First I said “next time” so I will let you get away with it, but my statement was about speeding, so the title of this thread does not related at all to what I said. You may quote me of course but next time open the thread under your name please and I would appreciate if you make it clear why you do so (when/if quoting me so that I don’t wrongly assume bad intentions by you. ).
That’s cool, too, but it wasn’t immediately obvious to me that you wanted to treat this as an entirely different topic (or if you still did relate it to the death penalty discussion).
I didn’t expect any response since it was a ‘factual statement’ (right word?), without giving a position or the intention to involve myself into the part of the discussion about speeding (I didn’t even acknowledge that speeding had it’s place in the discussion about capital punishment).
Quickly touching on the death penalty but considering the new arguments:
Relaxing the laws about speed limits does not result in a higher death rate, as such there is no ‘disadvantage’ (for the lack of a better word).
Having lax gun laws is already a ‘disadvantage’, in the US it could help to reduce accidental and intentional killings (the latter called murder).
So looking back at the other discussion a law about capital punishment (death penality) is made to allow people to be killed, a law which allows for higher speeds (e.g. no speed limit) is not made for this purpose and I guess neither is the 2nd amendment. As such it hardly relates, only by stretching and touching on consequences like e.g. missuse (then resulting in death) it does.
But it’s cool if we are clear that this is a topic on it’s own, so let’s continue below …
Guns don’t kill - gunning does
Same thing, right?[/quote]
Disagree. The only similarity is the structure of two sentences.
(see below)
I have a problem to put this into the right words, so please bare with me:
“Speed” is merely a measure of distance vs. time, it’s not a man-made thing or something I can touch, hence speed itself is not something made for killing or that can be directly used for killing - you can’t take speed and hit someone over the head with it to kill him/her.
As well it’s not possible to seize the existence of speed, you may impose a speed limit but people can still choose to ignore/violate it and speed(‘ing’) - which is far easier to do than obtaining a gun for the purpose of gunning in a place with strict laws.
Furthermore the law which imposes ‘no speed limit’ does not automatically allow speeding, after all you can also speed even there is a speed limit of 25km/h only.
So ‘Speed limit’ does not look like a solution to the problem of speeding, but preventing people from getting a gun does look like a good idea or reducing gunning.
Cars (gotta bring it back here since they are the tool and thus compare better to guns than speed), are usually obtained for other purposes and can be used for speeding, but that’s mostly not the reason why people buy one. Guns on the other hand are mostly purchased for the purpose of gunning, hence no argument along the line of “so let’s limit the cars, then people can’t speed”).
Guns were invented for killing, nothing else, even though they are also used for other things; there are those exceptions, like sport shooting as mentioned by Sandman or e.g. self-defense by policemen, but I take it we are clear and relate the above arguments to the respective situations - and none of the exceptions would be affected by tougher gun laws.
In fact I have been a sport-shooter myself for years but in a country with strict laws, as strict that it’s very difficult to impossible to aquire and own a real gun *), there are even restrictions on .22 and air-rifle/pistols (as to storage, transport and use etc.) or sport-guns.
However it was still possible to conduct my hobby but with the side effect that possible missuse is restrained (right word?) when compared to e.g. the US with it’s lax laws, where people own guns not only for sport-shooting but for ‘so-called self-defense purposes’ and in excessive amounts. As well, judging by the reports about accidental killings (e.g. during weapons cleaning or because the weapon and amonition weren’t stored safely and someone not authorized, possibly kids, ‘finding’ and using them) I have reason to believe that there are either no clear regulations on the possession, storage and handling or people are not fully capable.
:!: Appreciate if anyone could clarify the issue of storage, i.e. are there any requirements and what are those in the US?
In comparision, if you manage to be allowed to own a handgun (the amount being limited) in Germany you have to follow clear guidelines on handling, storage and transportation (the latter not allowed in all cases) and you can be sure that the authorities will check and any violation has strict and tough consequences.
Buy a soft-air pistol here in Taiwan (available as a toy) and be prepared for a hefty fine or 6 month jail if you bring it into Germany.
In short I am saying that neither speed nor speeding intents to kill, but allowing people to have guns results in a higher risk and implies an intent of using it for the purpose of killing; ‘gunning’ takes it even further, i.e. the use of the gun (= gunning) against another person is mostly done with the intention to kill.
*) ‘Real gun’ like in big caliber & guns not for the purpose of sport shooting or collection