Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TZucchini]

So yes, I guess we really are just parroting ignorant partisan rhetoric.

But...but....but partisan rhetoric is so much more convincing than actual evidence.....

[Stormdash]

But...but....but partisan rhetoric is so much more convincing than actual evidence.....

... they whined, while advocating for the government to determine the speed you drive at with a Big Brother in your car...

[Rukentuts]

... they whined, while advocating for the government to determine the speed you drive at with a Big Brother in your car...

I thought you said you knew what an anecdote was.

[TZucchini]

... they whined, while advocating for the government to determine the speed you drive at with a Big Brother in your car...

I'd be equally OK with car manufacturers implementing that technology on their own.

But, you know. Private corporations don't have a great track record for actually caring about the lives of their consumers.

[Melusine]

Then why are Democrats less authoritarian? Or are we just parroting partisan rhetoric now?

Less authoritarian? They are hypersensitive, hyperoffended babies who play the victim card and demand the state do proxy violence on their behalf every god damn time someone offends them in some manner.... The inception of hate crimes, the misnomer term "homophobe" when gays don't get universal celebration and approval from society for their lifestyle and choice of fuck partner, despite the fact that most people who don't approve of this don't fear them even a little bit, and hatred is not part of the term "-phobia", the race card to anyone who dissents on racial politics, and all of these dipshits demanding new laws to specifically protect THEM, and THEIR interests at the expense of society in general.

Well fuck these people, and if I offended anyone with this, then you have my sincerest "go fuck yourself", because I will not apologize.

[Rukentuts]

Less authoritarian?

So the scholars are part of some conspiracy or something? Or, judging from the latter 7/8s of the post, are we just stating what we believe?

[Saucexorzski]

Less authoritarian? They are hypersensitive, hyperoffended babies who play the victim card and demand the state do proxy violence on their behalf every god damn time someone offends them in some manner.... The inception of hate crimes, the misnomer term "homophobe" when gays don't get universal celebration and approval from society for their lifestyle and choice of fuck partner, despite the fact that most people who don't approve of this don't fear them even a little bit, and hatred is not part of the term "-phobia", the race card to anyone who dissents on racial politics, and all of these dipshits demanding new laws to specifically protect THEM, and THEIR interests at the expense of society in general.

Well fuck these people, and if I offended anyone with this, then you have my sincerest "go fuck yourself", because I will not apologize.

Lets ask them if they still support eugenics like good democrats.

[Stormdash]

I'd be equally OK with car manufacturers implementing that technology on their own.

But, you know. Private corporations don't have a great track record for actually caring about the lives of their consumers.

A living customer is a repeat customer. You believe far too much cartoonish anti-capitalist bullshit, seriously. But most troubling is how you seem to think that unelected government bureaucrats -- whom represent the best and brightest of no industries whatsoever -- are best positioned to determine how everybody else should live and what everyone else should buy and how everyone else should spend their time, and that their judgment should be imposed by law.

[Rukentuts]

A living customer is a repeat customer. You believe far too much cartoonish anti-capitalist bullshit, seriously. But most troubling is how you seem to think that unelected government bureaucrats -- whom represent the best and brightest of no industries whatsoever -- are best positioned to determine how everybody else should live and what everyone else should buy and how everyone else should spend their time, and that their judgment should be imposed by law.

So, we're still ignoring this less authoritarian bit because anecdote expansion for character assassination?

[TZucchini]

A living customer is a repeat customer. You believe far too much cartoonish anti-capitalist bullshit, seriously. But most troubling is how you seem to think that unelected government bureaucrats -- whom represent the best and brightest of no industries whatsoever -- are best positioned to determine how everybody else should live and what everyone else should buy and how everyone else should spend their time, and that their judgment should be imposed by law.

I don't think the government should "determine how everybody else should live" or "what everyone else should buy" or "how everyone else should spend their time."

Supporting governors on vehicles, or restrictive laws on firearm, are very specific positions aimed at increasing the welfare of society. Attempting to broaden these positions into "you think the government should tell everyone how to live!!" is nothing but a partisan talking point that has no basis in reality.

And I've never claim that employees of the government are perfect, all-knowing, or infallible. So you can stop with that as well.

[Ghostpanther]

I don't think the government should "determine how everybody else should live" or "what everyone else should buy" or "how everyone else should spend their time."

Supporting governors on vehicles, or restrictive laws on firearm, are very specific positions aimed at increasing the welfare of society. Attempting to broaden these positions into "you think the government should tell everyone how to live!!" is nothing but a partisan talking point that has no basis in reality.

And I've never claim that employees of the government are perfect, all-knowing, or infallible. So you can stop with that as well.

Personally I have no problems with putting speed restriction governors on cars/trucks. For one, it is not a right but a privilege to drive on public roads anyway. However the same type of measures cannot be applied to firearms since owning and keeping one is a Constitution right. Sure there are some restrictions and reasonable ones are....well....understandable. But as in many cases where some states and local governments have tried to restrict weapons which went too far, they failed for good Constitutional reasons. Of course you know this.

[TITAN308]

I'd be equally OK with car manufacturers implementing that technology on their own.

But, you know. Private corporations don't have a great track record for actually caring about the lives of their consumers.

Private corporations have no moral obligation to make sure people use their products safely. Nor should we force them to.

People like you are why we have "DO NOT DRINK" on bottles of bleach....

Or better yet... pictures of babies upside down on the side of buckets.

Someone along the line the government went from general welfare to "WE MUST PROTECT STUPID PEOPLE AT ALL COST"

Meanwhile the rest of the non-moron population have to take the brunt of regulations meant to save morons from themselves.

[shaithis]

It's all about personal responsibility. The problem with gun control (the legislated kind) is that it (1) assumes that most people are dumbasses, and (2) holds both law-abiding citizens and criminals to the same standard of obeying the law, which just results in criminals being the only ones with the weapons.

[TZucchini]

Private corporations have no moral obligation to make sure people use their products safely. Nor should we force them to.

I wouldn't expect a private corporation to have any morals at all. It's an entity whose only concern is profit.

And while no moral obligation is present, there's certainly a legal obligation, to an extent.

People like you are why we have "DO NOT DRINK" on bottles of bleach....

Actually, you can thank people like Stormdash for that one (i.e. lawyers).

[Tinykong]

Supporting governors on vehicles, or restrictive laws on firearm, are very specific positions aimed at increasing the welfare of society.

Speed isn't the reason why our traffic fatalities are high, although to properly implement high speed driving, we'd need a completely new highway system and policing practices, along with much stricter inspections of vehicles.

[shaithis]

I wouldn't expect a private corporation to have any morals at all. It's an entity whose only concern is profit.

And while no moral obligation is present, there's certainly a legal obligation, to an extent.



Actually, you can thank people like Stormdash for that one (i.e. lawyers).

The analogy of profit maximization = no morals is shallow and false. In reality, corporations are directly affected by bad press, lawsuits and the like, and a great deal of thought and planning goes towards minimizing impact and cost.

[TZucchini]

Speed isn't the reason why our traffic fatalities are high, although to properly implement high speed driving, we'd need a completely new highway system and policing practices, along with much stricter inspections of vehicles.

Speeding is a contributing factor in many fatalities. Along with lack of seat belts, etc.

Implementing governors wouldn't solve the problem of all vehicle fatalities, just as implementing additional gun control wouldn't solve the problem of all firearm fatalities. These problems are multifaceted.

- - - Updated - - -

The analogy of profit maximization = no morals is shallow and false. In reality, corporations are directly affected by bad press, lawsuits and the like, and a great deal of thought and planning goes towards minimizing impact and cost.

"Directly affected" in what way?

Oh right. Financially.

[Tinykong]

Speeding is a contributing factor in many fatalities. Along with lack of seat belts, etc.

And yet, people in other countries drive faster than we do with lower rates. Speed isn't the problem, it's a lack of regulation.

Kind of like firearms. Shocking.

Implementing governors wouldn't solve the problem of all vehicle fatalities, just as implementing additional gun control wouldn't solve the problem of all firearm fatalities. These problems are multifaceted.

Implementing a governor isn't going to have a big impact.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812021.pdf

Only 30% of all crashes are speed related, and the bulk of those are drunk drivers. The majority of all crashes also take place on rural roads, were a governor will have zero impact, unless you're talking about some new type of governor which regulates speed based on the speed limit of the road, which is a huge financial difference.

[TZucchini]

And yet, people in other countries drive faster than we do with lower rates. Speed isn't the problem, it's a lack of regulation.

Speed is part of the problem. Lethal force of accidents go up drastically as speed increases.

Driving on a rural road does not preclude the ability to drive over 70 mph. Nor does being drunk.

Governors could have a noticeable impact.

I mean shit, how many children were run over by cars backing out of a parking spot, or a driveway? Probably not a great deal each year. Yet the government has mandated that all 2018+ models need to have a backup camera.

[Tinykong]

Speed is part of the problem. Lethal force of accidents go up drastically as speed increases.

Driving on a rural road does not preclude the ability to drive over 70 mph. Nor does being drunk.

Governors could have a noticeable impact.

I mean shit, how many children were run over by cars backing out of a parking spot, or a driveway? Probably not a great deal each year. Yet the government has mandated that all 2018+ models need to have a backup camera.

Sure, speeding in the current driving environment contributes to a portion of crashes, but driving fast is not exclusively a problem. Distracted drivers, poorly maintained vehicles, poorly trained drivers, commercial vehicles and poorly maintained infrastructure are also part of the problem.

Should you be driving 100+ mph in a rural area or current interstate? Nope. Can a highway be specifically designed to allow people to drive at this speed safely? Yes.

Putting a governor on a car is a band aid.

The back up camera example is a false equivalency. Putting a back up camera in a car is inexpensive and hugely impactful. A governor, without a huge financial cost, is not. If I can drive over the speed limit on rural roads, the majority of speed related crashes will continue to happen.