zlacker

>>david9+(OP)
I have become something of a statist over the years and I apparently annoy a whole lot of people, when I argue for not upsetting the status quo much further. Needless to say, this obviously is not a good thing if you share that perspective with me. This is actual political violence. And it has little to do with guns. If someone really wanted to get to the guy, one would. The issue is further societal deterioration in basic standards.

Let me reiterate. Violence is not the answer for one reason and one reason only. Once it starts and everyone joins, it will be very, very hard to stop.

edit: be

>>iugtmk+0e
Yes - makes me think of the assassination of Shinzo Abe.

The gunman made his own gun, in a country with ultra-strict gun laws. The Unabomber made his own bombs. The Seattle mall Islamist knife attacker refused to stay down after being shot multiple times.

My takeaway: political terrorists are particularly motivated. Secondly, gun laws slow them down but don't stop them.

>>dogwea+gm
Risk mitigation; statistics and funnels. It's all just trying to reduce the likelihood and severity of bad outcomes, not preventing them altogether. Same story as seatbelts and stoplights.

>>brooks+Wp
> Same story as seatbelts and stoplights

I don't believe this is the same thing.

One is an adversarial problem where a living thinking being is evil and trying to attack you.

In traffic, most people are just trying to get somewhere, and then accidents happen.

>>gretch+Aw
It's only an accident when taken out of the bigger picture. There is a reason it's often called car collision (or similar nowadays): Because it's a statistical inevitability when taken in aggregate.

>>bmicra+oy
You focused on the word "accident" but the emphasis is on the concept of being "adversarial".

Do you think traffic lights help if someone goes out with the explicit intent to kill others via their car?