How safe were cars 96 years ago?

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by UFO

No, hammers and baseball bats are not the cause of most, it's firearms in the home. A firearm makes killing as easy as a single pull on a trigger.

Even though a firearm does make it easier, many household objects can have some lethal potential depending on how they're used. But anyway, considering what has happened in some s#!thole countries like mine when stricter gun laws were implemented, I'm sure it won't work in America. Well, Switzerland is a good example that responsible gun ownership is better than taking away the right of self-defense from its citizens.

[Xist]

As I recall, Mythbusters decided that if you brought a knife to a gun fight, but are within twenty feet, you have the advantage, although that must be situational.

I think this page makes some good points, but I am not exactly impressed: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...l-reform-myths
They talk about the strict gun control in D.C. and Chicago, but there was a mass shooting in the Navy Yard, and Chicago is infamous for gun violence.
The gun used in the Navy Yard shooting was bought legally in another state, "exposing gaps in the current background checks system."
I do not understand what arguments against closing gaps in background checks might be, but I also do not understand what arguments might be in favor of the NRA. It seems like they are only concerned with profit.
"[C]ities like Chicago are plagued by the illegal trafficking of firearms."
I imagine that law enforcement is doing their best to fight that, but obviously it is not good enough.
Mom recently talked to my sister on speakerphone and my dear sibling went on a rant about guns and talked about "Australian" comedian Jim Jefferies and how he systematically destroyed pro-gun arguments. I would like to see these arguments, with some kind of Australian to family-friendly filter. The one thing that I remember her saying was that, supposedly, responsible gun owners keep their guns in a safe, but when burglars break in with the intention of murdering your family, your guns are in a safe, so you will be unable to use them to defend your family.

Point taken, but how long would it take for the police to arrive? Everyone knows that responsible cell phone owners keep their cell phones locked up! Your phone is not necessarily more accessible than your weapon.

As usual, I argue the situation is complicated. I think it was the Guardian page that had statistics stating that guns were involved in thirty-two times as many murders as justifiable homicides.

I blame that new Rock and Roll.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Yeah, then your "intelligent" driverless vehicle navigation does something like this Cars stranded on Dog Valley Road when Google Maps suggests alternate route to I-80 | KRNV and you freeze to death in the snow.

Sure, there will be tragic scenarios where technology is the cause of harm rather than the cause of safety, but these will obviously be less common than no autonomous systems at all.

I won't let my imagination of worst case scenarios prevent me from moving forward in life.

Originally Posted by Xist

As I recall, Mythbusters decided that if you brought a knife to a gun fight, but are within twenty feet, you have the advantage, although that must be situational.

I can think of little else I'd rather have in close quarters with a single attacker than a baseball bat. The kinetic energy of a typical person with a bat is greater than a bullet from a typical handgun, and hitting someone just about anywhere would stun, if not incapacitate them.

...I do not understand what arguments against closing gaps in background checks might be, but I also do not understand what arguments might be in favor of the NRA. It seems like they are only concerned with profit.

The NRA is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. I've yet to hear specific compelling criticism of the NRA (although I'm sure there are some). They have historically been advocates for both gun ownership and laws restricting certain types of guns and accessories, and for restricting guns for criminals and the mentally unstable. Most recently the focus of their resources goes towards advocating 2nd amendment rights by way of political lobbying. They have supported both Republicans and Democrats, and have worked with the ACLU. In addition, they support gun education and training.

Having said that, most people, including myself, support background checks. I think this should go a step further and require a license that shows the person has demonstrated proficient gun handling and knows best practices for storing firearms. This would be similar to how the DMV licenses drivers by requiring a certain level of proficiency and administering a written test. I haven't fully committed to this idea yet considering I'm an advocate of responsible gun ownership and opponent of the nanny state.

...supposedly, responsible gun owners keep their guns in a safe, but when burglars break in with the intention of murdering your family, your guns are in a safe, so you will be unable to use them to defend your family.

Point taken, but how long would it take for the police to arrive?

Firearms aren't just for personal protection, they are also for recreation. Besides all that, the 2nd amendment says nothing of protecting the individual, but instead says that armed citizens are "necessary to the security of the free state". It says nothing of protecting the individual because that right is so plainly self-evident.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

While both James Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as "afraid to trust the people with arms." He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of "the advantage of being armed"

...I think it was the Guardian page that had statistics stating that guns were involved in thirty-two times as many murders as justifiable homicides.

The main advantage of gun ownership for self defense is in providing the means to resist attack. How likely is it for a criminal to continue menacing someone after being confronted by a gun? Most will not insist on being shot before they change their behavior. The number of justifiable homicides vs murders is a meaningless comparison, and every death is a tragedy.

[Xist]

Our new robot overlords will undoubtedly be far more predictable than meat popsicles, so humans will have an easier time predicting them, they will be able to predict themselves, will probably even signal, which will scare and bewilder carbon-faced lifeforms, and drunks will not be driving.

That definitely sounds safer.

Perhaps computers will be safe enough that seatbelts will become redundant, but just getting everyone to buckle up would be as helpful as all of the above.

[freebeard]

Buckminster Fuller predicted in the 1970s that humankind would cede authority to the computer because it's impartial. Yes, we can laugh now; but down the road with adversarial generative networks and AI that explains itself, that might change.

Everyone knows that responsible cell phone owners keep their cell phones locked up!

I'm more partial to the Mare's Leg than the AR-15. The Rossi Ranchhand has a key to lock the hammer for home storage, and it's a nice length for in the car.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Firearms aren't just for personal protection, they are also for recreation.

Other uses, too. Say you hit a deer, or your horse breaks a leg while you're out riding? What are you going to do, let the critter suffer for hours?

WRT those illegal gun sales and such, I've always wondered why it seems that places where guns are legal and normal seem to have a lot fewer shootings than places where they're illegal. Kinda like why there was never that much of a drug problem until the government started its "War on Drugs" idiocy.

[freebeard]

zerohedge.com: One Of Georgia's Safest Cities 'Requires' Its Citizens To Own A Gun; CNN Unsure Why Crime Is So Low

CNN is scratching their... head?

The Rossi Ranchhand solution is preferable to me to the ring that RFIDs to an electronic lock. But Henry has a Mare's Leg (.22, .357 or .44) without that feature for half the price.

[Xist]

I wonder how many push-ups she can do.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

Even though a firearm does make it easier, many household objects can have some lethal potential depending on how they're used. But anyway, considering what has happened in some s#!thole countries like mine when stricter gun laws were implemented, I'm sure it won't work in America. Well, Switzerland is a good example that responsible gun ownership is better than taking away the right of self-defense from its citizens.

When was the last time a toddler took the life of a fellow family member with a household object with "lethal potential" that was NOT a gun?

Don't get me wrong, I am 100% for responsible firearms ownership. Period, full stop. But that operative word, responsible, needs to be something more than a jingo. From that point of view, someone who lets a child get a hold of a gun is NOT responsible, and unfortunately the consequence of that person having guns in the house is someone dying.

If we enforced laws on firearms like we have vehicles, this would be less frequent. Training. Insurance. Better technology like operator interlocks. All of this is possible without limiting any responsible use of firearms.

[freebeard]

Everyone watched the NRA fashion show, right?

https://firefly10108.wordpress.com/2...d-lord-bowler/

Zoe would point and laugh.