Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TZucchini]

Sure, speeding in the current driving environment contributes to a portion of crashes, but driving fast is not exclusively a problem.

Who said it was? Certainly not me. I said the problem was multifaceted. Risk of injury increases exponentially at higher speeds. That's a fact.

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.

Again. You're having a hard time discerning between examples and comparisons. Back-up cameras are an example of government mandating regulations in a specific industry to help save lives. Yet there's no public outcry about backup cameras. There's no politicians running on a platform of "anti-back-up cameras." People are just really sensitive when it comes to permissive firearm ownership.

[Tinykong]

Who said it was? Certainly not me. I said the problem was multifaceted. Risk of injury increases exponentially at higher speeds. That's a fact.

Sure, but "speeding" isn't the problem. I can drive 150mph safely, my car is designed to do so. It's the interactions with other drivers and the infrastructure that prevents it or makes it unsafe. A governor is a band aid.

Again. You're having a hard time discerning between examples and comparisons. Back-up cameras are an example of government mandating regulations in a specific industry to help save lives. Yet there's no public outcry about backup cameras. There's no politicians running on a platform of "anti-back-up cameras." People are just really sensitive when it comes to permissive firearm ownership.

Because a back up camera doesn't detract from my car's function. Unless you count being able to adjust the radio while driving in reverse, which would be idiotic.

You seem to be typically unable to discern between things that hinder and things that don't.

edit:

Also, "speed" doesn't increase the risk of an accident. It multiplies the forces should an accident occur.

[TITAN308]

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.

Good luck getting a reply. As you can see he went ahead and skipped over you in favor of another discussion where he still thinks he has some sort of foot hold.

[TZucchini]

Good luck getting a reply. As you can see he went ahead and skipped over you in favor of another discussion where he still thinks he has some sort of foot hold.

Lol. I responded directly to him. Reading comprehension, what is it?

[jugzilla]

I just read this. Ford voluntarily putting speed governors into one of their cars in Europe.

http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/24/f...x-speed-limit/

Big data and technology eventually are going to remove the human variable from everything. We will all live long, safe, and extremely boring lives.

[lockedout]

Yes, those study results sure are "ridiculous"

I have asked you several times to link a study but you won't, typical.

- - - Updated - - -

You know cars have governors currently right?

- - - Updated - - -

Who said it was? Certainly not me. I said the problem was multifaceted. Risk of injury increases exponentially at higher speeds. That's a fact.



Again. You're having a hard time discerning between examples and comparisons. Back-up cameras are an example of government mandating regulations in a specific industry to help save lives. Yet there's no public outcry about backup cameras. There's no politicians running on a platform of "anti-back-up cameras." People are just really sensitive when it comes to permissive firearm ownership.

Back up cameras are just there, you don't even have to look at it. I do love my back up camera when parallel parking though.

[Mayhem]

I just read this. Ford voluntarily putting speed governors into one of their cars in Europe.

http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/24/f...x-speed-limit/

Big data and technology eventually are going to remove the human variable from everything. We will all live long, safe, and extremely boring lives.

Life´s really only worth living if there´s a chance for you being destroyed by a car going 80. Damn you life in a small world.

[Rukentuts]

Life´s really only worth living if there´s a chance for you being destroyed by a car going 80. Damn you life in a small world.

As a software developer, you come to see the human element as more of a problem. Bugs in code aren't beyond a degree of control, but the human element? Completely unpredictable.

[lockedout]

Life´s really only worth living if there´s a chance for you being destroyed by a car going 80. Damn you life in a small world.

How fast should cars go?
This thread should jet be renamed "The control freak thread."

[Mayhem]

How fast should cars go?

Depends who´s driving them. Robots - determined by reaction time. Humans - determined by median reaction time and overall likelyness of keeping safe distance between cars.

There are numerous other factors come at play determining what speed is optimal for the car, best suited for the driver, or better for the enviroment.

[Rukentuts]

Depends who´s driving them. Robots - determined by reaction time. Humans - determined by median reaction time and overall likelyness of keeping safe distance between cars.

There are numerous other factors come at play determining what speed is optimal for the car, best suited for the driver, or better for the enviroment.

We have technology now that comes in cars that will automatically slow down / stop the car to avoid a collision. And since GPS is so prevalent, if we wanted to, we could even make top speed regulators based upon the road the driver is currently on.

[lockedout]

Depends who´s driving them. Robots - determined by reaction time. Humans - determined by median reaction time and overall likelyness of keeping safe distance between cars.

There are numerous other factors come at play determining what speed is optimal for the car, best suited for the driver, or better for the enviroment.

You guys are talking about governors, which cars already have mind you. If a human is driving how fast should cars be able to go, or at what speed should they be governed at?

- - - Updated - - -

We have technology now that comes in cars that will automatically slow down / stop the car to avoid a collision. And since GPS is so prevalent, if we wanted to, we could even make top speed regulators based upon the road the driver is currently on.

I don't want to live in that control freak world.

[TITAN308]

Guns, cars, being to fat, being to skinny, smoking, drinking, drugs, drinking bleach from the bottle, leaving your infant child near a bucket full of water.

THEY MUST PROTECT YOU.

[Mayhem]

You guys are talking about governors, which cars already have mind you. If a human is driving how fast should cars be able to go, or at what speed should they be governed at?

Are you unhappy with my answer?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't want to live in that control freak world.

You don´t want to live in a world where technology saves your life in an accident?

[TZucchini]

I don't want to live in that control freak world.

We already have laws that tell us how fast we can drive within the confines of the law. Do you disagree with those laws as well? Do you deem those laws to be too controlling?

I mean shit. We have laws governing nearly every single aspect of driving. The manufacturers, the dealers, the repairers, and the drivers themselves. How about driver age laws? Are those controlling? What about laws against drunk driving? Are those also controlling?

You seem to not understand that we live in a society, and that your actions have the ability to affect the lives of everyone else. Whether it's laws governing cars or firearms, we should do what's best for society. Not what's best for your own personal ideologies.

[lockedout]

Are you unhappy with my answer?

- - - Updated - - -



You don´t want to live in a world where technology saves your life in an accident?

You danced around the question and inserted variables. I rephrased the question to address the variables you inserted and you avoided the question. How fast should a car driven by a human driver be able to go?

I want to have control over the vehicle I drive because computers can also malfunction. If other people feel they are incompetent or incapable of operating a motor vehicle then maybe this is something for them, it's not for me. To answer your question, no I don't want to live in a world where my every movement is controlled by the government.

- - - Updated - - -

We already have laws that tell us how fast we can drive within the confines of the law. Do you disagree with those laws as well? Do you deem those laws to be too controlling?

I mean shit. We have laws governing nearly every single aspect of driving. The manufacturers, the dealers, the repairers, and the drivers themselves. How about driver age laws? Are those controlling? What about laws against drunk driving? Are those also controlling?

You seem to not understand that we live in a society, and that your actions have the ability to affect the lives of everyone else. Whether it's laws governing cars or firearms, we should do what's best for society. Not what's best for your own personal ideologies.

No I don't disagree with every law. As you said there are already many laws in place, you seem to think people shouldn't be able to do anything for themselves because someone might get hurt. There are laws preventing drunk driving yet people still drive drunk. There are laws to regulate at what age you can legally drive yet people still drive before that age requirement. Just because you make a new law it doesn't mean that now the problem goes away. Not to mention you seem to think enacting a law is the answer to everything.

[TZucchini]

No I don't disagree with every law. As you said there are already many laws in place, you seem to think people shouldn't be able to do anything for themselves because someone might get hurt. There are laws preventing drunk driving yet people still drive drunk. There are laws to regulate at what age you can legally drive yet people still drive before that age requirement. Just because you make a new law it doesn't mean that now the problem goes away. Not to mention you seem to think enacting a law is the answer to everything.

You're dodging. I mean we get it. People break laws. That doesn't prevent the necessity of having laws.

What makes the implementation of a governor such a "control freak" type law, while the other laws your completely OK with?

[lockedout]

You're dodging. I mean we get it. People break laws. That doesn't prevent the necessity of having laws.

What makes the implementation of a governor such a "control freak" type law, while the other laws your completely OK with?

Cars have governors currently. What speed would you like cars to be governed at?
No one is dodging, I am just showing you that even with laws the things laws are made to prevent still happen.

[TZucchini]

To answer your question, no I don't want to live in a world where my every movement is controlled by the government.

Your "every move" is not controlled by the government. Spare us the hyperbole. If you don't want to "be controlled", don't drive on public roads. The choice is still yours.

[lockedout]

Your "every move" is not controlled by the government. Spare us the hyperbole. If you don't want to "be controlled", don't drive on public roads. The choice is still yours.

No my every move isn't controlled now, but if people like you had their way they would be.