Fixed that for you.
2 Likes
Lâetat câest nous.
2 Likes
So one armed student who took his own life is terrifying, but thousands of student who take their own live is reassuring?
or is it
So one armed student is reassuring, but thousands of armed students is terrifying?
Well, I canât speak for everyone involved, but it must have been one of those pant-shitting moments for those studying when he ran into the library carrying a shotgun. Sure, having more armed citizens (âIâm not crazy, he is!â) seems less reassuring, but remember those who would be carrying have to obtain a license. I wonder if the law permits the schools to obtain the names of students who do have the license. I think itâs a public database.
The Bill passed the senate, so we will see what happens next and what schools will fight or embrace it.
Your reply got me thinking:
For me, one to few cars is more terrifying, than thousands of cars.
Thousands of cars slow all cars down making them (and traffic) safer, but on the flip side more cars increase the likelihood of an accident and âdesperateâ driving.
Fewer cars on the road means motorists donât have to asses road conditions as frequently and thus travel at faster speeds and engage in riskier behavior.
The worst accident Iâve witnessed happened between 2 cars on an empty one-way 2 lane road.
2 cars, 2 lanes, 1 direction - and yet they somehow managed to totally collide and demolish each others cars.
I would have never believed it unless I saw it and I still donât know how it happened. I was the only witness, so I couldnât ask anyone âwhat just happened?â
Anecdotes aside, statistics have shown pretty conclusively that more cars on the road lead to a larger overall number of car-related deaths, much like having more guns in society leads to a larger overall number of gun-related deaths. True, the likelihood of any particular car or gun causing someoneâs death may decrease as the rate of ownership rises, but if youâre trying to reduce the number of overall deaths then thatâs not the stat which really counts.
You may argue that the tradeoffs of allowing ownership of either device are worthwhile (i.e. âthis device allows a degree of personal freedom that I couldnât enjoy without it!â). Thatâs a value judgement. But âwe should reduce the number of deaths and injuries caused by [dangerous object] by making sure that more people have [dangerous object]â is simply not supported by evidence.
5 Likes
This happens very frequently in Australia or anywhere people drive for hours on fairly empty roads without a break. There are a number of reasons, but one of them is the one that applies when people are taught to drive on ice for the first time, and have to avoid an obstacle. They usually end up hitting it because, in the absence of visual cues, the tendency is to aim for a fixed point in the landscape, and by the time the driver realises and attempts to swerve away from the obstacle, itâs too late.
I had a cousin who lived in the back end of Western Australia and he apparently never traded in a car, always wrote them off. It was regarded as quite normal there. (He was eventually killed in an accident. He attempted to swerve out of the way of an oncoming vehicle and the caravan he was towing jackknifed him).
So one could argue that reducing gun ownership is as likely as reducing car ownership?
Would you say that gun ownership is a niche group?
Compared to Car ownership?
I guess we would have to look at the number of deaths/damage caused by each too.
Maybe my point is that cars are just as dangerous as guns, but people donât feel that way because they own and use a car daily. Whereas, people who donât own guns feel that there are extremely dangerous. I guess that attitude goes for anything someone is not familiar with.
For me, my life is threatened daily by motorists and I except that - it goes with the territory. But I feel no danger from being a victim of gun violence nor am I threatened by it. But I understand that the more guns out there, the bigger the chance for a random accident to occur.
1 Like
Sorry to about what happen to you cousin.
Your story reminds me of the brutal New Zealand PSA that came out awhile ago.
Does this mean that he drove them til they fell apart/broke down?
Iâll point out that the accident I saw was a mostly residential street in dense urban area where the speed limit doesnât go over 35. They were headed to a red light. It had to be a case of distracted driving.
If youâre going to stick to the gun/car analogy in this case then letâs follow the logic all the way through.
Provocation: A mentally unhinged student causes campus-wide panic by carrying a gun into the school library, endangering unarmed students and eventually ending his own life.
Reaction: Texas passes a bill making it legal for any licensed student to carry guns on campus.
And now for the car analogy:
Provocation: An out-of-control driver causes campus-wide panic by speeding through the university quad, endangering pedestrians and eventually crashing and ending his own life.
Reaction: Texas passes a bill making it legal for any licensed student to drive through the university quad.
5 Likes
No, itâs an English English expression meaning âdestroyed them in an accidentâ (because the insurance company âwrites offâ the vehicle if itâs too badly damaged to repair.)
No need to feel sorry for my cousin, who was a longstanding Darwin candidate, and Iâm surprised he lasted as long as he did. But yes, low speed accidents never fail to amaze me. There was one here recently in which a car turned over in a narrow street with a 20mph limit.
Well, that is actually their function, while cars are supposed to be as safe as possible.
As the demands for car safety increase, eventually it seems likely that people wonât be allowed to drive cars, which will do it themselves. The analogy is obvious.
1 Like
Provocation: An out-of-control driver causes SXSW-wide panic by speeding through the barricades, injuring and killing pedestrians and eventually crashing.
Reaction: SXSW reduces number of downtown music-related events (which close down streets) for 2015.
As an American my odds of being killed by a car are marginally greater than my odds of being killed by a gun. But this does not mean that âcars are just as dangerous as guns,â because on a typical day I might encounter hundreds, thousands, or (in a major city) even tens of thousands of people actively using their cars. The only place Iâd be likely to find that many people using their guns at the same time would be a battlefield.
IMHO anyone who doesnât view a gun as an extremely dangerous object has no business owning one.
2 Likes
Iâm afraid that analogy doesnât really apply here, because it doesnât involve âmaking people safer by allowing more people to use [dangerous object] in [setting where dangerous object is currently forbidden].â
1 Like
But in order to make them more safe, they actually become more dangerous to anything non-car. Their size and weight is increased; to compensate for this increase in mass, theyâre given more powerful engines that allow for greater acceleration ( to quickly remove oneself from dangerous obstacles, natch); Window size is reduced for safety, but adds to more blind spots, etc. etc.
There are small and smaller cars, but marketing sells on power and safety - King of the Road, not conscientiousness.
I agree, but I think we are a long time from that. Like I posited to Brainspore, Getting people to give up their cars is analogous to getting people to give up their guns. Itâs part of the culture and national identity.
I thought the SXSW one did. By removing people from the streets - they would lessen their chance to get hit by cars.
I agree with that. That sentence doesnât do a good job of trying to get the right sentiment across.
I was thinking about this topic last night and it seems that sometimes the gun-control side appears use a moral panic stance. Iâm not even going to equate Guns (reality) to D&D and Rap music and Satanism, but I feel there is similarity in attitudes or rhetoric.
Also, have you ever thought of taking the CHL course?
1 Like
Iâm more of a âbow and arrowâ man. Less likely that one of my kids will accidentally take themselves or someone else out, especially since I only own target shooting arrows and I store the bow disassembled.
2 Likes
Itâs hard to tell, if youâre being sarcastic!
Gun Ownership isnât a requirement for the CHL class. You might be required to pass a proficiency portion, though.
No, I really do own a bow and arrow (several arrows, actually). And I really do store it disassembled.
And Iâve never had any reason to own a gun, want a gun, or take a CHL class.
1 Like
