what distinguishes Car Control from Gun Control?

[bedstuy]

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.

[bedstuy]

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.

[bedstuy]

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?

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.

[bedstuy]

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. 

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?

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. 

[bedstuy]

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.

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

Pretty much.

[bedstuy]

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.

What's the relevant distinction?  We try to mitigate the risks of both guns and cars.  If you try to walk into a government building, there's often a metal detector.  Similarly, there are often barriers and gates to prevent car bombings. 

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

Pretty much.

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

I'm not trying to give you a precise test for what we regulate and what we don't.  But, danger to public safety is a good reason to regulate guns and a number of other things.  I don't understand what you're getting at.

[bedstuy]

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.

[bedstuy]

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.

MasterJedi's point was that cars are more dangerous weapons than guns (what about light-sabers?).  I think that's a laughable point that's hardly worth debating.  A car is not an especially useful weapon at all.  It's not designed to be a weapon, you can't carry it around, you can conceal it in your pants, you can immediately deploy it in a violent situation, you can easily injure yourself by crashing your car in an attempt to run someone over, etc..  There are scores of reasons that a car isn't a good weapon and I think the evidence is fairly clear.  Cars are dangerous as a means of transportation, but they aren't good weapons as demonstrated by the fact that there are orders of magnitude more gun homicides than car homicides. 

Your whole point I've never understood.  Why am I supposed to come up with a unified theory of all regulation that justifies gun control?  What would that prove?  I think everyone agrees that we need to regulate guns, trains, planes and automobiles.  And, I think I gave you a valid reason to regulate all of this stuff, public safety.  We don't want people to die or be injured by cars or guns or wild pumas so we pass government regulations to make the public safer. 

[bedstuy]

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.

Am I on the hook for what other people said? 

I've answered your point a few times, but you're ignoring what I say and you keep insisting that I need to write a treatise on government to have an opinion on some fairly obvious question about the danger of cars as weapons.