Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Hmmm

You have two items. Properly handled, both items are safe and effective for the jobs they do. They both have the potential for accidents, that can cause serious harm, up to and including fatalities. They can both, in the wrong hands, be used to deliberately cause harm, although one has been designed for that purpose, and one hasn't.

It would make sense, then, that both things should be carefully monitored, right? That people should have to prove the ability to use them safely, understand the rules surrounding them, and have their ownership and use of the items tracked, and have stiff penalties for misuse?

8 comments:

Zataod said...

If the users of these items have enough political clout, they can insure the items aren't tracked or regulated.

rgmb said...

If I understand you correctly, it seems that there may be some product liability issues with both and legal negligence as well if used improperly. Some states like to regulate such things and others don't. I suppose it depends on your state.

Possibly I'm being thick and just don't get it, am I missing something?

Eleri Hamilton said...

Would it help if I told you that one item is regulated across the board, in all states, as far as testing for safe use, and monitoring the use of?

Perhaps if I mentioned that the item being regulated so heavily is not the one designed to cause harm?

rgmb said...

ok, so firearms could be considered not to be regulated as heavily as they should, thus item #1 meant to cause harm could be guns.

item #2, more heavily regulated but not meant to cause harm, but could, I'll vote for medical marijuana.


close?

Zataod said...

I'm curious to hear what you have in mind. I suspect there may be several items that fall into these categories. What is carefully regulated is not always something that makes a lot of sense.

Eleri Hamilton said...

The two items I had in mind were guns and automobiles.

Finding unbiased statistics on auto-related deaths is much easier than finding statistics on gun-related deaths, making a direct comparison more than difficult.

However, you rarely hear anyone protesting safety features, laws to ensure safe useage, and penalties for unsafe use with cars. We're behind on punishing people for killing with cars, and keeping cars out of the controll of people who have proven themselves unsafe, but we're getting there.

It seems though, that even suggesting that sort of things for guns creates a firestorm of controversy, and guns are, arguably, designed to kill things.

Zataod said...

And don't forget that many guns really have the sole purpose of killing humans. Sure, there are many guns that are for hunting and sport, but many that only serve to kill people.

Jonathan Melusky said...

Guns & autos are so far apart in form and function that of course they don't have similar laws to regulate them. A gun people can carry in their pocket hidden. A car cannot be hidden, everyone knows you have one. Most cars get used everyday or close to everyday. Guns almost get never used or just for target practice or hunting. Auto thefts are going up and up and violent crime is still going down, at least in the USA. If gun crime goes down like it has, are the regulations working ?