4 ms·

This is an obvious comparison, but it fails because there is no conceivable way to disable the illegitimate uses of a firearm without impacting the functioning

This is an obvious comparison, but it fails because there is no conceivable way to disable the illegitimate uses of a firearm without impacting the functioning of the allowed uses. If we could invent a gun that would not fire in a bad shooting, but would still function in self-defense, then obviously we should do that! But of course we can’t. (It’s not even just a technological problem. It’s that the problem space is far too fuzzy to imagine doing this even in principle.) Speed, on the other hand, is discrete, measurable, and discernible. You can prevent a car from exceeding the speed limit without impacting any of its legitimate functionality. Crucially, you would only be disabling behavior that is already illegal.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
You can argue the same part for cars. First of all, cars do have speed limiters built into them, but they are a matter of power, not objective speed. It'd be hard for a car on the hardware level to figure out the latter (and there are already many debates as is about software controlling your car's hardware. I'll skip over that for now). And secondly, that power is why it's hard to make this law: hills. What may be a limited max SPD of 80 on a flat plane can be below 60 on a steep hill, or over 100 going downhill. I believe that is why the compromise for a limiter is more around 120-130 MPH instead of something lower: it wants an average sedan to be able to not stall out going up a hill on a free way. Now granted, that hasn't been an issue for almost 2 decades. But it still impacts how they limit car speeds.