5 ms·

There wouldn’t be 300 million guns in citizens’ hands without the law existing in the first place. That’s why the law is dumb. Laws can be changed. There’s no

by dangus 3y ago

There wouldn’t be 300 million guns in citizens’ hands without the law existing in the first place. That’s why the law is dumb. Laws can be changed. There’s no obligation to double down on them. We don’t keep lead pipes legal just because it’s very costly and time-intensive to replace all of them. That’s only an argument to start sooner rather than later. Guns would be a cakewalk to take off the streets compared to lead pipes. For one thing, guns need a consumable to function at all (ammunition). Yes, car makers self-certify. You are not correct about that. Government crash tests aren’t a prerequisite to being allowed to sell a vehicle. Example source: https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/some-cars-will-never-be-crash-tested-crash-test-ratings/ https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/some-cars-will-ne... You can also ask ChatGPT if you want. And then here we go with the carbrain argument “the only option is cars, America is set up for cars.” That was and continues to be an intentional choice. It is not irreversible. It is not something that we are forced to double down on just because that’s been our choice so far. Every time a road is built or a highway is widened that’s an intentional choice that is no less intentional or costly than sending the money toward transit options or pedestrian/cycling infrastructure. The Netherlands had this exact same problem in the 70s and reversed it. Something like 90% of daily trips are under 5 miles, which is less than 30 minutes on a bike. The Netherlands has zero cities that are as populous as the top 10 most populous American cities. “The bus adds significant time” but that’s the thing that people say who never take the bus. Can you work on your laptop while you drive? Can you read while you drive? I can do that on the bus. Sounds like I get time back, and my ride is statistically 10x safer. Also, when it comes to large urban areas, you have to remember that most people live in them. That’s why they’re large urban areas. A New Yorker who never drives anywhere isn't someone who “doesn’t count” because they live in New York and it’s an anomaly. More of America depends on public transit than you think.

mattmaroon 3y ago
When the second amendment was written, guns were primitive and not much of a problem. Law and order was less institutionalized. People were afraid of being occupied by a foreign government because they recently had been. I agree that if they knew what we know now, they probably would have worded it better. But repealing the second amendment now won’t make things better. We made drugs illegal, how’s that going? The article you posted said that 97% of the cars on the road are crash tested by the government. I think my statement on that is substantially accurate. In America, most large urban areas do not have extensive trains. I’ve lived all over this country, the only places I can think of where most of an urban area can take any sort of train from most of the city to the airport are NY, Boston, Chicago. There may be some I’m missing, and even in those cities, they don’t cover the entire area. Probably at least 75% of the country can’t walk from their home to a train and take it to the airport. America’s infrastructure is entirely beyond my ability to control. I can take a one hour bus ride and read I am sure but I’ve got stuff to do with my day, so I’ll take the 30 minute Uber with no nutjobs yelling at thin air. I think you’re also getting confused between population and population density. The US has a population density of 1/12th the Netherlands. You can bike just fine around our densely populated areas, though our poor bike lane design makes it far more dangerous than driving. The Netherlands has a small population but they live much closer together which is what matters for public transport cost. It would cost an order of magnitude more here to provide the same level of service, so we don’t. Maybe we should but when I need to get to the airport that’s not really on my mind.
- guitarbill 3y ago
  > But repealing the second amendment now won’t make things better. We made drugs illegal, how’s that going? People aren't (physically) addicted to guns. If only there were data from other countries... > I think you’re also getting confused between population and population density. The US has a population density of 1/12th the Netherlands. Few people are demanding public transport spanning entire sparsely populated states. There are enough cities in the US with comparable population densities to e.g. Amsterdam.
  - mattmaroon 3y ago
    There are not actually, and the ones there are (except Miami) are the ones I was counting as having good public transport. (And I’ve spent a lot of time in SF, I’m being generous counting them as good.) There are only 4 large cities in America that dense. They add up to about ten million residents, or about 3% of our population. There’s one mid sized city (Jersey city) and 4 small cities. Not even 5% of our population lives in somewhere as dense as Amsterdam. These arguments come up here all the time because HN has a bike-friendly car hating crowd, but the actual numbers all support that the decision to have public transport vs car culture all stems from population density. Populations all over the world make similar decisions with similar inputs, they just have different inputs.
- jcranmer 3y ago
  > I’ve lived all over this country, the only places I can think of where most of an urban area can take any sort of train from most of the city to the airport are NY, Boston, Chicago. DC has the most convenient airport for transit access; if you park, you literally have to work through the train station to get to the airport. Atlanta has a mediocre train system, but it has excellent access to the airport. Philadelphia has a mediocre connection to the airport, but stronger system overall. SFO also is reasonably accessible by BART. Indeed, the only US city I can think of with a large urban rail system with an abysmal airport connection is LA, although LA's rail transit network in general is just a smorgasbord of sadness. > The US has a population density of 1/12th the Netherlands. Yeah, that's because there's large expanses of land in Alaska or the West where literally nobody lives. But most people live in urban environments of some kind; the fifty largest MSAs account for over half the population (too lazy to do the math to get the exact number), and even the fiftieth largest is of a size that would, in Europe, have a functional transit system of some kind.
ejb999 3y ago
Just for the record, the 2nd amendment is not a 'law' - it is a right guaranteed by the constitution. while it is a simple process to change a law - rights guaranteed by the constitution necessarily and by design, have a much higher bar that must be crossed in order to change - and there is currently not even close to enough people in favor in enough states to revoke the 2nd amendment.
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  Yeah but the laws enforce the limits. A tank is an 'arm' as is a bazooka, but you can't buy either of those with operable weapon systems.
- dangus 3y ago
  Yes you’re right, it’s not technically a law. I’m the odd duck in thinking that almost any country would easily find 3/4 of its state/provincial legislature votes needed to approve a repeal of an amendment similar to the 2nd amendment. I am more than baffled by the logic behind keeping it around. Even the most progressive segments of the US aren’t generally in favor of getting rid of it entirely. The list of countries with similarly permissive gun laws is basically one-hand’s worth, and none of them are G20 countries. Basically the United States is in the company of Yemen and almost nobody else. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation (Check out the “comparison” section with the maps) Anyway, sorry, this is horribly off-topic.
mattmaroon 3y ago
And anyway, to your original points, air travel got a lot safer in the last 40 years because of government intervention. Same with cars, perhaps even more dramatically. That’s why the hubbub now. The government intervention was decreased and the safety seems to have gone down. (This is true of both the mechanical and operational aspects, see all the articles about increasing runway incursions and near collisions.) Correlation != causation, but one doesn’t have to be ignorant of statistics to suspect the system failure is at least in part due to letting corporations self-certify. We don’t want the regulators to wait until there’s another crash to do something about it.
light_hue_1 3y ago
> Yes, car makers self-certify. You are not correct about that. Government crash tests aren’t a prerequisite to being allowed to sell a vehicle. > > https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/some-cars-will-never-be-crash-tested-crash-test-ratings/ https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/some-cars-will-ne... I love when people don't read the very source they cite. > Some untested models are new or redesigned and merely waiting in line to be evaluated. About 97 percent of all new vehicles sold are crash-test rated by one or both of the independent organizations. This is for niche models and make upgrades that will be tested soon. It's perfectly correct to say that cars are tested when 97% of them are.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

by dangus 3y ago

mattmaroon 3y ago

When the second amendment was written, guns were primitive and not much of a problem. Law and order was less institutionalized. People were afraid of being occupied by a foreign government because they recently had been. I agree that if they knew what we know now, they probably would have worded it better. But repealing the second amendment now won’t make things better. We made drugs illegal, how’s that going? The article you posted said that 97% of the cars on the road are crash tested by the government. I think my statement on that is substantially accurate. In America, most large urban areas do not have extensive trains. I’ve lived all over this country, the only places I can think of where most of an urban area can take any sort of train from most of the city to the airport are NY, Boston, Chicago. There may be some I’m missing, and even in those cities, they don’t cover the entire area. Probably at least 75% of the country can’t walk from their home to a train and take it to the airport. America’s infrastructure is entirely beyond my ability to control. I can take a one hour bus ride and read I am sure but I’ve got stuff to do with my day, so I’ll take the 30 minute Uber with no nutjobs yelling at thin air. I think you’re also getting confused between population and population density. The US has a population density of 1/12th the Netherlands. You can bike just fine around our densely populated areas, though our poor bike lane design makes it far more dangerous than driving. The Netherlands has a small population but they live much closer together which is what matters for public transport cost. It would cost an order of magnitude more here to provide the same level of service, so we don’t. Maybe we should but when I need to get to the airport that’s not really on my mind.

guitarbill 3y ago
> But repealing the second amendment now won’t make things better. We made drugs illegal, how’s that going? People aren't (physically) addicted to guns. If only there were data from other countries... > I think you’re also getting confused between population and population density. The US has a population density of 1/12th the Netherlands. Few people are demanding public transport spanning entire sparsely populated states. There are enough cities in the US with comparable population densities to e.g. Amsterdam.
- mattmaroon 3y ago
  There are not actually, and the ones there are (except Miami) are the ones I was counting as having good public transport. (And I’ve spent a lot of time in SF, I’m being generous counting them as good.) There are only 4 large cities in America that dense. They add up to about ten million residents, or about 3% of our population. There’s one mid sized city (Jersey city) and 4 small cities. Not even 5% of our population lives in somewhere as dense as Amsterdam. These arguments come up here all the time because HN has a bike-friendly car hating crowd, but the actual numbers all support that the decision to have public transport vs car culture all stems from population density. Populations all over the world make similar decisions with similar inputs, they just have different inputs.
jcranmer 3y ago
> I’ve lived all over this country, the only places I can think of where most of an urban area can take any sort of train from most of the city to the airport are NY, Boston, Chicago. DC has the most convenient airport for transit access; if you park, you literally have to work through the train station to get to the airport. Atlanta has a mediocre train system, but it has excellent access to the airport. Philadelphia has a mediocre connection to the airport, but stronger system overall. SFO also is reasonably accessible by BART. Indeed, the only US city I can think of with a large urban rail system with an abysmal airport connection is LA, although LA's rail transit network in general is just a smorgasbord of sadness. > The US has a population density of 1/12th the Netherlands. Yeah, that's because there's large expanses of land in Alaska or the West where literally nobody lives. But most people live in urban environments of some kind; the fifty largest MSAs account for over half the population (too lazy to do the math to get the exact number), and even the fiftieth largest is of a size that would, in Europe, have a functional transit system of some kind.

ejb999 3y ago

Just for the record, the 2nd amendment is not a 'law' - it is a right guaranteed by the constitution. while it is a simple process to change a law - rights guaranteed by the constitution necessarily and by design, have a much higher bar that must be crossed in order to change - and there is currently not even close to enough people in favor in enough states to revoke the 2nd amendment.

Eisenstein 3y ago
Yeah but the laws enforce the limits. A tank is an 'arm' as is a bazooka, but you can't buy either of those with operable weapon systems.
dangus 3y ago
Yes you’re right, it’s not technically a law. I’m the odd duck in thinking that almost any country would easily find 3/4 of its state/provincial legislature votes needed to approve a repeal of an amendment similar to the 2nd amendment. I am more than baffled by the logic behind keeping it around. Even the most progressive segments of the US aren’t generally in favor of getting rid of it entirely. The list of countries with similarly permissive gun laws is basically one-hand’s worth, and none of them are G20 countries. Basically the United States is in the company of Yemen and almost nobody else. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation (Check out the “comparison” section with the maps) Anyway, sorry, this is horribly off-topic.

mattmaroon 3y ago

And anyway, to your original points, air travel got a lot safer in the last 40 years because of government intervention. Same with cars, perhaps even more dramatically. That’s why the hubbub now. The government intervention was decreased and the safety seems to have gone down. (This is true of both the mechanical and operational aspects, see all the articles about increasing runway incursions and near collisions.) Correlation != causation, but one doesn’t have to be ignorant of statistics to suspect the system failure is at least in part due to letting corporations self-certify. We don’t want the regulators to wait until there’s another crash to do something about it.

light_hue_1 3y ago

> Yes, car makers self-certify. You are not correct about that. Government crash tests aren’t a prerequisite to being allowed to sell a vehicle. > > https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/some-cars-will-never-be-crash-tested-crash-test-ratings/ https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/some-cars-will-ne... I love when people don't read the very source they cite. > Some untested models are new or redesigned and merely waiting in line to be evaluated. About 97 percent of all new vehicles sold are crash-test rated by one or both of the independent organizations. This is for niche models and make upgrades that will be tested soon. It's perfectly correct to say that cars are tested when 97% of them are.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]