what distinguishes Car Control from Gun Control?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

This is terrible, of course, but imagine what he would have done with a gun?

But he didn't, so that's not really relevant, is it?  This seems pretty typical of the liberals of the forum.  Whenever a mass shooting occurs, you guys talk about how if we had much tighter gun control, stuff like this wouldn't happen, but when it's a non-gun incident, you still manage to turn the subject to guns.

The fact is, if violent people want to commit violent acts, they will, with or without access to a gun.

Perhaps if he had a gun, he would've been noticed and stopped sooner, and no violence would've occurred.  We don't know that, just like you don't know that it would've been worse had he had a gun.

What kind of weapon you use is relevant to how dangerous you are.  That's obvious, right?  A banana, grapefruit, sharpened stick, knife, sword, gun and weaponized anthrax all pose different levels of danger as weapons.

If I knew someone was going to commit a violent act against me, I hope they would use a banana and not a gun.  Right?

The most dangerous weapon I own is a car (I do own a gun) but the car is the most dangerous. I can drive up and down the street and into crowded public places and kill far more people then using a gun before I'm stopped so it's not just guns.

I don't know if you're being serious.  Obviously guns are more dangerous in the relevant sense.

In terms of homicide, guns are by far the primary weapon in America.  Cars are hardly ever used in a homicide.  We're talking about the difference between 8,000 or 9,000 and a tiny number.  If cars were a more appropriate weapon for homicide, they would actually be used more than a handful of times per year.

Airplanes aren't used that often in terrorist attacks, but after 9/11 look at how high security measures have risen to protect against airplanes being used as weapons.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So do you support gun control?

I'm not making an argument for or against something here... just finding out where bedstuy stands.

This is terrible, of course, but imagine what he would have done with a gun?

But he didn't, so that's not really relevant, is it?  This seems pretty typical of the liberals of the forum.  Whenever a mass shooting occurs, you guys talk about how if we had much tighter gun control, stuff like this wouldn't happen, but when it's a non-gun incident, you still manage to turn the subject to guns.

The fact is, if violent people want to commit violent acts, they will, with or without access to a gun.

Perhaps if he had a gun, he would've been noticed and stopped sooner, and no violence would've occurred.  We don't know that, just like you don't know that it would've been worse had he had a gun.

What kind of weapon you use is relevant to how dangerous you are.  That's obvious, right?  A banana, grapefruit, sharpened stick, knife, sword, gun and weaponized anthrax all pose different levels of danger as weapons.

If I knew someone was going to commit a violent act against me, I hope they would use a banana and not a gun.  Right?

The most dangerous weapon I own is a car (I do own a gun) but the car is the most dangerous. I can drive up and down the street and into crowded public places and kill far more people then using a gun before I'm stopped so it's not just guns.

I don't know if you're being serious.  Obviously guns are more dangerous in the relevant sense.

In terms of homicide, guns are by far the primary weapon in America.  Cars are hardly ever used in a homicide.  We're talking about the difference between 8,000 or 9,000 and a tiny number.  If cars were a more appropriate weapon for homicide, they would actually be used more than a handful of times per year.

Airplanes aren't used that often in terrorist attacks, but after 9/11 look at how high security measures have risen to protect against airplanes being used as weapons.

So what?  I don't know what your point is.

Do you think the TSA restrictions that have been put in place are overly restrictive, or since airplanes are almost never used as homicidal weapons, should security around them be significantly relaxed?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I think we should have safety measures for cars, airplanes and guns that are warranted in each case.  There are a number of factors you would consider in that calculation including the number of people killed by that weapon or vehicle.  It ends up being a cost-benefit analysis between the cost of the safety measure and the reduced risk of harm. 

What I take issue with is the argument that we need to regulate everything with a potential to kill in the same manner.  We don't heavily regulate knives and knives kill people, therefore we shouldn't regulate guns.  That's just silly.  By that logic, we don't regulate fists and you can punch someone to death, therefore, nuclear weapons should be legal for private citizens.

But we don't regulate cars at all for their owners' propensity to commit a violent act with their cars.

The issue here is not, "We don't heavily regulate __X__, so we shouldn't regulate guns."  The issue should be, "Why should we regulate guns?"  Where is the logic in the regulation of guns?  There has to be a reason for the regulation that starts somewhere broad and works its way into the narrow universe of guns.  If you don't do that, your regulations are admittedly arbitrary.

So what is the rationale for regulating guns, and what is your logic chain that shows that your proposed regulation isn't arbitrary?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I think we should have safety measures for cars, airplanes and guns that are warranted in each case.  There are a number of factors you would consider in that calculation including the number of people killed by that weapon or vehicle.  It ends up being a cost-benefit analysis between the cost of the safety measure and the reduced risk of harm. 

What I take issue with is the argument that we need to regulate everything with a potential to kill in the same manner.  We don't heavily regulate knives and knives kill people, therefore we shouldn't regulate guns.  That's just silly.  By that logic, we don't regulate fists and you can punch someone to death, therefore, nuclear weapons should be legal for private citizens.

But we don't regulate cars at all for their owners' propensity to commit a violent act with their cars.

Yes we do. 

Show me that law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not going to explain why we regulate guns.  It's basically because guns are inherently dangerous to human life and we regulate those types of items to promote public safety.  It's the same for explosives or dangerous chemicals.  How much we regulate guns is a legitimate debate but I don't see the purpose of me explaining the arguments for gun control. 
[/quote]

Do we regulate everything that is inherently dangerous to human life?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I split off the debate on Car Control into its own thread.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=190645.0

Seriously? I was bringing it around to gun control. You (A) didn't have to split it, and (B) didn't have to be condescending in doing so.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I think we should have safety measures for cars, airplanes and guns that are warranted in each case.  There are a number of factors you would consider in that calculation including the number of people killed by that weapon or vehicle.  It ends up being a cost-benefit analysis between the cost of the safety measure and the reduced risk of harm. 

What I take issue with is the argument that we need to regulate everything with a potential to kill in the same manner.  We don't heavily regulate knives and knives kill people, therefore we shouldn't regulate guns.  That's just silly.  By that logic, we don't regulate fists and you can punch someone to death, therefore, nuclear weapons should be legal for private citizens.

But we don't regulate cars at all for their owners' propensity to commit a violent act with their cars.

Yes we do. 

Show me that law.

It's not just one law.  We have a regulatory scheme for motor vehicles.  But, for example here's a direct quote from NY vehicle and traffic law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I used the wrong word. I should have said "increased risk", not propensity. For propensity, we have laws for guns and cars. For increased risk, it's only guns. That was the point I was trying to make.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pretty much.
[/quote]

So you concede that we don't regulateall things inherently dangerous to human life?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

My point is that if you're not regulating all inherently dangerous things, then when you use that as your rationale for guns, your regulation is, at its heart, arbitrary.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I split off the debate on Car Control into its own thread.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=190645.0

Seriously? I was bringing it around to gun control. You (A) didn't have to split it, and (B) didn't have to be condescending in doing so.

In case you hadn't noticed, this thread wasn't started as yet another debate on gun control, tho I was resigned to the inevitable discussion of the topic within this thread.  At least with gun control we can debate whether easier access to guns could have brought this incident to a better solution.  I don't think anyone would argue that the best way to handle the situation would have been to run over the kid with an SUV.

MJ's point was analogy to gun control. If you knew that, then what was your rationale for splitting it while implicitly endorsing a debate on gun control to remain in this thread? If you didn't know that, well, we'll cross that bridge if we get there.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Well, I'm going to be nitpicky here, but it's only because you've made such an asinine post that I can't help but make some corrections.

Because you aren't you engaging in a debate on gun control in those posts I split off.

I beg to differ, and this post proves it:

My point is that if you're not regulating all inherently dangerous things, then when you use that as your rationale for guns, your regulation is, at its heart, arbitrary.

If you truly think that that thread isn't about gun control, then it's time to apply the Bushie Doctrine.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, MJ made an analogy to cars, and bedstuy unfairly attacked it, so I attempted to debunk that attack by pointing out that bedstuy's reasons for differentiating guns and cars was, at its heart, arbitrary, and thus the attack on MJ's post invalid.  Furthermore, the reason that "[Inks]" has become a replacement for profanity has nothing to do with my "pedantic nitpicking", but the fact that I don't tolerate profanity on my boards; however, it is ironic that you of all people would attack me on this post, because of all of the mods, you are the only one who has taken a stricter stance on profanity and vulgarity than I have.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't infract people for publicly challenging moderator decisions.  You can disagree with my actions, but don't blatantly lie about what I do.  That's a pretty nasty thing to do, and I would expect better character out of our moderators.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't have that policy.  My policy is that I won't discuss infractions in public, because one of the inherent necessities of discussing infractions in public is to discuss the details or exact quotes of the post that was infracted, which would defeat the point of infracting and removing the offending posts, since they would be reposted (either directly or via paraphrase) during a public appeal.  Furthermore, I don't go out and publicly post my rationale, which invites questions and criticism.  You not only chose to publicly post why you split off the thread, which would, in the least, invite public questioning of why you did so, but you took it a step further--you intentionally changed the topic of what the discussion was and distorted it into something that you quite clearly knew it was not (I'm assuming that you knew the reason MJ made that post; if not, like I said above, it's time to invoke the Bushie Doctrine, because if you don't understand MJ's point, you lack basic comprehension skills and thus the capability of being a good moderator), and by doing so, you engaged in trolling--the very thing you are supposed to oppose as a mod.  For that, you not only deserve to be questioned, but you deserve to be called out.

So in sum, don't use your mod powers to troll, and if you do, expect to be both questioned and called out for it.  If you are going to use your mod powers to troll, at least do it subtly and don't broadcast the fact that your'e doing that, because in doing so, you both invite and deserve public criticism.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

My point is that if you're not regulating all inherently dangerous things, then when you use that as your rationale for guns, your regulation is, at its heart, arbitrary.

No.  There isn't one reason why we regulate something, there are a number of detailed considerations for any specific issue.  It's a matter of degree and specific circumstances to whatever we're dealing with.   

But, is there any item that's as dangerous as a gun that is not heavily regulated by the government?  I would argue no, but maybe there's something I haven't thought of.

Again, you're working backwards here.  Your'e coming from a conclusion that guns should be regulated and then working back from that point and attempting to rationalize it; this is proven by the fact that you can't come up with a coherent standard for what should be regulated and when.

So your criticism of MasterJedi's point is invalid.  I'm not advocating for less gun control; I'm not advocating for more gun control.  I'm advocating for logic in the way we regulate things instead of people going around saying, "blah blah blah random statistics; guns are bad.  Let's regulate guns!" which is essentially what you're doing when you start with your conclusion and work backwards to justify the regulations you argue should be put in place.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

While I did try to defuse things with my last post, I think there are some things I need to directly address from your last post.

You took advantage of Jedi's point to go off on yet another one of your pedantic nitpicking episodes that is a principal reason [Inks] has come to be an all-purpose replacement for profanity here on the Forum.

No, MJ made an analogy to cars, and bedstuy unfairly attacked it, so I attempted to debunk that attack by pointing out that bedstuy's reasons for differentiating guns and cars was, at its heart, arbitrary, and thus the attack on MJ's post invalid.  Furthermore, the reason that "[Inks]" has become a replacement for profanity has nothing to do with my "pedantic nitpicking", but the fact that I don't tolerate profanity on my boards; however, it is ironic that you of all people would attack me on this post, because of all of the mods, you are the only one who has taken a stricter stance on profanity and vulgarity than I have.

I said "a principal reason", not "the only reason".  Obviously, your efforts to keep the vulgarity here within some level of decorum affected the choice of how people chose to respond.

To my knowledge, the only reason people use "[Inks]" as a substitute for swear words is because I was known for my anti-profanity stance as a mod; I am unaware that my conduct during debates had anything to do with that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't infract people for publicly challenging moderator decisions.  You can disagree with my actions, but don't blatantly lie about what I do.  That's a pretty nasty thing to do, and I would expect better character out of our moderators.
[/quote]
Since you say you haven't and wouldn't, I'll take you at your word, tho I will say, that I was under the impression you favored doing so and that the main reason you didn't was that most such discussions take place a board you aren't a mod of.  You definitely come across as preferring that moderator actions not be publicly debated.  You clarified that in your last post that your policy is to not discuss infractions in public, yet I will point out that those are the vast majority of the actions we take as individual mods.
[/quote]
I understand that the vast majority of actions we take is infractions, but if you're going to modify/delete something, it makes no sense to then publicly discuss the thing you just modified or deleted, because you have to then publicly post about things that you've already decided shouldn't be publicly visible.

When it comes to other moderator actions, I've encouraged public debate (e.g. decisions to ban and general criticisms of mod actions and locking of threads).

But no, I have never infracted someone for publicly challenging moderator decisions.  I may have (and likely have) infracted posts where someone publicly challenged a moderator decision, but the reason for that was not the public challenge, but rather that there was an underlying offense that warranted an infraction regardless of the point the poster was making (for example, if someone made a blatant personal attack or posted a PM during such a public challenge).

Again, had you simply split the threads, I would've PMed you, but when you started trolling by making the title "A discussion about car control", when you knew that that was not the point of discussion, you invited the public criticism by publicly announcing your action.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I think we should have safety measures for cars, airplanes and guns that are warranted in each case.  There are a number of factors you would consider in that calculation including the number of people killed by that weapon or vehicle.  It ends up being a cost-benefit analysis between the cost of the safety measure and the reduced risk of harm.  

What I take issue with is the argument that we need to regulate everything with a potential to kill in the same manner.  We don't heavily regulate knives and knives kill people, therefore we shouldn't regulate guns.  That's just silly.  By that logic, we don't regulate fists and you can punch someone to death, therefore, nuclear weapons should be legal for private citizens.

But we don't regulate cars at all for their owners' propensity to commit a violent act with their cars.

The issue here is not, "We don't heavily regulate __X__, so we shouldn't regulate guns."  The issue should be, "Why should we regulate guns?"  Where is the logic in the regulation of guns?  There has to be a reason for the regulation that starts somewhere broad and works its way into the narrow universe of guns.  If you don't do that, your regulations are admittedly arbitrary.

So what is the rationale for regulating guns, and what is your logic chain that shows that your proposed regulation isn't arbitrary?

Hmm, perhaps because the PURPOSE of a gun is to kill........

So are swords, but we don't regulate them, and they are inherently dangerous and designed to kill.  So that can't be the basis for why we have gun regulation.  There has to be something more than just being inherently dangerous with the purpose of design to kill.  You're still working backwards from your conclusion and attempting to justify it.

You need a license to operate a car and insurance, which adds a level of responsibility. Without those requirements, you'd have far more accidents. On the other hand, no testing, license or insurance is required for obtaining a gun, which is easier to use in committing a crime than a car is.

I support requiring a license and background checks for guns.