The AR15 IS a weapon of war and IS designed to kill people!!!!!

As you - and virtually everyone like you - are only interested in "solutions" and "progress" that involve unnecessary, ineffective and unconstitutional restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law abiding -- you - and virtually everyone like you - are not just disinterested, but unwilling, to be part of the discussion.

 

In the last 20 years? How come we haven't done something as simple as raise the driving age or lower the speed limit?

 

How far do we need to "progress "? When us "progress" no longer needed?

 

Well, the current SC isn't interested in public safety where guns are concerned, so that is an impediment.

I'm VERY willing to be part of any discussion on reducing gun death in America.

Your "by the law abiding" doesn't form a solid argument, as "the law abiding" includes many who commit murder, including mass murder.

 

We have lowered speed limits. Do you have a further proposal?

We don't raise the driving age, because our society depends on cars and it would impose a hardship on many families.

Do you want to raise the driving age?

 

As the USSC -- correctly and obviously - said the constitution necessarily and intentionally removes certain public safety polices from the table, your statement, above, fails as a non seq fallacy.

Mkay....
Excluding 'solutions' which involve unnecessary, ineffective, and unconstitutional restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law abiding...
How do you suggest we reduce gun-related violence?

 

Well, we have a ways to go before that one bites us in the ass.

How about picking some other first world nation and calling it a day when we come within 10% of that nation?

 

In the --70s--..
Since then, they have been raised to 70-75-80 or even lifted altogether...

 

LOL!!!

I've never seen you admit that lowering the number of gun deaths in America is a legitimate objective.

Do you?

 

Freeway speeds are not the only speed limits we have.

If some state finds high speed freeways don't result in significantly more traffic deaths, who can argue?

 

It was 55. It was raised to 75 or 80. That's an increase, not a decrease.

So the convenience outweighs the loss of life. Interesting point.

All of our peer countries have a "common sense" higher limit. Why shouldn't we?

https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/teenagers

 

"Resource Abstract:
This report describes the analyses performed and results obtained by a study of safety and other impacts of speed limit changes on high-speed roads.
Safety-related analyses were based on a comprehensive framework of the disaggregate relationships between speed limits, driver speed choices, crash occurrence and crash severity. Using a variety of datasets, the project conducted numerous statistical analyses to elucidate and quantify these relationships. It was found that a speed limit increase on a high-speed road is generally associated with a less-than-equivalent increase in average vehicle speed: a 10 mi/h speed limit increase, for example, corresponds to average speeds around 3 mi/h higher. The project identified a relatively small but statistically significant correspondence between speed limits and total crash rates: a speed limit increase from 55 to 65 mi/h on an “average” high-speed road section would be associated with a crash rate increase of around 3%. Finally, the project found a statistically significant association between speed limits and the distribution of injury severities following a crash. For example, the project’s models predict that a speed limit increase from 55 to 65 mi/h on the average section would be associated with a 24% increase in the probability of an occupant being fatally injured, once a crash has occurred. Considering that the crash rate itself increases slightly with a speed limit increase, overall fatality rates are predicted to rise by slightly higher percentages. However, the association between speed limit and injury severity dominates the overall fatality rate result."

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa1304/2_22.htm

 

Again, that is highway driving alone. And the higher limits tend to be for freeways that are not the same as they were in bygone ages.

If you want to lower speed limits in some location, you need to develop or find data on how that would save lives.

Yes, safety is never the only factor in ANY domain.

Also, note that your cite shows that deaths from teenage drivers has been reduced over the years. It's not like this issue of teenage driving deaths isn't being addressed.

There are more ways to go about safety in driving besides making it illegal to drive.

For example, states have improved laws on how new licenses may be used. They have included more emphasis on driver training. There are stronger laws on driving under the influence. There are general improvements such as speed limits and automobile construction.

Also, I'd point out that your cite draws the line at 20yo. Are you suggesting that driving be illegal until 20?

Are you in favor of more public transit? I am!

 

Great document!!

It shows a ton of interesting points on various factors.

In the end, politicians make decisions on speed limits and other safety factors, including qualifications of drivers and construction of vehicles and roads.

They will ALWAYS have to make tradeoffs between safety, expense (public and individual), utility, and the desires of the populace.

Highest highway speeds by state:

 

Did you avoid the question?
Yes you did.
Looks like you are not at all willing to be part of any discussion on reducing gun death in America.
Disagree?
Excluding 'solutions' which involve unnecessary, ineffective, and unconstitutional restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law abiding...
How do you suggest we reduce gun-related violence?

 

Freeway speeds are the only ones we lowered.

 

Zoom, your post flys over the head of many here.

 

truth-many on the left never even hear them flap

 

Explain what your post has to do with the OP’s assertions. You are off on your own crusade, which should rightfully be formulated into another OP that can be used to focus a discussion about what you want to discuss since you obviously want to sidestep the OP under discussion.
Want to insert commentary op about Trump? You might as well, since you are pushing your own crusade.

 

Very true.

 

It has nothing to do with my assertion.
It directly addresses the assertions of the person I responded to, however.

 

???
Other speed limits have been set by states.

The feds don't get to set all speed limits.

 

Did you avoid the question?
Yes you did.
Looks like you are not at all willing to be part of any discussion on reducing gun death in America.
Disagree?
Excluding 'solutions' which involve unnecessary, ineffective, and unconstitutional restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law abiding...
How do you suggest we reduce gun-related violence?

 

The first issue is whether reducing the number of gun deaths is a valid objective.

The reason for that is that if it is not a valid objective, then you should be arguing THAT.

If it IS a valid objective, then let's recognize that NO nation wide objective can be approached for free.

So, which is it.

 

Ok. Sure.
Now:
Excluding 'solutions' which involve unnecessary, ineffective, and unconstitutional restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law abiding...
How do you suggest we reduce gun-related violence?