3 ms·

There was tons of legislation since the 70s to make roads safer. Seatbelt laws, manufacturer requirements, etc. So yea.. It is pretty consistent with the outcry

by hfourm 10y ago

There was tons of legislation since the 70s to make roads safer. Seatbelt laws, manufacturer requirements, etc. So yea.. It is pretty consistent with the outcry for more responsible gun control laws. The main problem is no one can communicate about it intelligently and it results in a bunch of chest beating on either side.

mordocai 10y ago
What would be the equivalent of seat belts etc for guns? Certainly not banning barrel shrouds and other things that make guns "look scary" nor limiting what types of guns can be bought, which is what a lot of the gun control side argues for. I'm not sure this analogy can go very far, unfortuantely.
- Glyptodon 10y ago
  Indeed. Or guns would be required to come with suppressors to protect people's ears. But instead that's a class III stamp.
Zikes 10y ago
The two viewpoints are completely opposed, and there is no reasonable compromise. One side says that guns designed with the obvious and explicit goal of effectively killing numerous people should be banned so that they cannot be misused. The other side says that guns designed with the obvious and explicit goal of effectively killing numerous people are necessary, in keeping with the Constitutional amendment which was drafted to ensure that if it ever became necessary the American citizens would once again have the means to cast off their oppressors and begin anew.
- ythl 10y ago
  > The other side says that guns designed with the obvious and explicit goal of effectively killing numerous people are necessary, in keeping with the Constitutional amendment which was drafted to ensure that if it ever became necessary the American citizens would once again have the means to cast off their oppressors and begin anew. Cue the progressives who claim this was not the original intent of the 2nd amendment, guns would be of no use in a revolution because the military is so crushingly powerful, etc.

by hfourm 10y ago

mordocai 10y ago

What would be the equivalent of seat belts etc for guns? Certainly not banning barrel shrouds and other things that make guns "look scary" nor limiting what types of guns can be bought, which is what a lot of the gun control side argues for. I'm not sure this analogy can go very far, unfortuantely.

Glyptodon 10y ago
Indeed. Or guns would be required to come with suppressors to protect people's ears. But instead that's a class III stamp.

Zikes 10y ago

The two viewpoints are completely opposed, and there is no reasonable compromise. One side says that guns designed with the obvious and explicit goal of effectively killing numerous people should be banned so that they cannot be misused. The other side says that guns designed with the obvious and explicit goal of effectively killing numerous people are necessary, in keeping with the Constitutional amendment which was drafted to ensure that if it ever became necessary the American citizens would once again have the means to cast off their oppressors and begin anew.

ythl 10y ago
> The other side says that guns designed with the obvious and explicit goal of effectively killing numerous people are necessary, in keeping with the Constitutional amendment which was drafted to ensure that if it ever became necessary the American citizens would once again have the means to cast off their oppressors and begin anew. Cue the progressives who claim this was not the original intent of the 2nd amendment, guns would be of no use in a revolution because the military is so crushingly powerful, etc.