince-1950/

That chart shows the suicide rate has not changed significantly.

Just as pro right activists accurately argue that you cannot replicate Australia or other countries gun control policies and expect the same result in the US because of the differences, the SAME APPLIES WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE UK.

Exactly.

See you're focusing on all these details about why certain sensible restrictions work. The problem is in the US Democrats want "sensible gun laws" the same way Republicans want "sensible women's health laws". There is nothing sensible about it. They are trying to pass every stupid knit picky law they can to create a functional ban by default because they can't pass the constitutional amendments necessary to ban guns and abortion respectively. Most gun owners have no problem with actual sensible specific measures designed to prevent the worst offenses. Instead we get attempts to ban things that "look scary".

[Jub]

Let me now ask the opposite question to the one I asked up thread; would countries with strict gun control laws be improved if they instead had a set of laws equivalent to the laxest US state's laws? If you argue that they would be please show concrete evidence for your claims.

[PainRack]

See in the US gun control advocates routinely point out the low homicide rates of other countries as proof gun control works. If the gun control they are pointing to wasn't even intended to specifically address homicide, clearly their entire talking point is even more wrong than I assumed.

Except they ARE correct in that infinitely less mass shootings fatalities occur in Australia and the UK. Everytown accurately cited this for example. Yes, I'm sure you can find random poster/politician who says wrong shit but is this USEFUL as a rebuttal?

You just posted a link to a list of mass shootings that shows more in just 2019 that in the five decades of the 1920s through the 1960s combined.

Yes? And the fact remains that mass shootings HAS occurred in the past. Note furthermore that a lot of what we call mass shootings now wouldn't have been classified as such in the past, because for some odd reason, Neo Nazis, white supremacists, and anti semitic/ attacks aren't classified as terrorist attacks, even when they explicitly cited succession such as the Las Vegas shooting.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_La ... _shootings

They pinned a note on Soldo's body, which read: "This is the beginning of the revolution."

Lynchings, mass murders of blacks and etc isnt in that list of mass shooters.

Yet the World Health Organizations data (organized far better on wikipedia) on suicides by country doesn't line up to gun ownership rates at all.

Yes. We know suicide is multifactorial. But you missing the point. Gun suicide is more lethal than other forms of suicide such as poisoning, so, the US extremely high levels of gun suicide is concerning.

Exactly.

See you're focusing on all these details about why certain sensible restrictions work. The problem is in the US Democrats want "sensible gun laws" the same way Republicans want "sensible women's health laws". There is nothing sensible about it. They are trying to pass every stupid knit picky law they can to create a functional ban by default because they can't pass the constitutional amendments necessary to ban guns and abortion respectively. Most gun owners have no problem with actual sensible specific measures designed to prevent the worst offenses. Instead we get attempts to ban things that "look scary".

I'm going to fucking remind you that the Virginia 2nd Amendment Sanctuary , you know, the part that has Virginians threatening civil war to establish said sanctuaries was formed to fight against Red Flag Laws, a measure which passed peer review on it's effectiveness in reducing suicide AND is supported in theory by NRA if we pass their utopian treat gun rights with more reverence than we do with liberty in due process.

So. No. Virginians DONT support sensible specific gun control measures. Period.

[Patroklos]

When is the last time a murder was carried out by an open carrier?

How many hours has it been since the last time a police officer in the US shot somebody? They're all open carriers after all.

I see the answer is inconvenient for you.

[Jub]

I see the answer is inconvenient for you.

I gave a perfect valid answer.

Besides, members falling down on the status quo side of this question have yet to show that open (or even concealed carry) provides a significant benefit. The same goes for allowing weapons to be stored loaded outside of a firearms safe within ones home. We keep seeing western nations, aside from the US, move towards stricter firearms control there must be reasons for them to do so, why don't these same reasons apply to the US?

Essentially my question is, second amendment aside, what makes the US special?

[madd0ct0r]

When is the last time a murder was carried out by an open carrier?

How many hours has it been since the last time a police officer in the US shot somebody? They're all open carriers after all.

I see the answer is inconvenient for you.

Google throws up a few news stories 2010, 2012 ,2017.
"Open carry murder"
I suspect the actual statistics on this are not kept. Didn't the NRA ban collection and research?

[Jub]

Google throws up a few news stories 2010, 2012 ,2017.
"Open carry murder"
I suspect the actual statistics on this are not kept. Didn't the NRA ban collection and research?

I suppose we could also look up open carry murder in self-defense (aka: Trayvon Martin vs George Zimmerman) which could be big especially in areas with high levels of racial inequality.

[MKSheppard]

Maryland has withdrawn HB1621 (Assault Weapons Ban) from consideration. It's dead this year, but other bills such as UBC for long guns are still in hopper.

[PainRack]

When is the last time a murder was carried out by an open carrier?

How many hours has it been since the last time a police officer in the US shot somebody? They're all open carriers after all.

I see the answer is inconvenient for you.

Can I use a substitute proxy instead, since only 15 states require a license for open carry, meaning most cases of open carry are hard to track.

Instead.
http://concealedcarrykillers.org/

1335 murders commit d by concealed carry, the good guys with a gun since 2007. Including several mass shootings.

[Marko Dash]

why don't we see this kind of outcry over things other than guns? whenever there's a highspeed chase that kills people you don't have people jumping up and down waving signs demanding the all cars be speed capped at 75 mph. or if somebody plows a vehicle into a crowd there isn't outcty for fingerprinting ignition systems.

[The Romulan Republic]

why don't we see this kind of outcry over things other than guns? whenever there's a highspeed chase that kills people you don't have people jumping up and down waving signs demanding the all cars be speed capped at 75 mph. or if somebody plows a vehicle into a crowd there isn't outcty for fingerprinting ignition systems.

Here we go with the motor vehicle strawman again.

Gee wiz, maybe it has something to do with cars have numerous vital purposes other than destruction, while guns are designed to kill.

Plus, you know, we actually do have all sorts of road safety laws, and people can easily lose their lisense if they violate them. But who cares about facts?

[Marko Dash]

yes, but why would a law abiding citizen need to violate the highest posted speed limit?

a firearms purpose is to fling a projectile at high speed, what that projectile impacts is up to the user.

and we have all sorts of laws regarding firearms that can all already see you stuck in jail and never legally allowed to own one again, even for something as minor as a .5in difference on a measuring tape.


a vehicle and a gun are both tools where what is done with them is up to the owner, we can safely trust 99.9% of the population to use one without a constant stream of new restrictions and threats of banning certain models for purely cosmetic reasons, why is it so hard not to do the same for the other?

[Gandalf]

why don't we see this kind of outcry over things other than guns? whenever there's a highspeed chase that kills people you don't have people jumping up and down waving signs demanding the all cars be speed capped at 75 mph. or if somebody plows a vehicle into a crowd there isn't outcty for fingerprinting ignition systems.

Cars have demonstrable everyday use that has no violence or threat thereof. Firearms much less so.

That said, I'd be cool with the phasing out of the private car in favour of awesome (and expansive) public transport systems.

[bilateralrope]

why don't we see this kind of outcry over things other than guns? whenever there's a highspeed chase that kills people you don't have people jumping up and down waving signs demanding the all cars be speed capped at 75 mph. or if somebody plows a vehicle into a crowd there isn't outcty for fingerprinting ignition systems.

Cars have demonstrable everyday use that has no violence or threat thereof. Firearms much less so.

That said, I'd be cool with the phasing out of the private car in favour of awesome (and expansive) public transport systems.

More likely is a ban on human drivers once self-driving cars are ready to replace them.

[PainRack]

why don't we see this kind of outcry over things other than guns? whenever there's a highspeed chase that kills people you don't have people jumping up and down waving signs demanding the all cars be speed capped at 75 mph. or if somebody plows a vehicle into a crowd there isn't outcty for fingerprinting ignition systems.

Are you talking about government regulation?

Because. School speed zones exist. A huge amount of research exists.
Remember when seatbelt laws was regarded as a huge violation of civil rights ?
https://www.defensivedriving.com/blog/a ... eat-belts/

It took 1991 for some of these laws to be passed. Hell. In 1995, New Hampshire still held out, because it was considered a violation of one civil right to dictate wearing a seat belt

It took 30 years of campaigning and ultimately, low uptake to force the government hand to demand mandatory seat belts.and in the space of two decades, it seems Americans are so used to this removal of their liberty that apart from sovereign citizens and libertarians, everyone accepts this.


Face it. Your imaginary we don't restrict people or demand design change, set laws such as speed limits and speed traps is just that. Imaginary.

Let's not forget. We actually banned various cars before and we definitely banned leaded gasoline.