This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
There's a standard argument about gun control in the US that you hear a lot in the liberal bubble. Obviously, this argument does not appear to be very compelling to the anti-gun control side. It's pretty hard to find the counterarguments while embedded in the bubble, so I'm asking here in the hopes someone might explain them.
The argument comes from making a comparison between cars and guns. Both create about the same magnitude of danger when in the wrong hands, but cars are significantly more important for being able to function in modern society. Therefore guns ownership and usage should be regulated at least as strongly as cars are. In particular, car ownership has a strict licensing requirement including a safety/competency test and also requires insurance in case of accidents. We should therefore pass additional gun regulations requiring the same.
I can imagine the counterargument being in almost any step of this chain of logic:
For some reason, cars are actually far more dangerous than guns in the wrong hands, maybe when you appropriately consider the kind of car or kind of gun people most commonly have.
Maybe it seems that cars are more important for modern living, but actually guns are more important, maybe as protection against low-probability really horrible things---tyrannical government, breakdown of society, etc. I guess this would require making some kind of expected value justification, that the horrible thing is likely enough and guns ownership would actually help enough.
I can't really see anyone disagreeing with cars being regulated to the level the argument claims.
We don't need to pass additional gun regulations like those for cars. Because of so and so reason, guns are actually already regulated more strictly than cars. Just look based on this and this example how much easier it is to get a car than a gun (though as long as it's not actually super misleading, the stereotypical Texas Walmart example makes this hard for me to see).
Which of these points can actually be expanded into counterarguments you guys find compelling? How do you do so? Is there something else I'm not considering?
Our regulation of modern means of travel is itself on very, very shaky constitutional ground, and only the fact that the majority of people impacted by these laws tend to be from disadvantaged and disorganized sections of the population has prevented the formation of any kind of interest group to oppose it. The government already has all the tools in place to thoroughly restrict the movement of individuals it deems unworthy, and that it has not done so in a way that harms most Americans is contingent rather than principled.
Freedom of travel within states is generally a protected right in all state constitutions outside of private property laws. The right to travel in between states is protected specifically in the federal constitution. But that right has been thoroughly eroded by restricting it to, essentially, walking; and then restricting walking on major limited access highways even if you were crazy enough to try. One can be placed on the no fly list with no notice and only a convoluted bureaucratic method to appeal one's placement. Mask and vaccine mandates were used to restrict use of public transit. Driver's licenses can be revoked for crimes, and insurance requirements mean that as we inevitably get our social credit system in place it will be impossible to own a car if one has committed too much wrongthink. After all, do you really want to be known as the insurance company that does business with Spencer or Bannon?
I'm not saying that car or other travel regulations are on a purely utilitarian basis wrongheaded, I'm saying that they are dangerously tyrannical in the same way that gun control is, and we need to think hard about the parallels both in the direction of protecting 2a rights, and in the direction of abolishing or due-process-ing the No Fly List.
More options
Context Copy link
Thanks to everyone for the replies! I'm seeing three main thrusts in counterarguments:
The risks that guns and cars produce are very different from each other so even making the comparison in the first place is a little silly (see here and here for example).
Guns are actually regulated much more strictly than the people who usually make this argument are aware---even to the point where the argument comes off as frustratingly ignorant (see here)
Yes, there are actually compelling reasons that widespread gun ownership significantly reduces the risk of the government becoming tyrannical (see here and here)
I hope I haven't misrepresented anything here.
More options
Context Copy link
Because the comparison fails on its basic premise. You don’t need a license to buy a car in most states; you could send your ten year old to a dealership with shopping bags full of cash to buy a new one, at least in theory. What is prohibited is operating a vehicle on a public road without a license(and US drivers licenses are easier to get than most internationally). And taking a gun out in public until recently did require a license, either a concealed carry license(perhaps too easy to get, but definitely a license), or a hunting license. Firearms insurance exists, but is less necessary than auto insurance because nearly all injuries caused by firearms are caused by intentional misuse which wouldn’t be covered by insurance anyways.
Finally there’s the question of what a gun license is. I mean yes it’s true that every country on earth except the US and Yemen(and for shotguns, Switzerland and Austria) requires something called a license to own a gun, but there’s a pretty wide variation in terms of what a license is, in some countries it’s just a tax stamp and in others it’s the culmination of a lengthy process involving several years of lessons and close supervision. The actually effective part of most licensing schemes is probably background checks, which are already the law in the USA.
More options
Context Copy link
In the US the comparison is kinda silly for the gun control set and not because of the Second Amendment. The US does NOT have strict car licensing requirements; typically if you're 18 (or 16 with certain additional easy requirements) and have a pulse you can likely get a license. The gun equivalent would be being able to fire a gun once or twice and hit, not necessarily the target, but at least the backstop. Insurance is required in case of accidents but only accidents; it does not cover deliberate misuse, and so if it existed for guns it would be cheap. Further, it's only required for use on public roads. An 18 year old with an easy-to-get license and sufficient cash can buy any car whatsoever, and operate any street legal vehicle (except, oddly, a motorcycle, though that's another not-hard license) of 26,000 pounds or less. Which includes everything from a Smart for Two (used) to a 25,999 lb box truck to a McLaren F1 supercar.
More options
Context Copy link
Only the operation of vehicles on public property is regulated. A 12 year old can buy or build and then operate a funny car capable of going 300 mph on private property with no insurance, inspection, registration, background check, or license. Also that funny car can be transported between private properties without being insured, inspected, registered, or licensed.
More options
Context Copy link
Others, much more qualified than I, are taking on the mistake about assuming guns are as regulated as cars. I'll take the other horn, private citizens being armed plays a vital role in ensuring that democracy stays democratic. How do you actually compare the value of transit to a ward against tyranny? Life in places without fire arms seems to get more and more restrictive over time and history is replete with examples of unarmed minorities being abused. Modern gun controlled societies are so new that we really can't say that they don't inevitably fall to tyranny.
"Sword hunts" in Japan prior to the Meiji Restoration are the best example I can think of of premodern arms control, and Japan prior to that was definitely not a free and open society. Interestingly the US also confiscated swords from the Japanese populace after WW2, another indication that it was an attempt to solidify control/prevent rebellion, though I know that the US was also trying to stamp out certain parts of Japanese culture completely (see film censorship as an example of this).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is just ignorance from morons who don't know anything about what it takes to purchase or own a firearm and the vast library of pernicious and malicious laws that one must navigate.
I work in a gun shop, and the "I watch CNN, I know you just sell guns, I'm not filling out paperwork" guy is a perennial favorite. My job is mostly paperwork compliance. Of the ten or so employees, four are dedicated to paperwork, compliance, legal shit.
In my city, state, and counting federal statutes, there's around 75,000 separate laws governing firearms. Anyone who wants another one should explain very carefully how what they propose is going to affect crime, not just all gun owners, and this proposal does a total of jack and shit for crime.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, the #1 argument is it is just plain false that it is easier to get a gun than a car. For most people, purchasing a gun under age 18 is banned. In most states, getting a license at age 18 requires no test, only for the earlier age 16 license is a road test required.
Second, states are perfectly allowed to regulate the ways people possess guns while in public spaces through open and concealed carry regimes. Many have much harsher requirements than the harshest imposed on 16 year olds for drivers licenses. I don't recall any successful constitutional challenges to reasonable concealed carry regimes, such as requiring training courses or repealing them for bad behavior.
Third, doing bad with guns is obviously much more highly punished than doing so with automobiles. You typically get 3 strikes on your drivers license. Try discharging your pistol into the ceiling of a Wal Mart and see how many strikes you get.
Is this true? In Massachusetts, you need a road test no matter what age you are, but if you're 16-17, you also need to have taken driving classes before taking and passing the road test. In either case, you need to have a permit first, which requires passing a written test. I was under the impression that this was pretty standard in the US. In which states can an 18 year old just walk into the RMV and get a driving license after at most a written test?
In Illinois that was true up until a few years ago when they tightened the laws a bit. Our surrounding states do not have such requirements AFAIK. Indiana, for example, considers all of its "under 21" licensees probationary, but you only need a driving course if you are trying to get it at 16 as opposed to 17.
More options
Context Copy link
It looks like there were some states that allowed a waiver of road tests during COVID, but yeah, every state requires a road test.
More options
Context Copy link
That struck me as odd, I can't find a hard state-by-state comparison but I found a recent Jalopnik article describing the easiest states to get your license and Texas was the only one that didn't have a driving exam, and that was contingent on the applicant having completed drivers ed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is only true when societies are generally safe and orderly, and organized state-provided force (i.e. police or similar) are available to rapidly respond to and alleviate any exceptions to that rule (crimes, wildlife attacks, invasions, etc.)
Being unarmed in a lawless, unpoliced society is much more dangerous than being without a car. It places you at the mercy of just about any predator or thug who cares to exercise power over you, which is something that cannot be meaningfully predicted or otherwise deterred without someone being armed.
More options
Context Copy link
I think the biggest problem with that argument is that cars pretty much entirely kill unintentionally. Only about 535 accidental gun deaths occurred in 2020, according to the CDC. That's 2.2% of all gun deaths in the US that year. That's an order of magnitude less than annual accidental drowning deaths, and fewer deaths than (scarcely regulated) swimming pools or bath tubs alone.
It's not enough to say "here's a problem, here's a regulation that pertains in a very broad sense to that problem, therefore the regulation will help address the problem". If people want to commit murder or suicide with a gun, it's incumbent upon would-be regulators to explain how their proposed regulations would stop those people. "We'll make it illegal" does no good - murder is already illegal, and suicidal people won't care. "We'll require a license" does no good when people can trivially obtain one like they can a driver's license. And if the licensing requirement becomes sufficiently onerous that it's practically a ban, they'll run into the same problem as advocates of banning guns: how exactly is that going to happen in a country with a 2nd Amendment, more guns than people, and criminals who don't care what you say you've banned?
While I'm not completely onboard with anti-car YIMBY urbanists, I think they have a reasonable point that most automobile "accidents" are the result of avoidable negligence, and that our auto safety standards reflect a growing allowance for carelessness on the part of drivers. IMO limiting road-legal cars to 90mph (5 over the highest legal speed limit in the country) with strict liability and enforcement, and limiting power to fairly modest acceleration would anger a lot of gearheads but probably save lives overall. Europe does reasonably well with average velocity enforcement of time between fixed measurement points.
I'm not opposed to people owning performance cars, but I don't think they should be "performing" on public streets. There's probably some reasonable middle ground with separate "road" and "race" modes in car computers that I'd be willing to go along with.
The problem is, at this point, mostly unsolvable in the "it's trivial for a state to co-ordinate this, but it makes life a lot worse if they do" sense.
Sure, you can legislate away the dashboard screens (and every control moved there is a strict malus to safety, but the manufacturers like them because it's cheap for them to install, expensive for you to replace, and bakes in obsolescence thanks to how tech companies work). But if you do that, drivers just fall back on their phones like they were before they bought a car with the screens and that's even worse.
And all the other solutions don't work. You could make phones read GPS constantly and just refuse to work above a certain speed, but that means you can't use your phone on the bus, train, or as a passenger and it also kills the battery. Explicit go/no-go zones don't work because they still don't help passengers and are abusable by governments.
I think the best solution at this point is an extension of industry trend: mandate (directly or indirectly) that new phones must function as physical keys for cars. You surrender your phone to the ignition switch (which captures it until you turn the car off), which has a bit of extra hardware that still functions in this way if its battery has died. There are a bunch of complications that you could use to get around this (mostly to do with the requirement for an extra physical key) but it mostly boils down to the car being completely dependent on the phone being in the ignition to play music, display a map, and the other conveniences (maybe calls and text-by-voice-only; while I get that these also increase reaction time substantially you at least have your head up) because it will only pair with other phones if the driver surrendered theirs to start the car.
All of the EVs worth buying out-accelerate even the higher end of gas-powered sports cars. It's not the "
gun nutsgearheads" you need to worry about havingspecial guns that hold more than 10 rounds in a magazineamazing acceleration because a significant number of normal people who bought new cars over the last few years have them for reasons mostly unrelated to those performance numbers.Of course, they're also probably the worst cars to have that power because they're way harder to stop- a Tesla weighs an extra ton over a comparable gas car- and because of that mass, they "win" when colliding with a normal car (something that isn't obvious like it is for SUVs).
Sure, you could go tiered licensing to drive them (and most EVs and especially Teslas are built in such a way that crippling their acceleration would be trivial with an OTA update), but now you're directly fighting the EVs-at-any-cost political faction, you damaged the ability of existing owners to quietly enjoy their property, and most people aren't going to bother (the people that would already drive fast gas-powered cars, because they value the ability to turn corners more than raw acceleration).
SUVs aren't going to ever go away mainly because the population is aging and those people find climbing up easier than climbing down (and they're generally above most of the LED high-beams that might as well be military dazzlers, and give the illusion of better visibility because collision standards have made it so you can't see much of anything out of modern cars), so you'll probably have to take that class of vehicle from their cold dead hands.
I think you're making this problem a lot more complicated than it actually is. A lot of deaths could be prevented with a few classes of changes: separate cars from pedestrians and cyclists, and use road design to encourage safety. People gravitate to driving at the speed which feels safe; narrower lanes and roads naturally encourage slower driving, because you're closer to other vehicles, roadside barriers, etc. There's a huge number of other things you could implement as well. And if you assume that people will screw up, it becomes clear that you should design infrastructure to be safe even when someone does make an error.
Over-indexing on phones specifically doesn't do anything about speeding, other forms of distraction, drunk driving, or just regular old human error.
Not just bikes has some videos on traffic calming and related topics:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=bAxRYrpbnuA&ab_channel=NotJustBikes
https://youtube.com/watch?v=bglWCuCMSWc&ab_channel=NotJustBikes
https://youtube.com/watch?v=_ByEBjf9ktY
Car size is also an issue, but this paragraph is pretty baffling to me. Given how high some SUVs and trucks are, I don't believe for a moment that they're easier for anyone with limited mobility than a sedan or smaller SUV or crossover--you have to climb up and down in any case anyway, to get both in and out. Safetywise, SUVs are a defection that only become "necessary" if others already have them; ditto for the issue with elevated lights. If you limit the number of high and heavy vehicles on most roads, and how bright their lights are, then much of the motivation to buy them goes away.
Thinking about this harder, maybe it's all nothingburger.
After all, compared to 10 and 20 years ago, distracted driving rates are way up, vehicle performance is way up (cars have turbochargers they didn't have before, and cars with 400+ horsepower doing 0-60 in 4 seconds didn't exist below 50,000 USD until just a few years ago), blind spots are way bigger, night driving is even more difficult, and the average vehicle is both heavier and taller.
Because of those things we should expect harder and more deadlier crashes.
But that's not what the data shows. Compared to 10 years ago, the rate of traffic fatalities in the US dropped by a quarter (per mile travelled). So if all of those things actually did increase fatalities significantly, and it seems like a reasonable thing to assume would increase, our safety standards are clearly outpacing any and all of the negative effects they have (and to think that the average car on the road today, being made in 2010, doesn't even have the infotainment systems that allow you to send a text without looking down).
So maybe the best solution really is "nothing, just have more and more technology to make distracted and high-speed driving safer and safer available at lower and lower pricepoints". I'm not that happy with that because those safety standards make me feel I'm more likely to cause an accident because of reduced visibility inherent to those safety standards (extra-thick A pillers, huge blindspots) and all that tech getting damaged makes collision repair far more expensive, but clearly they're having a positive effect in aggregate so maybe I'm complaining too much about it.
The US saw over 40,000 traffic fatalities in 2021 and car crashes are one of the leading causes of death for young people. This hardly seems like a nothingburger (do you think crime is a nothingburger? Homicides are something like half that or less).
What data? The table in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year seems to show either flat or slightly increasing deaths per million VMT, depending on whether you're looking before or after the pandemic as your end point. It's even worse if you look at pedestrian deaths, which are way up. And heavy SUVs are contributing to this trend.
Certain technological innovations have improved the ability of vehicles to either alert the driver or protect them in case of a crash. Also, as 2020 showed, congestion can reduce automobile fatalities. These developments are offsetting the effects you mention, but that doesn't mean that distracted driving and heavier vehicles aren't a problem.
Based on the data I've seen, the aggregate effect is negative, but also there's no need to couple these things. Repeal CAFE, make narrower lanes and smaller parking spots, add traffic calming, harsher penalties for distracted or reckless driving leading to injury, maybe even tax heavier vehicles.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I love cars, but I'm pro tiered licensing at this point. Basic license as currently constructed should cover cars up to 180-230 horsepower, anything higher than that should require actual driving training, including track work on vehicle dynamics, and towing/large vehicle handling. I'm tired of people buying gigantic trucks/SUVs that they can't drive or park. Hazard to themselves and others.
Tons of great cars have less than 230 horsepower. You can get a Transit Van that will hit highway speeds with cargo or passengers, you can get a Toyota GR86 and have a ton of fun. But you can't get a car that is both big and fast; driving a Suburban or an F150 with a 220 horsepower engine isn't that enjoyable.
Fine, you want a Hellcat or a Raptor? If you've got $50k+ to spend on a car, pony up $10k and a couple weekends to take classes at the track.
Such restrictions could be imposed through private insurance rather than through government licensing. In some states, private insurance companies already are forced by the govt. to reduce your insurance costs if you take certain safety courses. (See, e. g., New Jersey Statutes § 17:33B-45.1.) Just have the govt. suggest (not mandate) that insurance companies impose actuarially-justified fees on people who drive bigger or more-powerful vehicles without taking corresponding training. (And if in reality no fees are actuarially justified, then none will be imposed.)
Actuarial calculations do not consider eg parking and non accident hazards.
More options
Context Copy link
This is just doing it via direct government requirements, only dishonestly.
If the government "suggests" them they will be justified by the risk of government action if the suggestion is ignored.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Swimming pool regulation is out of control in Australia. Friends of mine have a huge rural property with a lake (fish and everything, even a small dam). The council wants them to increase the fencing on their swimming pool lest some child walk for about 10 minutes up to the house, get over an insufficiently high fence or through a fairly substantial hedge and drown. So much easier to just drown in the unfenced, easily available lake!
There's a bunch of passive-aggressive and plain aggressive letters going back and forth. It's a complete waste of everyone's time. We would be much better off with fewer regulations on irrelevant stuff like this - focus all that fire and fury on serious matters like gain-of-function.
Is there some irony that we're talking about burdensome Australian swimming pool regulation in a gun-control thread?
Edit: the joke being that (so I hear) Australian gun control regulation is also burdensome
HelmedHorror brought it up. My broader point is that regulations have all kinds of stifling and inhibitory effects that aren't easily noticed, plus they're interpreted by deliberately malicious and unreasonable cretins.
Sorry, to be clear I thought what you had to say was interesting and relevant. It had to be said though, I was hoping it would just be one of many comments and wouldn’t be disruptive
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Such a plot point was an ongoing saga in a season of Curb Your Enthusiasm.
More options
Context Copy link
Mitchell and Webb comedy skit on drowning
Haven't heard this one before. Excellent.
"Everyone has to die, and in a balanced, fair, and democratic society, some of them should drown."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Regulators should have good laws that work and not have bad laws that don't work, and if that's not happening there should be pushback. But gun regulation isn't the impossible task you make it out to be. The whole "murder is illegal anyway" doesn't track because gun laws can make things more risky by increasing the points of illegality before the murder actually happens. Then you start cracking down on minor crimes, search for guns while you do it, and bam you have a much nicer city Mr. Giuliani. Similarly I easily can imagine effectiveness in inconveniencing and tagging people at high suicide risk (ie people who have attempted before) just because I think many of those happen at intense points, under the influence, etc.
Another thing but the with the whole onerous gun laws thing: Those should just be relaxed if you're a woman, and that'll solve most of those issues. If you're a man, then you should keep a clean slate or get one illegally if you really need to protect yourself and you don't pass the background check, you should probably have connections at that point anyway.
Yeah, I'm not suggesting that nothing can be done to increase enforcement of existing laws. Like you said, the Giuliani/Bratton era in New York City is a good example of that. Nor am I saying that possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony shouldn't be an enhancement to sentencing. I'm just saying that there's not much else in the way of plausible laws or regulations (the OP's topic) that is going to meaningfully reduce gun deaths in a country with 400 million guns and a 2nd Amendment.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Arguments from people from "liberal bubble" are not compelling to the "gun nuts" at all.
Why? Because people from these bubble are completely, willfully and proudly ignorant. Not only about guns, not only about reality of gun violence, but also about all gun laws and regulations that are already in the books.
Typical exchange looks like this:
"Fuck AmeriKKKa! Only in this country can every child walk to gun shop, buy machine gun and bring it to school!"
"attempt to explain that this is not how it works"
"Shut up, gun nut! You have small dick!"
What could dispel this pigheaded attitude? Only personal experience. This happens - when person from "the bubble" feels directly, personally endangered, finds that police are there not to serve and protect, but to bully and brutalize, and decides as last and desperate resort to buy a gun.
Many such cases - ask any gun shop employee.
These "bubble people" are among the least welcomed patrons (after stoned/drunk/crazy people and tattoed thugs in gang colors). They would tell you tales how they had to explain these customers there are such thing as gun laws, that they cannot just pick a gun and take it home right now (and face screaming and hysterical meltdowns).
This is old argument that is based on exactly this kind of ignorance.
Actually regulating guns like cars would be something that most gun owners would be extremely happy with.
https://reason.com/1999/11/01/taking-it-to-the-streets-2/
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Even better than how I said it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, this is the standard conservative argument -- private ownership of guns is a check against government tyranny, and this is the original reasoning behind the second amendment. But conservatives would take issue with characterizing this as "low-probability". A common thread through modern history is governments turning against their citizens, and a goodly fraction of the world is currently suffering under totalitarian dictatorships.
The government is the last entity you'd want enforcing gun control or deciding who can legally carry. And no other entity has the power.
More options
Context Copy link
The primary danger from cars and from guns are very different. They are involved in a ballpark similar number of total deaths, but gun-related deaths are around 2/3 suicides, 1/3 homicides, negligible unintentional, while the vast majority of auto fatalities are unintentional. So it doesn't make a lot of sense to compare them directly--how do you know if regulations on cars are "stricter" than those on guns? They're aimed at different things (or at least, they should be--restrictions targeted at homicide probably far outweigh those targeted at suicide). For example, there's a laundry list of individuals who can't legally buy firearms, including anyone ever convicted of a felony or a domestic violence crime, anyone under a restraining order, and others (full list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System#Prohibited_persons). As far as I know, the only similar restriction for driving is if you drive drunk--and I believe this is conditional/state dependent, rather than being a universal and federal law. The former is also probably somewhat easier to enforce. Driver's licenses are fully reciprocal within US states and even from many foreign countries, but attempting to travel with a firearm across state lines, let alone international ones, is potentially nightmarish. Transferring a firearm or any of a long list of accessories to another person can require a months-long wait and expensive fee, etc.
Of course, cars also have their own restrictions. Every state requires passing written and road tests for a DL; the requirement to buy a gun is usually pretty light aside from age and the specific restrictions mentioned above. Even the requirements to carry concealed, which are more stringent, are only more difficult than a DL in a few states, and even that may change if Bruen is actually enforced. I suspect most gun-control advocates don't actually know almost any of the regulations on guns, gun ownership, and carrying.
And these differences aren't necessarily inconsistent: Using a car safely is far more difficult than using a gun safely. There are more rules, the machine is vastly more complicated, it usually is used in a much less controlled environment, it takes a lot of practice and constant awareness, etc.
More options
Context Copy link
There's no constitutional amendment declaring your right to drive a car. Had cars existed at the time there might be, but there's not, so it's not much of a comparison.
Yes, this is the argument that's most convincing to me, too: "Cars aren't in the Constitution".
Call me an autistic legal formalist if you want, but if you don't give overwhelming weight to "It's literally in the Bill of Rights" then why are you even an American?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link