4 ms·

I have a fair number of "shall not be infringed" friends (pro 2nd amendment, perhaps to a fault. I make no judgement calls here). An argument I've heard from th

I have a fair number of "shall not be infringed" friends (pro 2nd amendment, perhaps to a fault. I make no judgement calls here). An argument I've heard from them goes along the lines of: "yes, we could perhaps reduce things like school shootings and accidental gun deaths with stricter anti-gun legislation. But that comes at the expense of our American freedoms, and a couple of lives simply isn't worth it." Which sounded pretty harsh to me at first, but when you think about it, thats effectively the same as the HN narrative: "yes things like the PATRIOT act could reduce terrorism, but it comes at the expense of our American freedoms, and a couple of lives simply isn't worth it." And now for these cars: "yes removing Autopilot could reduce car crashes, but it comes at the expense of our American (?) freedoms (maybe freedom to drive/technically innovate/something else entirely), and a couple of lives simply isn't worth it." One additional trend I haven't personally witnessed, but I hear about, is that when in some freak accident "a couple of lives" includes the life of someone who one of these gun guys, PATRIOT guys, or car guys knows, their opinion flips.

tonyedgecombe 7y ago
It's often presented as a loss of freedom when in reality it's a tradeoff in freedoms. One group might loose the freedom to carry a gun whilst another group gains the freedom to be safe at school.
- benjohnson 7y ago
  In my opinion - the freedom codified in the 2nd amendment to let citizens to overthrow an oppressive and unjust government.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  It seems like wherever we trade away freedoms the thing we're supposed to be getting in return never materializes. Benjamin Franklin has a particularly relevant quote on this subject.
  - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
    Well, when it comes to guns you haven't traded away any freedoms, quite the opposite so far.
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      >you haven't traded away any freedoms, quite the opposite so far. We did in '34, '68 and '86. And then there's all the states that are still waiting for SCOTUS to tell them what "shall not be infringed" means. In my state I have to pay hundreds of dollars and rely on the discretion of the local police in order to bear any semi-modern arms and that's just the tip of the iceberg. If that's not infringement I don't know what is.
  - Tomte 7y ago
    Do you really know what Benjamin Franklin said, and what the context was? https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said#.Uu6o5vldXAE https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said#.U...
- salawat 7y ago
  That may be how one wants to present it, but it's disingenuous. There is no freedom from danger or "freedom to be safe". Therefore one party has sacrificed something of value to placate a sentimental imagining that amounts to nothing to the other side. That isn't a trade. That's loss. No agency is gained by that arrangement. It's the equivalent of legislative/rhetorical marketing language. Sounds nice, but ultimately empty. Safety is a function of the inhabitants of an environment's ability to mitigate threats. If the environment is full of disarmed people, then the person who brings the gun anyway faces nil resistance. No one is safe. No one has agency to counter the threat, and there is nothing to show for the sacrifice of the right except the ill will of those who recognize the physical, realistic (read: pragmatic) implication of the act, and disagree in the first place. Which, ironically, decreases safety even further. Tech like Autopilot is actually kind of the reverse of the gun debate. It's an active development that increases complexity creates new problems, and decreases agency since everything then gets bound by "Autopilot safety is a must." The argument is made that automating the task with a machine must make the thing safer, because every act of automating things up to now through a machine has made things safer, which is just an inductive fallacy if I ever heard one. Sometimes the things you don't do mean as much if not more than the things you do. A point oft overlooked, and lamented by the "Do as I say not as I do" parent. Anyway. That was a fun tangent.
  - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
    There is no freedom from danger or "freedom to be safe". Therefore one party has sacrificed something of value to placate a sentimental imagining that amounts to nothing to the other side. The freedom to walk down the street without risk of being shot is not sentimental. Presenting it as so is disingenuous. Safety is a function of the inhabitants of an environment's ability to mitigate threats. The evidence shows that isn't working.
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      > > Safety is a function of the inhabitants of an environment's ability to mitigate threats. > The evidence shows that isn't working. No, the evidence actually shows that that does work - gun free zones are home to something like 99% of all mass shootings, and school shootings with a prepared police officer or teacher carrying a weapon tend not to make the news because they don't hit the level of 'mass shooting' in the first place. And then there's the debate about whether forcing terrorists to choose a methodology other than guns is even a good idea in the first place - I'd rather have ten mass shootings killing ~4-6 people each than a single repeat of Oklahoma City.
- Rapzid 7y ago
  Schools are already incredibly safe though.
jsight 7y ago
You make a number of fair points, IMO, and people are often too quick to dismiss arguments like this. Having said that, this case is a bit special, IMO. By your own logic, this comes down to a cold calculation of how many crashes (and deaths) are acceptable. To the regulating agencies, the # is likely relative to other vehicles regardless of AutoPilot. So if AutoPilot is not demonstrably less safe than the others, why regulate it out of existence? So far, such evidence simply doesn't exist. And honestly, the Tesla effect magnifying every incident doesn't make it better. Tesla is far from the only vehicle with systems like this on the road.

tonyedgecombe 7y ago

It's often presented as a loss of freedom when in reality it's a tradeoff in freedoms. One group might loose the freedom to carry a gun whilst another group gains the freedom to be safe at school.

benjohnson 7y ago
In my opinion - the freedom codified in the 2nd amendment to let citizens to overthrow an oppressive and unjust government.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
It seems like wherever we trade away freedoms the thing we're supposed to be getting in return never materializes. Benjamin Franklin has a particularly relevant quote on this subject.
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  Well, when it comes to guns you haven't traded away any freedoms, quite the opposite so far.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    >you haven't traded away any freedoms, quite the opposite so far. We did in '34, '68 and '86. And then there's all the states that are still waiting for SCOTUS to tell them what "shall not be infringed" means. In my state I have to pay hundreds of dollars and rely on the discretion of the local police in order to bear any semi-modern arms and that's just the tip of the iceberg. If that's not infringement I don't know what is.
- Tomte 7y ago
  Do you really know what Benjamin Franklin said, and what the context was? https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said#.Uu6o5vldXAE https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said#.U...
salawat 7y ago
That may be how one wants to present it, but it's disingenuous. There is no freedom from danger or "freedom to be safe". Therefore one party has sacrificed something of value to placate a sentimental imagining that amounts to nothing to the other side. That isn't a trade. That's loss. No agency is gained by that arrangement. It's the equivalent of legislative/rhetorical marketing language. Sounds nice, but ultimately empty. Safety is a function of the inhabitants of an environment's ability to mitigate threats. If the environment is full of disarmed people, then the person who brings the gun anyway faces nil resistance. No one is safe. No one has agency to counter the threat, and there is nothing to show for the sacrifice of the right except the ill will of those who recognize the physical, realistic (read: pragmatic) implication of the act, and disagree in the first place. Which, ironically, decreases safety even further. Tech like Autopilot is actually kind of the reverse of the gun debate. It's an active development that increases complexity creates new problems, and decreases agency since everything then gets bound by "Autopilot safety is a must." The argument is made that automating the task with a machine must make the thing safer, because every act of automating things up to now through a machine has made things safer, which is just an inductive fallacy if I ever heard one. Sometimes the things you don't do mean as much if not more than the things you do. A point oft overlooked, and lamented by the "Do as I say not as I do" parent. Anyway. That was a fun tangent.
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  There is no freedom from danger or "freedom to be safe". Therefore one party has sacrificed something of value to placate a sentimental imagining that amounts to nothing to the other side. The freedom to walk down the street without risk of being shot is not sentimental. Presenting it as so is disingenuous. Safety is a function of the inhabitants of an environment's ability to mitigate threats. The evidence shows that isn't working.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    > > Safety is a function of the inhabitants of an environment's ability to mitigate threats. > The evidence shows that isn't working. No, the evidence actually shows that that does work - gun free zones are home to something like 99% of all mass shootings, and school shootings with a prepared police officer or teacher carrying a weapon tend not to make the news because they don't hit the level of 'mass shooting' in the first place. And then there's the debate about whether forcing terrorists to choose a methodology other than guns is even a good idea in the first place - I'd rather have ten mass shootings killing ~4-6 people each than a single repeat of Oklahoma City.
Rapzid 7y ago
Schools are already incredibly safe though.

jsight 7y ago

You make a number of fair points, IMO, and people are often too quick to dismiss arguments like this. Having said that, this case is a bit special, IMO. By your own logic, this comes down to a cold calculation of how many crashes (and deaths) are acceptable. To the regulating agencies, the # is likely relative to other vehicles regardless of AutoPilot. So if AutoPilot is not demonstrably less safe than the others, why regulate it out of existence? So far, such evidence simply doesn't exist. And honestly, the Tesla effect magnifying every incident doesn't make it better. Tesla is far from the only vehicle with systems like this on the road.