Yet another needless mass shooting

[Telamor]

I do understand what you're saying but using an as of yet no implemented technology to justify making a current comparison strikes me as an attempt to obfuscate the point. Currently human operated cars are a necessity while guns are not.

Also just because I forgot to mention it in my previous comment MOTs are about ensuring the safety of all drivers on the road by ensuring all vehicles meet a minimum standard. It's a public, not individual, safety measure.

[Octavious]

Explain to me, Telamor, why a LaFerrari is a necessity? Is it not equivalent to the assault rifle line of argument? It is designed to do one thing, and that thing is to travel far faster than is legal or safe.

And let's face it, for most people cars aren't a necessity. Why not limit car ownership only to those who can make a case for needing one, as with shotgun licenses? Why not require all cars to be limited to the speed limit, and to have maximum engine sizes of 1.4 litres? Why not restrict car ownership so that only those without a history of violence, and who can prove themselves to be mentally stable, can have one? Why not insist that car owners make their cars secure so that it is far harder for potential killers to steal them and cause chaos?

Many thousands of people have died so far this century in the UK alone. Why aren't you more enthusiastic about implementing the same measures that you'd support in gun restrictions, that could significantly lower the death toll without denying cars to those who genuinely need them?

[Telamor]

I haven't said I'm against improved safety measures in cars and car ownership and I won't justify LaFerrari as a necessity because I don't need to. I'm going to briefly transpose your argument across to food to demonstrate this point. I'm going to do this to demonstrate because it removes the discord of our current argument and hopefully provides an axiom we can both agree on. It also brings into sharp relief the flaw in your logic with regards to the Ferrari.

Food is necessary to existence. I hope this is a point we can both agree on and analogous to my argument that cars are a necessity. Hot cross buns are a type of food by they are clearly not necessary to existence. Hopefully we can also both agree on this point which is analogous to your example of the Ferrari. The fact that the hot cross bun is unnecessary to existence does not mean that food is now no longer necessary to existence. It simply means one could choose to consume other forms of food instead of the hot cross bun. So I don't need to demonstrate that the hot cross bun is necessary in order to assert that food is necessary. As such I'm not going to argue that Ferraris are a necessity because you're c9nflating car and Ferrari.

As for your point that cars aren't strictly necessary for most people I disagree. Public transport in Britain is mostly shite. It's slow, unreliable, and overcrowded at most key points in the day. You can't rely on it to get you to work on time, get to the shops, or visit your friends and family. If you want modern life to continue then you have to accept that public ownership of cars is a necessity.

As for my perceived lack of enthusiasm on car safety issues that is simply a by product of this what-about-ism rabbit hole you've dragged me down. The issue we are discussing here is gun control an issue entirely separate from car safety but which you've ended up ignoring in favour of haranging me about the lack of engine size limits in publicly owned vehicles.

So to return to the point, guns are a tool that exists to kill things. Assault weapons exist to kill large numbers of things quickly. Guns are not a necessity and are allowing mass murderers an easy way to slaughter people. Therefore they should be restricted.

[Octavious]

It is not about whataboutism. It is about showing a consistent approach to balancing individual freedoms with public safety. It makes no sense at all to highlight a single aspect of risk and restrict it to the nth degree whilst maintaining a light touch elsewhere, for no reason other than you have a particular dislike of the thing you want to restrict.

[CroakandDagger]

I don't know about you guys but I don't eat as many cars as I do salads.

[Tom Bombadil]

I don't know about you guys but I don't eat as many cars as I do salads.

A live look at Croak: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE3yaHvTCF4

[Telamor]

It is not about whataboutism. It is about showing a consistent approach to balancing individual freedoms with public safety. It makes no sense at all to highlight a single aspect of risk and restrict it to the nth degree whilst maintaining a light touch elsewhere

If you wouldn't mind clarifying this for me, are you arguing that change shouldn't be implemented incrementally? Or are you arguing that my only reasoning for enacting this particular incremental change is invalid?

[flash2015]

It is not about whataboutism. It is about showing a consistent approach to balancing individual freedoms with public safety. It makes no sense at all to highlight a single aspect of risk and restrict it to the nth degree whilst maintaining a light touch elsewhere, for no reason other than you have a particular dislike of the thing you want to restrict.

Cars have "light touch" regulation compared to guns??? You are kidding, right? We don't have speed limiters on cars because the tech isn't there yet (it would need to be different based on the road - limited tech is there for trucks though). There are many reasons for having more powerful engines other than getting the record from 0-60 (e.g. climbing steep hills, pulling loads etc.). And there are lots of mandated safety features on cars (e.g. airbags, passive-restraint systems, inside-trunk handle, tire pressure monitors, electronic stability control). And we don't have people (not many anyway) arguing that the government doesn't have the right to even regulate cars (e.g. like suggesting that car registration or drivers licenses impinge on their "freedom of movement" or something).

[Octavious]

I'm arguing that change, especially change that reduce freedoms, should be viewed with a natural suspicion and in context.

At the end of the day I really don't care what the Yanks choose to do regarding their gun laws. I'm more interested in understanding the arguments themselves. From my own perspective gun laws of the American style feel rather odd. I rather enjoy shooting myself, and haven't found British gun laws to be much of an impediment, so I've been trying to find a way of viewing it from a US style pro-gun perspective.

The constitution argument is one i've never grasped. Regardless of how you interpret the document, the idea that the opinions of the past take precedent over opinions of today is rather alien. There is wisdom in making change a slow process to avoid making rash decisions, but change should always be possible.

So instead I've tried to look at it from a freedom that I have, that I care about, and that is linked to deaths. Driving is the clear and obvious choice, especially with technology coming that will shortly make it far more a luxury than a necessity. Driving kills people. It kills them in blameless accidents, it kills them in accidents caused by people breaking the law and taking stupid risks, and it kills them via murder and mass murder. We will soon be able to potentially greatly reduce those deaths by regulating against the human element. Ban human driving, or at least limit it to those who can prove special circumstances, the military of course, and perhaps allow free driving ranges for die hard enthusiasts. And just like that you save thousands of lives a year for no great cost.

Except for the sense of loss for all those who enjoy driving, such as myself. A selfish stance when weighed against people's lives, perhaps? And what would my arguments be to keep human controlled driving going? Why do I value it? I enjoy the freedom. I enjoy the feeling of being in control. I enjoy the responsibility, of being able to use my judgment of what speed is appropriate, even if that means on occasion breaking the limits. I enjoy looking after the vehicle, of getting my hands dirty, of having the skills and knowing I was good at it. Of knowing those skills have in part been passed down from my grandfather to my father to me and to those who come after me. In all these things there is something fundamentally human, and something that via a change in laws would be swept away.

And in that I found myself understanding, at least in part, where some of the pro gun people where coming from. That it isn't as simple as saying "ban x, save lives". I accept that some change may be desirable, even necessary, but let's not rush unthinkingly into it, and lets not pretend it's simple or that the arguments against are invalid.

[Telamor]

Eloquently put Oct

[ericthefin1]

Before we discuss gun-rights and gun legislation, please learn the correct terminology before screaming “assault weapons!” with you hand in the air. It’s just silly. Nobody complaining about .223 Rugers but complains about Armalite Model 15s... But please before you respond to me, please do your research, and don’t start with a ridiculous straw man.

[Octavious]

My sympathies to the victims of the recent mass shooting in Australia.