What would you think of making this a required safety feature?

[KUSA]

I'm implying that your defense of completely unregulated guns consists mostly of acting like you're a cartoonish badass

Yeah you got me figured out.

[Chas]

Even though you don't drink some drunk could steal your car and kill a child. Go get one before it is too late!

Oh, that was the point you were making?

Is this another person who can't tell the difference between what a gun does, and what a car does?

And you seem to be yet another who can't accurately gauge risk.

"Firearms are involved in 0.5% of accidental deaths nationally, compared to motor vehicles (29%), poisoning (27%), falls (21%), suffocation (5%), drowning (3%), fires (2%), medical mistakes (1.7%), environmental factors (1.3%), and pedal cycles (0.6%).

Among children: motor vehicles (34%), suffocation (27%), drowning (17%), fires (7%), environmental factors (2.3%), poisoning (2.2%), falls (1.5%), firearm (1.5%), pedal cycles (1.4%), and medical mistakes (1.3%)."

[Esquilax]

And you seem to be yet another who can't accurately gauge risk.

"[Accidental death] Among children: motor vehicles (34%), suffocation (27%), drowning (17%), fires (7%), environmental factors (2.3%), poisoning (2.2%), falls (1.5%), firearm (1.5%), pedal cycles (1.4%), and medical mistakes (1.3%)."

Have we adjusted those numbers for the larger amount of time people spend in cars than they do actively handling firearms?

The difference here, and the point that I was making, is that a car was not purpose built as a weapon, whereas a gun was. This isn't a controversial statement, surely? When you pull the trigger on a gun, it's going to do one thing, and that thing concerns itself with hurting someone else. And yet just anyone can pick it up and use it, whereas a car needs a key to start.

Oh, and also, as I've said before, something else being risky doesn't reduce the good effects of causing something unrelated to become safer. It'd be a very strange world if we had to increase safety in descending order of intensity.

[Ryantology]

Hey, medical mistakes kill fewer people than firearms. There is no need for regulation or safety measures in hospitals!

[thesummerqueen]

Hey, speaking of, they're working on self-driving cars to reduce those fatalities. No one's screaming about their rights being taken away with THAT...

[No_God]

Ummm, fuck that.

I'm gonna go all Will Smith in I, Robot.

[Chas]

And you seem to be yet another who can't accurately gauge risk.

"[Accidental death] Among children: motor vehicles (34%), suffocation (27%), drowning (17%), fires (7%), environmental factors (2.3%), poisoning (2.2%), falls (1.5%), firearm (1.5%), pedal cycles (1.4%), and medical mistakes (1.3%)."

Have we adjusted those numbers for the larger amount of time people spend in cars than they do actively handling firearms?

The difference here, and the point that I was making, is that a car was not purpose built as a weapon, whereas a gun was. This isn't a controversial statement, surely? When you pull the trigger on a gun, it's going to do one thing, and that thing concerns itself with hurting someone else. And yet just anyone can pick it up and use it, whereas a car needs a key to start.

Oh, and also, as I've said before, something else being risky doesn't reduce the good effects of causing something unrelated to become safer. It'd be a very strange world if we had to increase safety in descending order of intensity.

It's neither a question of adjusting for use or the purpose of the tool. It is a question of how many lives could be saved.

Rationally, effort would yield more results concentrating on motor vehicle safety and water safety.

[thesummerqueen]

It's neither a question of adjusting for use or the purpose of the tool. It is a question of how many lives could be saved.

Rationally, effort would yield more results concentrating on motor vehicle safety and water safety.

Wait...so we only work on the ones that are going to net the most good? It's pretty easy to make guns safer. I really think the palm-print gun would be an excellent way to go. It's a lot harder to change cars and travel infrastructure to be safer.

[Nine]

Ummm, fuck that.

I'm gonna go all Will Smith in I, Robot.

[Esquilax]

It's neither a question of adjusting for use or the purpose of the tool. It is a question of how many lives could be saved.

Rationally, effort would yield more results concentrating on motor vehicle safety and water safety.

Not if you're a gun manufacturer, it wouldn't. People specialize, dude; asking that we disregard safety features made by people who know about one area because that area won't bring about the most widespread reduction of harm, that's irrational. What, are you going to look a gift horse in the mouth and demand that everyone start studying automotive design just to get this shit out of the way first?

We would never get anything done if we stalled all progress in any area until we could address issues in descending order of mortality.