3 ms·

I'm not sure how this is at all a relevant response?

• Spivak 7y ago
  Because if your goal is to prevent mass killings then you have to take into account that a vehicle is a viable substitute for a gun. I'm in favor of gun control but I don't think it's clear whether it would actually make it meaningfully harder for people who want to kill lots of people indiscriminately-ish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack#List_of_terrorist_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack#List_of...
  • yifanl 7y ago
    The question (as I read it) is "does human life have more value than the freedoms afforded to us by constitutional decree?" I'm personally struggling to find an answer either way, but I'd at least disagree that we can't weigh the text of a constitution against modern research. That said, there's certainly another conversation over whether we should consider how valuable human life is compared to the conveniences modern tools like firearms and private vehicles give us. Or I guess we've already collectively decided that the answer is no.
    • filoleg 7y ago
      >The question (as I read it) is "does human life have more value than the freedoms afforded to us by constitutional decree?" I disagree with this formulation of the question. It isn't either or. For a lot of people, that "freedom afforded to us by constitutional degree" is what allows to protect the value of their own human life in the case of an immediate danger, as well as that of people close to them.