what distinguishes Car Control from Gun Control?

[MasterJedi]

(This thread began in the thread about the stabbing spree earlier today, and was split off. -TF)

This is terrible, of course, but imagine what he would have done with a gun?

But he didn't, so that's not really relevant, is it?  This seems pretty typical of the liberals of the forum.  Whenever a mass shooting occurs, you guys talk about how if we had much tighter gun control, stuff like this wouldn't happen, but when it's a non-gun incident, you still manage to turn the subject to guns.

The fact is, if violent people want to commit violent acts, they will, with or without access to a gun.

Perhaps if he had a gun, he would've been noticed and stopped sooner, and no violence would've occurred.  We don't know that, just like you don't know that it would've been worse had he had a gun.

What kind of weapon you use is relevant to how dangerous you are.  That's obvious, right?  A banana, grapefruit, sharpened stick, knife, sword, gun and weaponized anthrax all pose different levels of danger as weapons.

If I knew someone was going to commit a violent act against me, I hope they would use a banana and not a gun.  Right?

The most dangerous weapon I own is a car (I do own a gun) but the car is the most dangerous. I can drive up and down the street and into crowded public places and kill far more people then using a gun before I'm stopped so it's not just guns.

[bedstuy]

This is terrible, of course, but imagine what he would have done with a gun?

But he didn't, so that's not really relevant, is it?  This seems pretty typical of the liberals of the forum.  Whenever a mass shooting occurs, you guys talk about how if we had much tighter gun control, stuff like this wouldn't happen, but when it's a non-gun incident, you still manage to turn the subject to guns.

The fact is, if violent people want to commit violent acts, they will, with or without access to a gun.

Perhaps if he had a gun, he would've been noticed and stopped sooner, and no violence would've occurred.  We don't know that, just like you don't know that it would've been worse had he had a gun.

What kind of weapon you use is relevant to how dangerous you are.  That's obvious, right?  A banana, grapefruit, sharpened stick, knife, sword, gun and weaponized anthrax all pose different levels of danger as weapons.

If I knew someone was going to commit a violent act against me, I hope they would use a banana and not a gun.  Right?

The most dangerous weapon I own is a car (I do own a gun) but the car is the most dangerous. I can drive up and down the street and into crowded public places and kill far more people then using a gun before I'm stopped so it's not just guns.

I don't know if you're being serious.  Obviously guns are more dangerous in the relevant sense.

In terms of homicide, guns are by far the primary weapon in America.  Cars are hardly ever used in a homicide.  We're talking about the difference between 8,000 or 9,000 and a tiny number.  If cars were a more appropriate weapon for homicide, they would actually be used more than a handful of times per year.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

This is terrible, of course, but imagine what he would have done with a gun?

But he didn't, so that's not really relevant, is it?  This seems pretty typical of the liberals of the forum.  Whenever a mass shooting occurs, you guys talk about how if we had much tighter gun control, stuff like this wouldn't happen, but when it's a non-gun incident, you still manage to turn the subject to guns.

The fact is, if violent people want to commit violent acts, they will, with or without access to a gun.

Perhaps if he had a gun, he would've been noticed and stopped sooner, and no violence would've occurred.  We don't know that, just like you don't know that it would've been worse had he had a gun.

What kind of weapon you use is relevant to how dangerous you are.  That's obvious, right?  A banana, grapefruit, sharpened stick, knife, sword, gun and weaponized anthrax all pose different levels of danger as weapons.

If I knew someone was going to commit a violent act against me, I hope they would use a banana and not a gun.  Right?

The most dangerous weapon I own is a car (I do own a gun) but the car is the most dangerous. I can drive up and down the street and into crowded public places and kill far more people then using a gun before I'm stopped so it's not just guns.

I don't know if you're being serious.  Obviously guns are more dangerous in the relevant sense.

In terms of homicide, guns are by far the primary weapon in America.  Cars are hardly ever used in a homicide.  We're talking about the difference between 8,000 or 9,000 and a tiny number.  If cars were a more appropriate weapon for homicide, they would actually be used more than a handful of times per year.

Airplanes aren't used that often in terrorist attacks, but after 9/11 look at how high security measures have risen to protect against airplanes being used as weapons.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

This is terrible, of course, but imagine what he would have done with a gun?

But he didn't, so that's not really relevant, is it?  This seems pretty typical of the liberals of the forum.  Whenever a mass shooting occurs, you guys talk about how if we had much tighter gun control, stuff like this wouldn't happen, but when it's a non-gun incident, you still manage to turn the subject to guns.

The fact is, if violent people want to commit violent acts, they will, with or without access to a gun.

Perhaps if he had a gun, he would've been noticed and stopped sooner, and no violence would've occurred.  We don't know that, just like you don't know that it would've been worse had he had a gun.

What kind of weapon you use is relevant to how dangerous you are.  That's obvious, right?  A banana, grapefruit, sharpened stick, knife, sword, gun and weaponized anthrax all pose different levels of danger as weapons.

If I knew someone was going to commit a violent act against me, I hope they would use a banana and not a gun.  Right?

The most dangerous weapon I own is a car (I do own a gun) but the car is the most dangerous. I can drive up and down the street and into crowded public places and kill far more people then using a gun before I'm stopped so it's not just guns.

I don't know if you're being serious.  Obviously guns are more dangerous in the relevant sense.

In terms of homicide, guns are by far the primary weapon in America.  Cars are hardly ever used in a homicide.  We're talking about the difference between 8,000 or 9,000 and a tiny number.  If cars were a more appropriate weapon for homicide, they would actually be used more than a handful of times per year.

Airplanes aren't used that often in terrorist attacks, but after 9/11 look at how high security measures have risen to protect against airplanes being used as weapons.

So do you support gun control?

[bedstuy]

This is terrible, of course, but imagine what he would have done with a gun?

But he didn't, so that's not really relevant, is it?  This seems pretty typical of the liberals of the forum.  Whenever a mass shooting occurs, you guys talk about how if we had much tighter gun control, stuff like this wouldn't happen, but when it's a non-gun incident, you still manage to turn the subject to guns.

The fact is, if violent people want to commit violent acts, they will, with or without access to a gun.

Perhaps if he had a gun, he would've been noticed and stopped sooner, and no violence would've occurred.  We don't know that, just like you don't know that it would've been worse had he had a gun.

What kind of weapon you use is relevant to how dangerous you are.  That's obvious, right?  A banana, grapefruit, sharpened stick, knife, sword, gun and weaponized anthrax all pose different levels of danger as weapons.

If I knew someone was going to commit a violent act against me, I hope they would use a banana and not a gun.  Right?

The most dangerous weapon I own is a car (I do own a gun) but the car is the most dangerous. I can drive up and down the street and into crowded public places and kill far more people then using a gun before I'm stopped so it's not just guns.

I don't know if you're being serious.  Obviously guns are more dangerous in the relevant sense.

In terms of homicide, guns are by far the primary weapon in America.  Cars are hardly ever used in a homicide.  We're talking about the difference between 8,000 or 9,000 and a tiny number.  If cars were a more appropriate weapon for homicide, they would actually be used more than a handful of times per year.

Airplanes aren't used that often in terrorist attacks, but after 9/11 look at how high security measures have risen to protect against airplanes being used as weapons.

So what?  I don't know what your point is.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So do you support gun control?

I'm not making an argument for or against something here... just finding out where bedstuy stands.

This is terrible, of course, but imagine what he would have done with a gun?

But he didn't, so that's not really relevant, is it?  This seems pretty typical of the liberals of the forum.  Whenever a mass shooting occurs, you guys talk about how if we had much tighter gun control, stuff like this wouldn't happen, but when it's a non-gun incident, you still manage to turn the subject to guns.

The fact is, if violent people want to commit violent acts, they will, with or without access to a gun.

Perhaps if he had a gun, he would've been noticed and stopped sooner, and no violence would've occurred.  We don't know that, just like you don't know that it would've been worse had he had a gun.

What kind of weapon you use is relevant to how dangerous you are.  That's obvious, right?  A banana, grapefruit, sharpened stick, knife, sword, gun and weaponized anthrax all pose different levels of danger as weapons.

If I knew someone was going to commit a violent act against me, I hope they would use a banana and not a gun.  Right?

The most dangerous weapon I own is a car (I do own a gun) but the car is the most dangerous. I can drive up and down the street and into crowded public places and kill far more people then using a gun before I'm stopped so it's not just guns.

I don't know if you're being serious.  Obviously guns are more dangerous in the relevant sense.

In terms of homicide, guns are by far the primary weapon in America.  Cars are hardly ever used in a homicide.  We're talking about the difference between 8,000 or 9,000 and a tiny number.  If cars were a more appropriate weapon for homicide, they would actually be used more than a handful of times per year.

Airplanes aren't used that often in terrorist attacks, but after 9/11 look at how high security measures have risen to protect against airplanes being used as weapons.

So what?  I don't know what your point is.

Do you think the TSA restrictions that have been put in place are overly restrictive, or since airplanes are almost never used as homicidal weapons, should security around them be significantly relaxed?

[bedstuy]

So do you support gun control?

I'm not making an argument for or against something here... just finding out where bedstuy stands.

This is terrible, of course, but imagine what he would have done with a gun?

But he didn't, so that's not really relevant, is it?  This seems pretty typical of the liberals of the forum.  Whenever a mass shooting occurs, you guys talk about how if we had much tighter gun control, stuff like this wouldn't happen, but when it's a non-gun incident, you still manage to turn the subject to guns.

The fact is, if violent people want to commit violent acts, they will, with or without access to a gun.

Perhaps if he had a gun, he would've been noticed and stopped sooner, and no violence would've occurred.  We don't know that, just like you don't know that it would've been worse had he had a gun.

What kind of weapon you use is relevant to how dangerous you are.  That's obvious, right?  A banana, grapefruit, sharpened stick, knife, sword, gun and weaponized anthrax all pose different levels of danger as weapons.

If I knew someone was going to commit a violent act against me, I hope they would use a banana and not a gun.  Right?

The most dangerous weapon I own is a car (I do own a gun) but the car is the most dangerous. I can drive up and down the street and into crowded public places and kill far more people then using a gun before I'm stopped so it's not just guns.

I don't know if you're being serious.  Obviously guns are more dangerous in the relevant sense.

In terms of homicide, guns are by far the primary weapon in America.  Cars are hardly ever used in a homicide.  We're talking about the difference between 8,000 or 9,000 and a tiny number.  If cars were a more appropriate weapon for homicide, they would actually be used more than a handful of times per year.

Airplanes aren't used that often in terrorist attacks, but after 9/11 look at how high security measures have risen to protect against airplanes being used as weapons.

So what?  I don't know what your point is.

Do you think the TSA restrictions that have been put in place are overly restrictive, or since airplanes are almost never used as homicidal weapons, should security around them be significantly relaxed?

I think we should have safety measures for cars, airplanes and guns that are warranted in each case.  There are a number of factors you would consider in that calculation including the number of people killed by that weapon or vehicle.  It ends up being a cost-benefit analysis between the cost of the safety measure and the reduced risk of harm. 

What I take issue with is the argument that we need to regulate everything with a potential to kill in the same manner.  We don't heavily regulate knives and knives kill people, therefore we shouldn't regulate guns.  That's just silly.  By that logic, we don't regulate fists and you can punch someone to death, therefore, nuclear weapons should be legal for private citizens.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I think we should have safety measures for cars, airplanes and guns that are warranted in each case.  There are a number of factors you would consider in that calculation including the number of people killed by that weapon or vehicle.  It ends up being a cost-benefit analysis between the cost of the safety measure and the reduced risk of harm. 

What I take issue with is the argument that we need to regulate everything with a potential to kill in the same manner.  We don't heavily regulate knives and knives kill people, therefore we shouldn't regulate guns.  That's just silly.  By that logic, we don't regulate fists and you can punch someone to death, therefore, nuclear weapons should be legal for private citizens.

But we don't regulate cars at all for their owners' propensity to commit a violent act with their cars.

The issue here is not, "We don't heavily regulate __X__, so we shouldn't regulate guns."  The issue should be, "Why should we regulate guns?"  Where is the logic in the regulation of guns?  There has to be a reason for the regulation that starts somewhere broad and works its way into the narrow universe of guns.  If you don't do that, your regulations are admittedly arbitrary.

So what is the rationale for regulating guns, and what is your logic chain that shows that your proposed regulation isn't arbitrary?

[bedstuy]

I think we should have safety measures for cars, airplanes and guns that are warranted in each case.  There are a number of factors you would consider in that calculation including the number of people killed by that weapon or vehicle.  It ends up being a cost-benefit analysis between the cost of the safety measure and the reduced risk of harm. 

What I take issue with is the argument that we need to regulate everything with a potential to kill in the same manner.  We don't heavily regulate knives and knives kill people, therefore we shouldn't regulate guns.  That's just silly.  By that logic, we don't regulate fists and you can punch someone to death, therefore, nuclear weapons should be legal for private citizens.

But we don't regulate cars at all for their owners' propensity to commit a violent act with their cars.

Yes we do. 

The issue here is not, "We don't heavily regulate __X__, so we shouldn't regulate guns."  The issue should be, "Why should we regulate guns?"  Where is the logic in the regulation of guns?  There has to be a reason for the regulation that starts somewhere broad and works its way into the narrow universe of guns.  If you don't do that, your regulations are admittedly arbitrary.

So what is the rationale for regulating guns, and what is your logic chain that shows that your proposed regulation isn't arbitrary?

I'm not going to explain why we regulate guns.  It's basically because guns are inherently dangerous to human life and we regulate those types of items to promote public safety.  It's the same for explosives or dangerous chemicals.  How much we regulate guns is a legitimate debate but I don't see the purpose of me explaining the arguments for gun control. 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I think we should have safety measures for cars, airplanes and guns that are warranted in each case.  There are a number of factors you would consider in that calculation including the number of people killed by that weapon or vehicle.  It ends up being a cost-benefit analysis between the cost of the safety measure and the reduced risk of harm. 

What I take issue with is the argument that we need to regulate everything with a potential to kill in the same manner.  We don't heavily regulate knives and knives kill people, therefore we shouldn't regulate guns.  That's just silly.  By that logic, we don't regulate fists and you can punch someone to death, therefore, nuclear weapons should be legal for private citizens.

But we don't regulate cars at all for their owners' propensity to commit a violent act with their cars.

Yes we do. 

Show me that law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not going to explain why we regulate guns.  It's basically because guns are inherently dangerous to human life and we regulate those types of items to promote public safety.  It's the same for explosives or dangerous chemicals.  How much we regulate guns is a legitimate debate but I don't see the purpose of me explaining the arguments for gun control. 
[/quote]

Do we regulate everything that is inherently dangerous to human life?

[bedstuy]

I think we should have safety measures for cars, airplanes and guns that are warranted in each case.  There are a number of factors you would consider in that calculation including the number of people killed by that weapon or vehicle.  It ends up being a cost-benefit analysis between the cost of the safety measure and the reduced risk of harm. 

What I take issue with is the argument that we need to regulate everything with a potential to kill in the same manner.  We don't heavily regulate knives and knives kill people, therefore we shouldn't regulate guns.  That's just silly.  By that logic, we don't regulate fists and you can punch someone to death, therefore, nuclear weapons should be legal for private citizens.

But we don't regulate cars at all for their owners' propensity to commit a violent act with their cars.

Yes we do. 

Show me that law.

It's not just one law.  We have a regulatory scheme for motor vehicles.  But, for example here's a direct quote from NY vehicle and traffic law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do we regulate everything that is inherently dangerous to human life?

Pretty much.

[bgwah]

Gun control is one of those issues I don't care a lot about, or feel very strongly towards either way.

But you can definitely tell which side has a weaker argument based on the silly things they say.

[patrick1]

The guntards must suck at videos games--because clearly they all have knives enabled as their primary weapon....

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I split off the debate on Car Control into its own thread.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=190645.0

Seriously? I was bringing it around to gun control. You (A) didn't have to split it, and (B) didn't have to be condescending in doing so.

[publicunofficial]

I definitely think cars are dangerous. There should be a law saying only people who have proven they are responsible car owners can drive, and some form of license should also be required to operate one. And that license should be taken away if you prove to be irresponsible with it.


And there should also be some sort of registry of cars and car owners, and all sales kept record of by the government.



Should I take this further or have I made my point?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I think we should have safety measures for cars, airplanes and guns that are warranted in each case.  There are a number of factors you would consider in that calculation including the number of people killed by that weapon or vehicle.  It ends up being a cost-benefit analysis between the cost of the safety measure and the reduced risk of harm. 

What I take issue with is the argument that we need to regulate everything with a potential to kill in the same manner.  We don't heavily regulate knives and knives kill people, therefore we shouldn't regulate guns.  That's just silly.  By that logic, we don't regulate fists and you can punch someone to death, therefore, nuclear weapons should be legal for private citizens.

But we don't regulate cars at all for their owners' propensity to commit a violent act with their cars.

Yes we do. 

Show me that law.

It's not just one law.  We have a regulatory scheme for motor vehicles.  But, for example here's a direct quote from NY vehicle and traffic law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I used the wrong word. I should have said "increased risk", not propensity. For propensity, we have laws for guns and cars. For increased risk, it's only guns. That was the point I was trying to make.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pretty much.
[/quote]

So you concede that we don't regulateall things inherently dangerous to human life?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I split off the debate on Car Control into its own thread.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=190645.0

Seriously? I was bringing it around to gun control. You (A) didn't have to split it, and (B) didn't have to be condescending in doing so.

In case you hadn't noticed, this thread wasn't started as yet another debate on gun control, tho I was resigned to the inevitable discussion of the topic within this thread.  At least with gun control we can debate whether easier access to guns could have brought this incident to a better solution.  I don't think anyone would argue that the best way to handle the situation would have been to run over the kid with an SUV.

[bedstuy]

I think we should have safety measures for cars, airplanes and guns that are warranted in each case.  There are a number of factors you would consider in that calculation including the number of people killed by that weapon or vehicle.  It ends up being a cost-benefit analysis between the cost of the safety measure and the reduced risk of harm. 

What I take issue with is the argument that we need to regulate everything with a potential to kill in the same manner.  We don't heavily regulate knives and knives kill people, therefore we shouldn't regulate guns.  That's just silly.  By that logic, we don't regulate fists and you can punch someone to death, therefore, nuclear weapons should be legal for private citizens.

But we don't regulate cars at all for their owners' propensity to commit a violent act with their cars.

Yes we do. 

Show me that law.

It's not just one law.  We have a regulatory scheme for motor vehicles.  But, for example here's a direct quote from NY vehicle and traffic law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I used the wrong word. I should have said "increased risk", not propensity. For propensity, we have laws for guns and cars. For increased risk, it's only guns. That was the point I was trying to make.

What's the relevant distinction?  We try to mitigate the risks of both guns and cars.  If you try to walk into a government building, there's often a metal detector.  Similarly, there are often barriers and gates to prevent car bombings. 

Do we regulate everything that is inherently dangerous to human life?

Pretty much.

So you concede that we don't regulateall things inherently dangerous to human life?

I'm not trying to give you a precise test for what we regulate and what we don't.  But, danger to public safety is a good reason to regulate guns and a number of other things.  I don't understand what you're getting at.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

My point is that if you're not regulating all inherently dangerous things, then when you use that as your rationale for guns, your regulation is, at its heart, arbitrary.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I split off the debate on Car Control into its own thread.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=190645.0

Seriously? I was bringing it around to gun control. You (A) didn't have to split it, and (B) didn't have to be condescending in doing so.

In case you hadn't noticed, this thread wasn't started as yet another debate on gun control, tho I was resigned to the inevitable discussion of the topic within this thread.  At least with gun control we can debate whether easier access to guns could have brought this incident to a better solution.  I don't think anyone would argue that the best way to handle the situation would have been to run over the kid with an SUV.

MJ's point was analogy to gun control. If you knew that, then what was your rationale for splitting it while implicitly endorsing a debate on gun control to remain in this thread? If you didn't know that, well, we'll cross that bridge if we get there.

[bedstuy]

My point is that if you're not regulating all inherently dangerous things, then when you use that as your rationale for guns, your regulation is, at its heart, arbitrary.

No.  There isn't one reason why we regulate something, there are a number of detailed considerations for any specific issue.  It's a matter of degree and specific circumstances to whatever we're dealing with.   

But, is there any item that's as dangerous as a gun that is not heavily regulated by the government?  I would argue no, but maybe there's something I haven't thought of.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I split off the debate on Car Control into its own thread.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=190645.0

Seriously? I was bringing it around to gun control. You (A) didn't have to split it, and (B) didn't have to be condescending in doing so.

In case you hadn't noticed, this thread wasn't started as yet another debate on gun control, tho I was resigned to the inevitable discussion of the topic within this thread.  At least with gun control we can debate whether easier access to guns could have brought this incident to a better solution.  I don't think anyone would argue that the best way to handle the situation would have been to run over the kid with an SUV.

MJ's point was analogy to gun control. If you knew that, then what was your rationale for splitting it while implicitly endorsing a debate on gun control to remain in this thread? If you didn't know that, well, we'll cross that bridge if we get there.

Because you aren't you engaging in a debate on gun control in those posts I split off.  You took advantage of Jedi's point to go off on yet another one of your pedantic nitpicking episodes that is a principal reason [Inks] has come to be an all-purpose replacement for profanity here on the Forum.

In any case, be glad that I don't follow your example and infract you for publicly challenging a moderator decision.  For someone who keeps saying that people are supposed to question mod decisions via PM, it is extremely hypocritical of you to have done so publicly with nary a PM.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Well, I'm going to be nitpicky here, but it's only because you've made such an asinine post that I can't help but make some corrections.

Because you aren't you engaging in a debate on gun control in those posts I split off.

I beg to differ, and this post proves it:

My point is that if you're not regulating all inherently dangerous things, then when you use that as your rationale for guns, your regulation is, at its heart, arbitrary.

If you truly think that that thread isn't about gun control, then it's time to apply the Bushie Doctrine.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, MJ made an analogy to cars, and bedstuy unfairly attacked it, so I attempted to debunk that attack by pointing out that bedstuy's reasons for differentiating guns and cars was, at its heart, arbitrary, and thus the attack on MJ's post invalid.  Furthermore, the reason that "[Inks]" has become a replacement for profanity has nothing to do with my "pedantic nitpicking", but the fact that I don't tolerate profanity on my boards; however, it is ironic that you of all people would attack me on this post, because of all of the mods, you are the only one who has taken a stricter stance on profanity and vulgarity than I have.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't infract people for publicly challenging moderator decisions.  You can disagree with my actions, but don't blatantly lie about what I do.  That's a pretty nasty thing to do, and I would expect better character out of our moderators.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't have that policy.  My policy is that I won't discuss infractions in public, because one of the inherent necessities of discussing infractions in public is to discuss the details or exact quotes of the post that was infracted, which would defeat the point of infracting and removing the offending posts, since they would be reposted (either directly or via paraphrase) during a public appeal.  Furthermore, I don't go out and publicly post my rationale, which invites questions and criticism.  You not only chose to publicly post why you split off the thread, which would, in the least, invite public questioning of why you did so, but you took it a step further--you intentionally changed the topic of what the discussion was and distorted it into something that you quite clearly knew it was not (I'm assuming that you knew the reason MJ made that post; if not, like I said above, it's time to invoke the Bushie Doctrine, because if you don't understand MJ's point, you lack basic comprehension skills and thus the capability of being a good moderator), and by doing so, you engaged in trolling--the very thing you are supposed to oppose as a mod.  For that, you not only deserve to be questioned, but you deserve to be called out.

So in sum, don't use your mod powers to troll, and if you do, expect to be both questioned and called out for it.  If you are going to use your mod powers to troll, at least do it subtly and don't broadcast the fact that your'e doing that, because in doing so, you both invite and deserve public criticism.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

My point is that if you're not regulating all inherently dangerous things, then when you use that as your rationale for guns, your regulation is, at its heart, arbitrary.

No.  There isn't one reason why we regulate something, there are a number of detailed considerations for any specific issue.  It's a matter of degree and specific circumstances to whatever we're dealing with.   

But, is there any item that's as dangerous as a gun that is not heavily regulated by the government?  I would argue no, but maybe there's something I haven't thought of.

Again, you're working backwards here.  Your'e coming from a conclusion that guns should be regulated and then working back from that point and attempting to rationalize it; this is proven by the fact that you can't come up with a coherent standard for what should be regulated and when.

So your criticism of MasterJedi's point is invalid.  I'm not advocating for less gun control; I'm not advocating for more gun control.  I'm advocating for logic in the way we regulate things instead of people going around saying, "blah blah blah random statistics; guns are bad.  Let's regulate guns!" which is essentially what you're doing when you start with your conclusion and work backwards to justify the regulations you argue should be put in place.

[bedstuy]

My point is that if you're not regulating all inherently dangerous things, then when you use that as your rationale for guns, your regulation is, at its heart, arbitrary.

No.  There isn't one reason why we regulate something, there are a number of detailed considerations for any specific issue.  It's a matter of degree and specific circumstances to whatever we're dealing with.   

But, is there any item that's as dangerous as a gun that is not heavily regulated by the government?  I would argue no, but maybe there's something I haven't thought of.

Again, you're working backwards here.  Your'e coming from a conclusion that guns should be regulated and then working back from that point and attempting to rationalize it; this is proven by the fact that you can't come up with a coherent standard for what should be regulated and when.

So your criticism of MasterJedi's point is invalid.  I'm not advocating for less gun control; I'm not advocating for more gun control.  I'm advocating for logic in the way we regulate things instead of people going around saying, "blah blah blah random statistics; guns are bad.  Let's regulate guns!" which is essentially what you're doing when you start with your conclusion and work backwards to justify the regulations you argue should be put in place.

MasterJedi's point was that cars are more dangerous weapons than guns (what about light-sabers?).  I think that's a laughable point that's hardly worth debating.  A car is not an especially useful weapon at all.  It's not designed to be a weapon, you can't carry it around, you can conceal it in your pants, you can immediately deploy it in a violent situation, you can easily injure yourself by crashing your car in an attempt to run someone over, etc..  There are scores of reasons that a car isn't a good weapon and I think the evidence is fairly clear.  Cars are dangerous as a means of transportation, but they aren't good weapons as demonstrated by the fact that there are orders of magnitude more gun homicides than car homicides. 

Your whole point I've never understood.  Why am I supposed to come up with a unified theory of all regulation that justifies gun control?  What would that prove?  I think everyone agrees that we need to regulate guns, trains, planes and automobiles.  And, I think I gave you a valid reason to regulate all of this stuff, public safety.  We don't want people to die or be injured by cars or guns or wild pumas so we pass government regulations to make the public safer.