• Dettweiler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The main disconnect is that even with adding more laws, regulations, and enforcement; it still boils down to someone being of sound enough mind to not decide to haul ass down Main Street on Christmas Eve and crush several families with their SUV. You never see people blaming the car in those cases.

    • dezmd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You had to take a drugs and alcohol course, pass a written test, pass a vision test, and pass a driving test to be allowed to drive, and then renew the license every x number of years. Then, if you want to drive a motorcycle, or drive a large commercial truck, you need to take additional written and driving tests and even drug tests. For the safety of all.

      The system we have in place already has culpability focused on the individual who passed all that and takes part in a community/societal contract that the license represents, unless there is a defect in the vehicle that caused it.

      Say there was a constitutional amendment about the right to drive a vehicle, the onus would be on car manufacturers to create and/or take a dutiful part in a system that builds in physical safety features and create a sales process that trained the buyers on safety, effectively providing a standardized safety ‘licensing’ for new drivers as an integral part of buying their vehicles.

      Does that sound completely unreasonable? Or is Death Race 2000 the standard now?

    • reddwarf@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I understand. Could be the reason that because so many regulations are in place for cats that people stopped pointing at cars as the cause and started focussing on people? Lets not forget that when cars started to enter society people blamed cars for lots of bad things, same as when trains started to run. Regulations were applied and can be checked regularly. It made blaming cars and trains less of a thing, like you pointed out. So perhaps if we can create locations where guns can be stored and checked out? You would still have the legal right to own guns and you can access them to shoot at ranges and such. Would allow for interesting and new ways of checking and enforcing laws. You would still have crazy people shooting places up, I have no doubt, but perhaps society will see “enough is done to safeguard within reason, something else needs to be done apart from guns”?

      • Narauko@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        So the issue there is that it directly conflicts with the right to privacy, presumption of innocence, and your right to practice your constitutional rights. The government and law enforcement, hell even your neighbors or your HOA, cannot just check you or your stuff out to make sure you’re not doing bad things. We can’t mandate that you can only practice your religion at designated churches. You aren’t required to go get your free speech pass from City Hall that then allows you to go to approved places to discuss politics. What you are describing is not really a new and interesting way to check and enforce laws, secret police and dictators have been doing that for centuries. “If you don’t have anything to hide” is one of the worst things you could hear from law enforcement.