So then let's just get rid of all the stop signs.

[calimary]

Because people don't always stop for them. Law-doesn't-work, don't-need-it, unnecessary, bad-guys-won't-stop-anyway, blah-blah-blah.

I live on a reckless street. People speed. Residents, gardeners, visitors, contractors, you name it. There's total disregard of speed limits, or safety, or common consideration for the neighbors here. They speed like crazed demons. We have had our side mirrors sheered off, our parked cars side-swiped, nannies pushing baby strollers have to dive into the bushes to escape oncoming racers. The offenders are always going too fast for anybody to get a license plate number. They're never caught. I've had to replace TWO side mirrors, myself, because nobody stopped to apologize or exchange insurance information to fix my car that they just scraped up. We have old people living on our street who don't move fast. We have dog walkers and babysitters. We have children on roller skates and skateboards and scooters, chasing bouncing balls out into the street, bicycle-riders - and a whole bunch of other people who literally take their lives into their hands simply attempting to cross the street. It's freakin' RIDICULOUS.

It's a canyon road, with a pretty straight shot and no significant curves, from the big main street from which it stems - all the way to the top of the dead end, some two miles up. Until recently there was ONE and only one stop sign way up at the 1.8-mile mark, and all of us farther down have been plagued by the speeders, nonstop. (Indeed. Pardon the pun). FINALLY, after years of lobbying, petitioning, bothering our city council person, bothering the municipal traffic control people, bothering the local cops to come out and write speeding tickets, we FINALLY got one in our section of the road that many people mistakenly view as the Indianapolis Motor Speedway.

And guess what? They still don't stop. Knowing this, and realizing how many scofflaws there are, what's the point in having stop signs - if people will just ignore them or roll through them? They don't work, 'eh? Those stop signs don't prevent those reckless drivers and speeders from speeding, and they don't make those drivers come to a stop.

HOWEVER, they DO slow down. They slow down enough - even if just a little bit - that the little old lady a block farther down, or the nanny with the 2-year-old twins, or the mom with her five-year-old and their dog, and others like them, actually do have an extra second or two - to get out of the way, and up onto the sidewalk to safety. IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. Even just that little bitty second or two.

Now, to apply the logic that the gun nuts love - "more laws won't work," "people will still be able to get guns," "you can't stop people who want to get a gun..." "useless, useless," blah-blah-blah...

Well, okay. Understood. Human nature being what it is, indeed we will NOT stop everyone who's hellbent on getting a gun - any more than erecting a stop sign on a speed-road will make speeders come to a complete stop. We will NOT stop every bad guy or nutcase from getting a gun. BUT WE CAN - AND WILL - SLOW THEM DOWN. WE CAN SLOW DOWN THE FLOOD OF WANTON GUN SALES. We can make it even just a TINY bit harder to get a gun, or more complicated, or more problematic, or more inconvenient, to get a gun. We can increase the discouragement factor. And maybe last year, if there were ten mass shootings around the country, perhaps this year, there'll be eight or nine. Maybe instead of 3000-some-odd people who get killed by gun violence PER MONTH in this country (it was described as the equivalent of a 9/11 EVERY MONTH), perhaps it'll be 2500 next month. Or 2000. Maybe ten more children will be alive. Maybe five more families will not have to bury a loved one a week before Christmas. Maybe even ONE OR TWO fewer mothers and fathers will cry themselves to sleep every night for the rest of their lives. And maybe if some nut cases are STILL hellbent on mayhem, they'll turn to a knife or something else, like that perpetrator did at Lone Star College yesterday. And yeah, there were victims. People were injured. But no one died. And it wasn't dozens of people mowed down in the space of a few heartbeats, either.

Guys - SERIOUSLY. Let's take a page from the anti-choice crowd. They're incredibly sneaky, shrewd, and resolute. Once Roe v Wade came to be, they began, slowly, steadily, and systematically, to try to slow it down, chip away at it around the edges, weaken it, block it, hobble it, IN ANY WAY THEY COULD, to put an impediment or other complication or difficulty in its path. Since they couldn't stop it or get rid of it outright, they opted for the erosion strategy. Kill it with a thousand little bitty cuts. Pick away at it year after year after year, while also wearing down the opposition because they never stop and they never give up and they never go away. And 30 years or so later, look at what they've been able to accomplish! Yeah, the right to choose is still on the books - kind of. But so many little holes have been poked in it by now that in many states it wouldn't stay afloat for two seconds, and for all intents and purposes, it's pretty much undone. In more and more states Roe v Wade has been whittled down to a mere technicality.

GUYS - WE NEED TO TAKE THAT APPROACH AS WELL - against wanton access to ANY AND ALL guns including mass-murder weapons. I don't care WHAT the NRA talking points are. THESE are the REAL Weapons of Mass Destruction. And they do NOT belong in civilian hands. And we the vast majority must no longer be held hostage to the bullying of the NRA and a dwindling number of crazed paranoiacs.

[IdaBriggs]

1. Proud to kick and recommend this *EXTREMELY* well written post.

[calimary]

2. Thank you, IdaBriggs!

I cross-posted it in Politics 2013, too. Most of my threads sink pretty fast. I don't think this one should.

[Bay Boy]

3. If we follow your analogy...

...maybe if law enforcement set up speed traps in your neighborhood they could get drivers to slow down and stop at stop signs. Or should we make getting access to cars more difficult?

[calimary]

7. Oh we've already done that. Tried it. It only worked for the hour or so the speed trap was there.

That would be a viable option IF there were enough cops. Which there aren't.

Go ahead and nay-say. Assume from the beginning it won't work and it's no use and blah-blah-blah. I accept that, human nature being what it is, speeders won't come to a complete stop, and people sitting on the sidelines will nay-say and go to the default position of discouragement. So the answer is - might as well just do nothing. Correct?

Well, NOT FOR ME. If I can't make the speeders and reckless drivers in my neighborhood all come to a complete stop, at least I can work to make sure they're forced at least to SLOW DOWN. And it does make a difference.

[robbob]

39. What YOU need are speed bumps

Going over a speed bump at 30+ MPH is NOT something you want to do to your shiny new car. Much as I hate 'em as a driver (I'm always missing the sign warning that there is one coming up and then going over them too fast....) they sure do work.



<on edit> opps! should have read the whole thread. I guess you DO have speed bumps but they aren't big enough. The ones in Montreal force you to slow down or risk damage to your car, and sometimes there are as many as 3 or 4 in ONE block.

[Sheepshank]

17. Cars require every driver to have a license

and renew those licenses, sometimes with some testing means. Random license/road blocks & checks are not unhead of.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Couldn't have said it better and...

"learn from the enemy" is a tip we should remember more often.

[Bay Boy]

5. This is what gun control advocates...

...have always been about. No one in a position to make it happen has ever suggested suggested repealing the 2nd amendment. Just the death by a thousand cuts as you described it. The NRA is consistently criticized for being against the most reasonable gun control laws proposed, like universal background checks (that I support). But their strategy is obviously to dig their heels in and deny any new law.

Guys - SERIOUSLY. Let's take a page from the anti-choice crowd. They're incredibly sneaky, shrewd, and resolute. Once Roe v Wade came to be, they began, slowly, steadily, and systematically, to try to slow it down, chip away at it around the edges, weaken it, block it, hobble it, IN ANY WAY THEY COULD, to put an impediment or other complication or difficulty in its path. Since they couldn't stop it or get rid of it outright, they opted for the erosion strategy. Kill it with a thousand little bitty cuts. Pick away at it year after year after year, while also wearing down the opposition because they never stop and they never give up and they never go away. And 30 years or so later, look at what they've been able to accomplish! Yeah, the right to choose is still on the books - kind of. But so many little holes have been poked in it by now that in many states it wouldn't stay afloat for two seconds, and for all intents and purposes, it's pretty much undone. In more and more states Roe v Wade has been whittled down to a mere technicality.

[calimary]

10. Well, if their side can do it, I think OUR side should do it too.

[Bay Boy]

25. I'm just saying this is why you shouldn't be too shocked

that the NRA fights every gun control proposal that comes along, regardless of how minor or reasonable it may be.

[calimary]

49. Yep, you're absolutely correct. And that does NOT mean we should EVER back down.

Don't care. I. DO. NOT. CARE. I don't care what the NRA says. Irrelevant. WE should proceed with OUR agenda. And meet every push from them with a VERY strong collective push-back. Let's not be afraid of, or intimidated by, the NRA. They seem to be more of a paper tiger than anything else. They don't have that much clout. And they've been allowed to thrive in a virtual vacuum. WHEN have we had this kind of pushback against them before now? They've never faced a unified majority opposition before, and they've been able to spin this fantasy tapestry about how invincible they supposedly are. But their record last November was a big fat LOSER. A strong decisive majority of their own members favor all the things we do: background checks that actually mean something, banning mow-down machines, banning the big 30-round clips, and more. Even their own are on OUR side.

I wouldn't let ANYTHING they said deter me. And I won't be intimidated by those louts who misread and misinterpret and pervert the Constitution and the Second Amendment - which is NOT some untouchable, inviolable, unmodifiable sacrament, okay? I will NOT be imtimidated OR have my safety held hostage by a small and shrinking minority of cowardly bullies and paranoiacs.

They're an empty barrel that just makes a lot of noise. And the momentum is on OUR side. As are the ghosts of those 20 children. AND their surviving, still-grieving parents. Those parents certainly aren't giving up, or allowing themselves to be silenced or shouted down. And we shouldn't either!!!!! The NRA's problem is that it's never faced an ongoing opposition like this. Usually everybody forgets and life returns to normal and no one cares that much. NOT THIS TIME. They're not used to having to play defense. Let's make sure to keep them there.

Remember all the warmongers who started coming out of the woodwork - saying "9/11 changes everything!!!!" WELL - SO BE IT. WE have one of those now, too. We'd be fools not to use it.

"SANDY HOOK CHANGES EVERYTHING!!!!"

GAME ON.

[raccoon]

6. Off to greatest with you! nt

[calimary]

8. Thank you, raccoon!

[One_Life_To_Give]

9. Speed Bumps or Chicanes

The tool you want to slow them down isn't another stop sign. And while stronger law enforcement will frequently stop most of the problem. For those really tough cases the tool you want is the Speed Bump and/or the Chicane.

[calimary]

14. We have those as well! Speed bumps for sure.

Heck, those are all over the neighborhood! There are speed bumps and humps and all that stuff - on almost every street in our neighborhood.

Same result. They don't stop or impede the speeders. Ask anybody with an SUV or big wheels - those speed bumps are just more fun to speed over! It doesn't stop the speeders. I am a repeated witness to that fact. I see it on a daily basis.

Chicanes would be good because they present a far greater obstacle. But you have to get the city in on that one. The city isn't listening in cases like that. It took YEARS to get the stop signs we did. Btw - I looked it up on Wikipedia. They're called "traffic calming."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicane

I like it!

At least - AT LEAST - the speeders have to slow down.

[One_Life_To_Give]

18. Your bumps are too small

We had some by the Middle School that had to slow the firetruck to 5-10mph. At 20 likely would have snapped an axel.

[calimary]

22. Yeah, that is true, too. But those are all we're allowed.

There are some I've seen that are rather abrupt. In some parking lots and other places. And yeah, you HAVE to slow down, even in one of those big-ass-wheels cars and trucks. But in our general neighborhood, the only speed bumps/humps have a very gentle grade. They are completely ineffective.

[hack89]

11. So laws up to but not including bans will not work?

So if we do not do this:

And they do NOT belong in civilian hands

then other laws are just a waste of time?

[calimary]

19. Not at all.

It's degrees of "work" or "not work." If I understand your question, that is (and I'm not completely sure that I do).

I think we should do like the anti-choicers do. If we can't get rid of all the guns, why can't we at least slow down the easy access part?

With the stop signs - AT LEAST THEY SLOW DOWN!!!

One thing regarding the point you make - other laws ARE good. And they'd be helpful and a lot more effective, too. IF they're enforced. The problem is - those who insist on no laws at all, no impediments to full-on, wanton, anything-goes, anything-you-damn-well-feel-like access to guns - they also tend to be working in other directions: to weaken the laws, cut back the funding that allows for officers and agents and case workers and enforcement people to enforce the laws. How nice that we can't afford as many beat cops. That'll mean less of 'em out on the road catching speeders. You just watch. Those whose default is - "there are already enough laws/too many laws on the books and why don't we just enforce what there is?" You just watch. With one side of their mouths they're saying this like the law-and-order enthusiasts they portray themselves to be. On the other side of their mouths they're working nonstop to weaken those laws, choke off their funding, disable them, hamstring them with amendments and fine print, complicate them so they become unwieldly and unworkable, make them harder to enforce, or make them otherwise worthless. They don't want ANY restrictions. THAT'S what we're forced to deal with.

[hack89]

28. I agree - that is why universal background checks are so important. nt

[calimary]

31. TOTALLY!!!! They are critically important, and considering the nature of them,

it is no exaggeration or hysterical hyperbole to say that it's a matter of life and death. 'Cause it IS.

Heck, I'd go so far as to offer further inducements NOT to sell a gun across the backyard fence or something - to a friend, neighbor, somebody you presumably know. Or even to lend it to them. If THEY turn around and do something murderous with it - it should trace back to YOU, and YOU should share in the liability and the criminality.

I like deterrents. I like 'em a LOT. It's part of a multi-pronged approach that we do need to get something effective done about this problem. This is a START. There should be forbiddings - and there should be motivationals. Imagine: how many FEWER straw sales or gun exchanges might there be if the unsuspecting neighbor thinks nothing of selling or lending a gun to one of the dudes from elsewhere in the neighborhood - and then finds himself/herself facing some pretty severe penalties? There would be a dampening effect. Absolutely.

And, again, it might be mild or even temporary. But just imagine - maybe instead of 20 kids getting mowed down by a young nutcase who stole his mom's mass-murder machine and accessories - it might be 12 kids. Or ten. Or, hell, even three to five. THAT MANY FEWER parents left with gaping holes in their hearts for the rest of their lives. THAT MANY FEWER burials of those little coffins. THAT MANY FEWER families in the worst imaginable anguish - FOR LIFE.

Isn't it worth it? Isn't it a worthwhile quest - to try to slow the madness down or put obstacles in its path, so there will be fewer victims and less collateral damage?

Hey, let's make it a right-to-life issue, 'eh?

Or how 'bout - WHY do your Second Amendment rights trump MY First Amendment right - to life and all else? WHY do your Second Amendment rights to own mow-down machines and massacre machines and weapons of mass destruction outweigh MY right to life and safety and the freedom from being mowed down by some civilian with access to his/her own hand-held WMDs and all the ammo clips they can eat? Why does their Second Amendment right to suppress any discussion, any research on gun violence, any studies on statistics of violent crime and gun usage override MY First Amendment right to free speech? We can't even TALK about this in the Senate because of your Second Amendment right to silence us??? EXCUSE ME?????

I think we ought to start putting it that way. And we ought to get creative about it. This is a multi-pronged problem that demands a multi-pronged approach. It needs to be confronted in MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY different ways. Both pushing in the direction we want, and pulling in the direction we want. We MUST start doing that. The opposition has done that, for years, going after protecting their rights to their "Second Amendment remedies" in legions of ways and strategies and approaches. They come at it from all angles. Inside and outside. Left and right. Up and down. Upside down, backwards, inside-out, sideways, and zig-zagged. Top and bottom, and all angles in between. We have to do that, too. We haven't been. We've been kind of monotone and monolithic. Going after only one thing. One single campaign at a time. We have to think of ALL THINGS. ALL WAYS. ALL APPROACHES! And at the same time!

My sparring teacher at the local karate school encouraged us all to "keep 'em busy." He liked the constant barrage of jabbing. Jab! Jab! Jab! Just keep jabbing. Keep coming at 'em. Keep 'em busy. He told of one tournament in which one of the two sparring opponents had a broken arm. All he could do was just keep jabbing and jabbing and jabbing with the one good arm. And he wound up winning. NEVER let up, NEVER let the opponent get a break, NEVER let 'em catch their breath. Jabs kept coming from all sides, all directions, overhead, underneath, hooks, upper cuts, you name it. He wore the opponent down. The opponent couldn't keep up, and couldn't anticipate what was coming next - or from where. And it worked. Keep 'em busy!

Look what the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has done - there are laws in states that are coming from ALL directions, against voting rights, immigrants rights, women's rights, workplace rights, reproductive rights, and they're keeping us busy fighting on a thousand fronts - so many it's hard to keep track and once you think you've got it on one issue, you have but to turn around and there are 13 or 14 other cancers metastasizing all around you, in areas where it never even occurred to you to be on guard.

WE NEED TO DO THAT!!!!! Keep THEM busy for a change, with all these confrontations coming at them from every direction at all times. Keep 'em busy. Never EVER let up. Never give up. Keep 'em busy.

[Dash87]

41. I think the OP is addressing the hyperbole that

if even one criminal has an AR-15 with a 100-round drum, for instance, that any gun law to prevent that is a total failure that should have never been passed.

Gun laws only try to lessen the number of tragedies and make them harder to commit - they'll never prevent all gun tragedies.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

12. The less AR-15s and high capacity mags out there, the better.

Even if there are still existing ones around.

The less armed people with questionable qualifications or motives, the better.

Nothing won't stop anything 100%. But it will help.

[hack89]

15. The present number in the hands of the public must not represent a threat to public safety

Last edited Wed Apr 10, 2013, 03:32 PM - Edit history (1)

because otherwise Senator Feinstein and the President would have proposed that possession of them be made illegal. Surely they would not propose a law that kept million of weapons of mass murder in circulation?

[calimary]

32. I'm sure the officials and families in Connecticut were certain the law of averages was on

their side. As that one dad said on "60 Minutes" on Sunday night - you never think it's gonna happen to you. It's always somebody else, somebody else's school, somebody else's neighborhood, somebody else's street, somebody else's movie theater, somebody else's mall, somebody else's town. Well, if we don't do something (actually A LOT of somethings), sooner or later, it WILL happen again. But this time it'll be YOUR kid's school, YOUR neighborhood, YOUR street, YOUR movie theater, YOUR mall, YOUR town.

Frankly, I feel as though an AR-15 or bushmaster in ANY civilian's hands is a threat to public safety.

[hack89]

33. Would you make their possession illegal?

are there any other types of guns you feel that strongly about?

[calimary]

40. Well, if calimary was king, I'd say yes.

Last edited Thu Apr 11, 2013, 10:10 PM - Edit history (1)

But calimary likes to be rawther draconian sometimes. And, for sure, much of that is unrealistic and unworkable. Hell, if calimary was king, you'd have a certain despicable extended dubya/cheney cabal already in LEG IRONS and solitary confinement for the rest of their detestable days!!!!!! Following GUARANTEED GUILTY VERDICTS in their war crimes tribunals.

OBVIOUSLY, ideas like these are, realistically speaking, probably not doable. Those are pipe dreams only. And believe me, I am VERY grateful that calimary has enough skeletons in her closet and a big-enough mouth that she'd make one HORRIBLY lousy candidate for anything!!!!

What we need are practical applications that can be put to use in actual reality. Stuff that's doable. Baby steps. But not just one.

What can we do - if we indeed CANNOT have it the way someone like calimary would like? What is actually possible and doable? How an we whittle away at the problem, if we can't make them all gone? It is completely understood that making something illegal won't stop it. But at least it's a start. It might slow things down. It's a small step. And it might be a deterrent, or more of a deterrent. It might have made it harder for the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter to get her bushmaster. Which, mind you, WAS used BY him, ON her, FIRST. I think that mom, with an emotionally unstable family member living at home, had NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER having guns like that in her house. With all those clips, big and small - and he only took the big ones with him to mow down all those kids at Sandy Hook. Background checks should include - "is there someone with emotional/mental/psychological issues or instability living with you in your home?" Such a person would summarily be ruled out as far as ANY firearms possession. I don't care whether she liked target practice and sport shooting and other supposedly "innocent" gun-related activity. Doesn't matter. How'd having all those guns in her home work out for her, anyway? Did they make her any safer? And she was a law abiding citizen. Did she get a happily-ever-after with those guns, and all her problems and insecurities and fears assuaged? How'd that work out for her?

I don't like the speeding on my street. I lobbied, called my councilwoman, even buttonholed her face-to-face when I spotted her walking in the neighborhood on her way to getting her hair done. I called traffic control downtown. Left multiple messages and emails EVERYWHERE. I did everything I could think of. Nothing worked. I started complaining to the neighbors. Turns out ONE of the neighbors had a way in. And she finally got us that stop sign. And no, the speeders don't stop. BUT THEY DO SLOW DOWN. And even if by only a measly one or two miles per hour, that is STILL time to give some little old lady or nanny pushing a stroller or woman walking her dog or dad with his kids on their hard-to-control scooters and roller skates (who often dart out suddenly and unexpectedly into the street) an extra second or two to get safely out of the way.

Or should we just throw up your hands and take out all the stop signs in every neighborhood - because absolutely every single neighbor or visitor is not willing even to come to one of those slow, slide-on-through "California stops," at one? What's the other option? Well, so then we do nothing? NO. That "option" is NO option AT ALL.

[Bay Boy]

51. If people answered this one honestly...

"is there someone with emotional/mental/psychological issues or instability living with you in your home?" Such a person would summarily be ruled out as far as ANY firearms

That would really cut down on sales.

[calimary]

54. Well, I for one would NOT shed tears if the gun manufacturing industry lost some income.

I like the whole approach of wallstreetforchange.com

OR http://advocate.nyc.gov/guns/home

They seem to be the same thing.

This is one beast I wouldn't mind starving.

[Paul E Ester]

13. This actually works pretty well in Vietnam

[Bay Boy]

55. That's funny n/t

[napkinz]

16. kick!

[HereSince1628]

20. They call such intersections TRAFFIC CIRCLES...very popular

among those trying to build road systems that save fuel.

[freshwest]

21. The solution where I live are speed bumps. The ones designed to really make them slow down.

Not even comfortable for the driver who is going very slowly. Yes, they do impede everyone - absolutely.

If a big vehicle goes over them at anything other than a near stop, they toss around everything within the cab and cargo area, which will cause them some damage. Harsh, I know.

That's what's needed with gun laws. More inconvenience, cost, just like so many other hoops people jump through in life and live through.

Because what those inconveniences such as steep, pointed, high speed bumps protect - life, limb, property and the maintenance of civlized life - is worth the inconvenience.

Those who argue being impeded from quick gratification or easily being able to buy, sell or possess guns are arguing against life and civilization. They believe in the law of the jungle. Those days are past.

[calimary]

23. Agreed. I just wish we could have those on our street.

That option is not available to us. The speed bumps we have are really just a joke.

So it's stop signs.

[freshwest]

27. My neighborhood kept insisting until it was done. It doesn't always take a death to do so.

Some neighborhoods have gone to the trouble of paying for contractors to install these things, but the city can be made to pay for it as we do here. They are not a problem for the people who live there to turn into their own driveways in peace, and feel that their children, pets and elderly are safe.

But my area is very big on regulation. I live on a busy street that could get out of control, but we have a 25-mph speed limit here, very wide side walks that are handicap accessible, buttons to push to stop traffic to allow pedestrians to walk across the street at locations other than red lights, bike paths, cameras to catch violators and police going up and down the street almost all of the time.

We're not oppressed, we're getting our money's worth, fire service, community policing, etc. Organize the neighbors and keep contacting your municipality to get this done. It can happen and it won't harm the people using your area as a speedway - they don't care about you, and they might learn some respect. It will improve the quality of life for everyone.

[calimary]

57. That's what finally happened for us, and how we got those stop signs on our street.

We didn't give up. I didn't give up. I found someone else in the neighborhood who wanted to help and had the proper contacts downtown.

Persistence works. If you can't get the front door to open, look for another way in. The back door, a side window, a basement grate, whatever.

Same thing with Congress. Look what happened in the Senate today - where that supposedly invincible and inevitable rand paul filibuster stunt was just SURE to happen. And it fell apart like a soggy cookie.

[freshwest]

58. All very true. But I think the speed bumps would help your community since they run the stop signs.

Put some hurt on the speeders. Better them and their vehicles than people. Thanks for your reply.

[calimary]

59. I know the speed bumps you're describing - there are some, shall we say, ruthless ones.

We're not allowed to have bumps like that on our street, but I've been in parking lots and such where they have been installed. Those speed bumps are damn serious. They do NOT kid around.

I appreciate your comment. People who've pointed this out are making a very good point, indeed. And in the meantime, I remain grateful for small favors. I'll take the stop sign on my street - even though all it can do is slow down the speeders. BIG improvement over how it used to be (she said, remembering a neighbor's cat that got hit by a speeding car and killed - the kids were in tears for that whole day)!

[freshwest]

60. I know... Alternatively, how about a sign saying they're being filmed at the Stop sign? Install

something dangling from a line across the street or street light. It does have an effect if they're paying attention.

It should not have to be a death to get the city to change from a Stop sign to a Stop light, either. Although that's been done here if there is one.

A Stop light is much more noticeable and more likely to get compliance.

Too bad about them not allowing a bump as we described. I've seen them on streets here. Several streets have reduced speed, traffic circles that you must slow to get past an intersection, planted with bushes, etc.

We also have streets with warnings on them like 'children at play' or 'deaf child lives here' that makes people think. It's good to get them to think about the people that live in an area, that they do respect their neighbors and they are intruding on the street where people live, not a speedway.

Those circles and bumps - they make them pay attention. Sorry about the cat there. Could have be prevented. We have some streets with speed limits as low as 10 to 15 mph. Since there are a lot of people of all ages and conditions here.

[TheMadMonk]

62. And Emergency services hate them. /nt

[Dr. Strange]

24. Only cops should be driving on streets.

[HereSince1628]

26. yes, but they routinely ignore things like 'coming to a complete stop'.

of course they COULD warn us with their noise-makers

[IDemo]

29. We had a state cop living up the street years ago

Who would routinely do 60 to 70mph (it's a 20 speed limit) on his way home every night, until the neighbor lady who's a court clerk turned him in.

[nationoflaws]

30. Limit vehicle speeds

An analogous response to the current gun debate would be to limit speed capability with GPS to the maximum permissible speed on that road for all new cars. This would prevent new cars from being as dangerous. We of course would allow law enforcement and other government agencies to have vehicles which have not been modified so they may respond to emergencies and other needs. We could limit availability of fuel and also raise the price to discourage people with existing vehicles from speeding, since higher speeds use more fuel. Also, we should ban high horsepower engines that can be put into new cars which would give them enhanced capabilities to exceed speed limits. Any car having two features which are considered "race car" features, such as racing stripes and loud exhaust would result in a ban on that particular vehicle, unless modified to a non-threatening "sedan" state by the owner.

Let the fun begin....

Another thought-

Limit the tank capacity of a vehicle to only enough fuel to get up to a minimum (say 55mph) speed before you have to fill up again. You can a carry extra gas cans with you so you can fill up repeatedly, or drive slower to extend the range of the fuel...

[Zoeisright]

37. You win!

For the stupidest post of the year!

Listen, sparky, cars have other uses. Guns do not. The analogy you are so pitifully trying to make is illogical. (Illogical: Lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning: "an illogical fear".) And ignorant.

[nationoflaws]

42. I'm not arguing with some measures of gun control

I'm only trying to extract an analogous argument for the OP. I realize cars have other uses, and I am not banning cars. I am only limiting the capability of cars for the public in order to help the OP with his speeder problem. I did go overboard with the fuel in small quantities just to make a point, but the main argument is clear -No one need a car that goes faster than the existing speed limit.
My GPS knows the speed limit of the road I am on. Tie that to the car's computer, and you can regulate the car's maximum speed to the road you are on. vary similar to "no one needs a high capacity weapon".
Also, the two features comment was a jab at GC arguments for feature that are meaningless to the firepower of the gun..

Can't a guy have any fun here????

[mac56]

45. Must be a new definition of "fun" that ain't in my dictionary yet.

Have you checked out our Gungeon? Lots of fun to be had there.

"No one needs a car that goes faster than the existing speed limit."

Um, yes, yes, there are circumstances where the intended non-destructive use of a motor vehicle may require you to drive faster than the speed limit. To get out of immediate harm, for example, or to transport someone to an emergency room. One does not need a Ferrari to do so, however. How does that fit into your analogous argument?

[nationoflaws]

48. Fun for me includes playing Devil's advocate to make sure an argument is sound.

Plus the OP was not in the Gungeon, so I'm just playing along.

However, back to your question:

Um, yes, yes, there are circumstances where the intended non-destructive use of a motor vehicle may require you to drive faster than the speed limit. To get out of immediate harm, for example, or to transport someone to an emergency room. One does not need a Ferrari to do so, however. How does that fit into your analogous argument?

The OP was complaining about people speeding on his street and endangering the neighborhood residents. I proposed that we limit the speed of new vehicles to not be allowed to go over that limit. You counter that sometimes it may be necessary to go faster in order to protect one's self and others in danger, in spite of the fact that if you do so on the OP's street, you are increasing the risk to his neighbors.
In the gun argument, people complain about gun crazies shooting up the neighborhoods on shooting sprees. They propose to limit the capacity of new weapons to not allow high bullet capacity in order to prevent this. Gun advocates (and you by your argument) counter that sometimes it may be necessary to have higher capacity in order to protect one's self or others in danger, in spite of higher risk to others by doing so.

Sounds like the same analogy to me.

Are you saying that you will argue it is necessary to speed down the OP's street if you are trying to get to the hospital, while the old people and children on roller skates take their chances?

[mac56]

50. You must be a stone cold blast at parties.

Under normal circumstances one does not need a Ferrari to drive someone quickly to the hospital. Under normal circumstances one does not need a high bullet capacity weapon to protect one's home from an intruder. How many gun crazies do you fear you will need to deal with at once?! Dude, they're just not that organized.

Are you saying that you will argue it is necessary to speed down the OP's street if you are trying to get to the hospital, while the old people and children on roller skates take their chances?

If I needed to get someone to a hospital quickly, Calimary's residential street doesn't seem to be the route I'd take. So, no.

[nationoflaws]

52. I was referring to the OP's street as a reference. I don't know where you live...

If I needed to get someone to a hospital quickly, Calimary's residential street doesn't seem to be the route I'd take. So, no.

Since you don't follow the lead here, let me try again:
Are you saying you would break speeding laws, usually intended to protect people from danger, in order to get to the hospital, thus placing residents, citizens, etc in more danger than if you followed the law?

Also, I did not say a Ferarri was necessary to drive quickly. However, I will ask you this:

What should be the maximum capable speed for a consumer vehicle?
65mph?
80mph?
100mph?
150mph?
200mph?
250mph?

Any one of these will get you to the hospital pretty quickly.

[mac56]

53. Um, Calimary IS the OP. So I DID answer your question.

Not going to go after the "maximum capable speed" red herring.

Are you saying you would break speeding laws, usually intended to protect people from danger, in order to get to the hospital, thus placing residents, citizens, etc in more danger than if you followed the law?

Yes. Why? Mitigating circumstances. An unfortunate but understandable risk under the circumstances. But as you point out I don't need a Ferrari to do so. My Pontiac would do the trick.

It's been fun playing, but I'm done now. Give my regards to the Nation O' Flaws.

[mac56]

38. Nation O' Flaws?

Must be where your false-equivalency argument came from.

[The Straight Story]

34. So we need laws against owning cars? Or just laws to punish those who misuse them?

With gun laws we already have the same thing. You can own one but if you don't use it in the prescribed way you go to jail, get a fine etc.

[SunSeeker]

36. There are "cars" you can't own: tanks; there should be "guns" you can't own: ARs & 10+bullet mags.

I consider the AR-15 the equivalent of a tank in you car & gun analogy, they are both instruments of war. A civilian has no business owning one.

[nationoflaws]

43. You can own a tank

Not cheap, and you can't drive them on the highway, but you can buy them.
Goes for most military equipment...lot's of surplus out there.
Proper analogies would be:

Tank - 50cal machine gun
Ferarri - AR15
Ford focus - .22cal rifle
bicycle - BB gun

[SunSeeker]

64. I hope you're enjoying your pizza. nt

[The Straight Story]

47. Tell me what you think an AR does that is different from other guns (nt)

[SunSeeker]

63. A 22 revolver can't blast 26 people to pieces in a few minutes like an AR can.

Nor can a single action hunting rifle. I've already gone through that with the gungeoneers on these threads:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022538569
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022544513
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101786812

I know the game you're playing. I don't have time for it. You don't give a shit what I "think" anyway.

[onenote]

46. We regulate speeding, drunk driving, etc. even though people often speed or drive drunk without

hurting anyone.

The extreme anti-gun control crowd (i.e., those who oppose any and all measures that would impose any additional "burden" on the ownership or use of guns (note the word "any&quot like to make the point with respect to particular measures that they won't be 100 percent effective and/or that they will impose burdens on the law abiding.

To go back to the OP and some of the responses it has generated. Some folks have suggested that the answer isn't more stop signs, it speed bumps. But the response of the extreme anti-gun control crowd would be the same to both (if they approached regulating driving the way they approach regulating guns): putting up speed bumps or more stop signs inconvenience folks that drive the legal speed limit (since they would have to stop more often and or slow below the legal limit when going over speed bumps) and they wouldn't stop those who are hell bent on speeding.

[abelenkpe]

35. K&R

[Cleita]

44. I once lived on a block where there were no street signs of any kind.

According to the law you were supposed to slow up at the intersection and the first person to reach it would have the right of way. Well, hardly anyone bothered to do that, so we had bad and bloody accidents one and more times a month. It took many us a couple of years of petitioning City Hall and the street department to finally put stop signs on one of the streets giving the cross street the right of way. Just that alone ended the blood bath. We need laws and regulations to make our society function. Street signs are just one of the many things we need. We need basic, common sense gun regulation, period.

[calimary]

61. Excellent post.

[Kablooie]

56. Get rid of stop signs because law breakers will go through them anyway.

Only law abiding citizens will stop at stop signs, they won't stop the people that break the law by going through the sign so they aren't necessary.