5 ms·

Nobody was talking about reducing access to cars after that guy ran over a ton of old folks in Kenosha a couple months back. In fact no one is talking about it

Nobody was talking about reducing access to cars after that guy ran over a ton of old folks in Kenosha a couple months back. In fact no one is talking about it at all as he does not fit the correct political narrative

remarkEon 4y ago
That was in Waukesha. Kenosha was where the Kyle Rittenhouse event(s) occurred.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Swizec 4y ago
People are talking about reducing cars’ access to pedestrians though. A lot. Go to any organized large gathering since ramming into crowds became a popular terrorist move in the 2010’s and you’ll notice a preponderance of heavy barricades. Sand trucks blocking roads, cement barriers on sidewalks, marathon crowds physically separated from roads, etc. See also how every new-ish commercial building has bollards around the entrance or at least those large cement flower pots. Even if it isn’t a government building. All to prevent ramming attacks. Because of how common they became. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack Code for bollards was updated with intentional ramming in mind > On 23 October 2014, the US National Institute of Building Sciences updated its Building Design Guideline on Crash- and Attack-Resistant Models of bollards, a guideline written to help professionals design bollards to protect facilities from vehicle operators, "who plan or carry out acts of property destruction, incite terrorism, or cause the deaths of civilian, industrial or military populations".[26] The American Bar Association recommends bollards as effective protection against car ramming attacks. Various cities installed permanent protection > In January 2018, it was announced by the then mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio, that the city planned to install 1,500 steel street barriers to prevent vehicle attacks. This came after two vehicle-ramming attacks in 2017 in the city killed a total of nine people.[28] > The city of Münster has been planning to install security bollards in public areas in response to vehicle-ramming attacks in European cities, including the Berlin attack.[29] While only selected locations can be protected this way, tight bends and restricted-width streets may also prevent a large vehicle getting speed before reaching a barrier.[30
Aeolun 4y ago
I always hear this argument, but it’s like people forget what the primary purpose of guns and cars is. If the primary purpose of cars was to drive over people then they would be banned. This is why you can own a car, but not a tank.
- coinbasetwwa 4y ago
  You can legally own a tank though..
  - _carbyau_ 4y ago
    And here in Australia you can legally own a gun. Not sure about a tank. Though if I had a whole bunch of $$$ I'd find out... :-)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- themacguffinman 4y ago
  It's a little disappointing to see a whole thread of people who clearly haven't even seen a pro-gun perspective at all. The primary purpose of guns as they see it is self defense, as noble a purpose as any, especially compared to travelling really fast. Why don't I ban you from browsing the internet, clearly the primary purpose of the internet is porn, which drives a lot of human trafficking and ruins lives every day.
  - softcactus 4y ago
    I am a gun owner but the self-defense thing is a red herring IMO. You are far more likely to shoot yourself or be shot while owning a gun than you are successfully defending yourself. You can make the argument that they are fun to own and a constitutional right, but the self defense argument cant be taken seriously when the statistics show the exact opposite.
    - akomtu 4y ago
Spivak 4y ago
Literally everyone was talking about it, making exactly the same point you are now. People parroting this take was basically all of social media for a week. You’re not uncovering some logical inconsistency in liberal logic any more than “oh you’re pro-life, but you support the death penalty hmmmmmm” does for conservatives. This shit spreads like wildfire because it sounds like a gotcha but it relies on putting words in someone else’s mouth and then calling them a hypocrite for something they didn’t say. If you can’t come up with a single good faith argument for why someone might want to restrict guns but not cars then you don’t really understand the opposing stance and you’re not equipped to actually have this debate. Being able to articulate the opposing stance in a way the other side would agree with then explaining why you believe it’s wrong is the only way to not talk past one another.
- guythedudebro 4y ago
  Well put. People should be taught about Strawmanning and Steelmanning in elementary school, sad to see it needs teaching on HN
guelo 4y ago
spicymaki 4y ago
You are wrong!!! Liberals talk about reducing cars (esp. in cities): improving public transit, increasing biking, improving pedestrian safety, and walking all of the time.

remarkEon 4y ago

That was in Waukesha. Kenosha was where the Kyle Rittenhouse event(s) occurred.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Swizec 4y ago

People are talking about reducing cars’ access to pedestrians though. A lot. Go to any organized large gathering since ramming into crowds became a popular terrorist move in the 2010’s and you’ll notice a preponderance of heavy barricades. Sand trucks blocking roads, cement barriers on sidewalks, marathon crowds physically separated from roads, etc. See also how every new-ish commercial building has bollards around the entrance or at least those large cement flower pots. Even if it isn’t a government building. All to prevent ramming attacks. Because of how common they became. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack Code for bollards was updated with intentional ramming in mind > On 23 October 2014, the US National Institute of Building Sciences updated its Building Design Guideline on Crash- and Attack-Resistant Models of bollards, a guideline written to help professionals design bollards to protect facilities from vehicle operators, "who plan or carry out acts of property destruction, incite terrorism, or cause the deaths of civilian, industrial or military populations".[26] The American Bar Association recommends bollards as effective protection against car ramming attacks. Various cities installed permanent protection > In January 2018, it was announced by the then mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio, that the city planned to install 1,500 steel street barriers to prevent vehicle attacks. This came after two vehicle-ramming attacks in 2017 in the city killed a total of nine people.[28] > The city of Münster has been planning to install security bollards in public areas in response to vehicle-ramming attacks in European cities, including the Berlin attack.[29] While only selected locations can be protected this way, tight bends and restricted-width streets may also prevent a large vehicle getting speed before reaching a barrier.[30

Aeolun 4y ago

I always hear this argument, but it’s like people forget what the primary purpose of guns and cars is. If the primary purpose of cars was to drive over people then they would be banned. This is why you can own a car, but not a tank.

coinbasetwwa 4y ago
You can legally own a tank though..
- _carbyau_ 4y ago
  And here in Australia you can legally own a gun. Not sure about a tank. Though if I had a whole bunch of $$$ I'd find out... :-)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
themacguffinman 4y ago
It's a little disappointing to see a whole thread of people who clearly haven't even seen a pro-gun perspective at all. The primary purpose of guns as they see it is self defense, as noble a purpose as any, especially compared to travelling really fast. Why don't I ban you from browsing the internet, clearly the primary purpose of the internet is porn, which drives a lot of human trafficking and ruins lives every day.
- softcactus 4y ago
  I am a gun owner but the self-defense thing is a red herring IMO. You are far more likely to shoot yourself or be shot while owning a gun than you are successfully defending yourself. You can make the argument that they are fun to own and a constitutional right, but the self defense argument cant be taken seriously when the statistics show the exact opposite.
  - akomtu 4y ago

Spivak 4y ago

Literally everyone was talking about it, making exactly the same point you are now. People parroting this take was basically all of social media for a week. You’re not uncovering some logical inconsistency in liberal logic any more than “oh you’re pro-life, but you support the death penalty hmmmmmm” does for conservatives. This shit spreads like wildfire because it sounds like a gotcha but it relies on putting words in someone else’s mouth and then calling them a hypocrite for something they didn’t say. If you can’t come up with a single good faith argument for why someone might want to restrict guns but not cars then you don’t really understand the opposing stance and you’re not equipped to actually have this debate. Being able to articulate the opposing stance in a way the other side would agree with then explaining why you believe it’s wrong is the only way to not talk past one another.

guythedudebro 4y ago
Well put. People should be taught about Strawmanning and Steelmanning in elementary school, sad to see it needs teaching on HN

guelo 4y ago

spicymaki 4y ago

You are wrong!!! Liberals talk about reducing cars (esp. in cities): improving public transit, increasing biking, improving pedestrian safety, and walking all of the time.