If you ignore 1932 and 1968.
I’d modify that to read “…haven’t been politically viable since about 1968 in the USA. Substantive gun laws have been enacted and proven effective in most other countries. For most of the history of the USA, gun laws were more restrictive than they are now.” But I tend to be wordy.
But we’re supposed to be talking about cars. To count the cost solely in lives lost in accidents is a blinkered view. Private cars make great demands on public infrastructure-- a cost borne by non drivers as well as drivers-- and are harmful to the environment. Every day I use public transport I have to stand next to a busy road, breathing carbon monoxide. My life will likely be shortened by cars, despite not driving at all.
You’re not allowed to use a car until you take a test to prove you can handle it safely.
Your car has to be registered with the government.
The government has to be notified of sales and transfers.
You must insure yourself against damage caused by irresponsible driving.
You can only drive so fast and in certain places.
The government regulates what modifications can be made to a car.
Certain kinds of cars aren’t legal for public use, and you need a special permit to use certain other kinds.
If you’ve been drinking and driving, you can lose your license.
You have to follow special rules around schools.
If we regulated guns the way we regulate cars, the NRA would call it fascism.
I am a car driver. I love driving… especially at night, listening to music.
Having said that, if I could commute on a train or sub system, I would in a minute. I live in Columbus OH and the public transit here is only good in 1 location, anywhere else it is ridiculously inconvenient.
When were they more restrictive than than they are now outside of the AWB?
It should also be noted that firearms today really haven’t progressed much as far as effeciveness or function compaired to those which were around 60 years ago.
Automobiles are much faster and much more capable than they were in that era.
Speed and capability is irrelevant when you consider the fact that car travel has become more safe over the years. Stats like that make it clear that road safety is being discussed and addressed with some success. It’s a pointless and transparent distraction.
For users firearms did also, better safeties etc…
However, the changes in the criminal use of guns have been due to social changes and not technology changes.
The criminal use of cars has also changed and yes they are much safer and more reliable now too.
we should ban arbitrary use oF the shiFT kEY.
Goddammit! This place is getting to me.
wow! i did not expect this thread to blow up the way it has. i actually really did mean this to be a discussion of vehicular infrastructure, and only thought the recent tone made for an interesting backdrop; i have been meaning to talk about this with the (relatively) well-informed folks here for some months, but was uninspired when it came to framing the thread, despite this being an issue that is dear to my heart. i suppose my title was too inflammatory. for that i apologize; i have not been reading the board over the last few days, and did not realize the extent to which gun control was being discussed in every thread. i do hope that we can continue a dialog about traffic infrastructure here, though.
i will, when i can (tomorrow), more comprehensively discuss the relevant issues that have been presented, but for now, i give as an example of what might be done: making it more difficult to obtain a driver’s license in the united states*. teen drivers seem to be significantly disproportionately represented (pdf) when it comes to traffic deaths, and perhaps even more so in traffic deaths involving alcohol-impaired driving. right now i do not have statistics, but i believe some states have created greater barriers to entry for young drivers, and have found significant reductions in young-driver-caused accidents.
*i really hope everyone understands that this is not a whoosh. people might find parallels to gun regulation-related discussions here, but those should be discussed in the threads related to gun regulations. to those who have only offered commentary on the parallel to firearm regulation, please do (re-)read the OP.
You brought up guns in the first sentence of your OP. You can’t really blame people for discussing them.
Although the OP’s proposition has been rightfully critiqued, I think there is an interesting issue buried within here (although perhaps a bit of a hijack), namely, our differing perceptions of different risks. I do find it a bit strange that after this event, we hear about parents afraid to send their kids to school when I am reasonably sure that statistical the more dangerous part of their getting to score is their drive to get there, not that they will be shot by a mass killer once they are there.
We do seem to tolerate exceptionally high risks for automobiles and much lower risks for other things, like these mass shootings, or commercial airplane crashes, or what have you.
i don’t blame people. i might have myself. but reading the whole post, it’s clearly not meant to be about guns. though, as i say, the tone of the forum lately should have suggested to me that the responses might be about guns, whether or not the OP was. it was my mistake to bring them up as a backdrop when i might have realized they would become the topic. i hope to clarify here what i want the OP to be about.
In 1792, guns were mandatory for eligible males, who were required to purchase them. They were also subject to inspection and registration. White males who did not swear allegiance to the Revolution, freedmen, and slaves could not bear legal arms. Not sure when that stopped, though, and not sure where.
“Laws banning the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813, and other states soon followed: Indiana (1820), Tennessee and Virginia (1838), Alabama (1839), and Ohio (1859). Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma.”
Most US states not only issue concealed carry permits now, the applicant does not have to provide a reason, just pass a set of criteria.
Southern states may have been motivated by fear in banning concealed carry. Arkansas went so far as to deny that the right to bear arms belongs to the individual.
Of course, blacks, free or slave, continued to be denied gun rights. Kentucky modified its constitution prior to the Civil War to only extend gun rights to whites. Not sure of the year, don’t feel like looking it up.
After the Civil War in some states continued to deny gun rights to blacks, unsurprisingly. Reconstruction didn’t give it all that high a priority as far as I can tell, although the wiki article says it was contentious. The upshot appears to be that the interpretation of the day was that the only guarantee extended by the US Constitution for gun rights was that the Federal government could not deny them. States could do what they wanted. I’m sure they did, too.
Restrictions on minorities continued, or at least were perceived to have continued, into the 20th century. Apparently, so-called “Black Codes” could and did deny blacks the right to own guns, apparently right up to the Civil Rights Era. Outmanned and Outgunned: Gun Control in Black History
Not to derail but I thought we were talking about federal, once you get to the state and local level things get crazy.
Note that is one huge difference, car safety regulations aren’t typically crafted to target ethnic minorities.
The civil rights movement invalidated the most effective tools that were used to push forward most laws.
Long term, cars are going to become driverless, and safety will improve a great deal.
(Sure, some people will prefer to manually drive, but I can easily see legislation coming in that such people must install driver aids and fallbacks such that they won’t be much more dangerous than the auto cars).
In the meantime a great deal of money and effort is spent on making roads safer; whatever we do now is at the point of diminishing returns. For an accident to happen nowdays, with cars as responsive and reliable as they are, one or both parties have to do something irresponsible or reckless. To fix that you need to fix humans.
To cause serious harm to another human being or an animal.
To move people and goods from one place to another.
I don’t see any fundamental difference. Sometimes it’s legitimate to cause serious harm to another human being or an animal. Sometimes it is not.
Sometimes it is legitimate to move people and goods from one place to another, sometimes it is not.
Both cars and guns are capable of being used for legitimate and illegitimate purposes.
Besides which, I don’t see why the “primary purpose” of an object should be the most important consideration in legislating about that object.
The primary purpose of a voodoo doll is to cause serious harm to a human being. And yet if a proposal were made to ban voodoo dolls, it could be reasonably pointed out that such a law is not likely to have much of an effect.
Conversely, the primary purpose of Oxycontin is pain relief. And yet the potential for abuse is so high that the stuff is very tightly regulated. And most people would agree that you shouldn’t be able to buy Oxycontin like you can buy aspirin.
Just another manifestation of the availability heuristic.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the auto industry is spending money to protect drunk drivers?
I don’t deny that there is lobbying by automobile orgaizations, but the tone of the lobbying is much different. The NRA has a very binary approach to regulation, where even one mention of any form of regulation by a politician will put him on a black list. You don’t see the AAA giving F grades and singling politicians out for attack ads based on their suggesting that it should be illegal to drive faster than 55 on a Interstate highway.
This means that there can be no debate, and so no compromise on a legislation that would be acceptable to most gun owners and also to those who want to reduce gun violence.
Possibly because no one is seriously trying to ban automobiles or even regulate them to a similar degree as guns. No one is seriously proposing, for instance, that cars be banned because they look scary…or, fast. The AWB would be the equivalent of having two cars with the same engines, the same drive trains, running on the same gas, but one has a lot of ‘fast’ looking things bolted on, while the other doesn’t. It would be non-nonsensical to do this with cars not just once, but then to start talking about it seriously again. Possibly if people were doing silly shit like that, the auto lobby would have to consider fighting every new attempt at legislature or regulation that comes out as a matter of course, simply because if you could get something as idiotic as the AWB through, what ELSE might get through if you don’t fight every single battle?