We already know that reducing the speed limit from 65 to 55 mph would save lives... but
WHY ON EARTH ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT GUNS? Driving kills many more people than guns ever thought of. We already know that reducing the speed limit from 65 to 55 mph would save lives but we also understand that we the people would rather take the risk and have faster speed limits. It's called freedom to take risks and drive faster rather than living in a nanny state that tells you how to live, all for your own good. GET OUT OF OUR LIVES!
This is the same with guns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We know that stealing everyone's freedoms to have guns might save a few lives but our freedoms to own guns to protect ourselves, etc. far out way big Government stealing our freedoms and rights to have guns.
Stricter gun laws have proven to not work in cities where they have been impemented. This is a no brainer but of course Liberals could care less about the facts. They know that the only way Government can control the people is to first take their guns.
You continue to argue that is is hypocritical to argue one thing when another, completely separate situation exists. That is not hypocrisy.
In regards to reducing the speed limit, yes, sure I would support that in areas that are particularly dangerous. I'd need to see some more details (i.e. a study showing the effectiveness of reducing the speed limit in regards to accidents).
However, as you said, this is a separate issue from guns since this regards accidents and not intentional killings. The primary goal of gun control is to make it harder for people who will use guns to hurt people to get guns. There is no relation to the speed limit. At all.
I largely agree with your analysis, but there is something of a valid point being made rather incoherently by FromWithin. Both scenarios involves competing rights claims, with both speeding and guns being weighed against safety and life. If one argues that it is valid to restrict gun rights to protect life and well-being then it arguably follows that for their philosophy to be valid they must also think it is valid to reduce the speed limit to save lives.
Of course, one could readily counter with a more nuanced evaluation of the actual cost-benefit comparison (i.e. how many lives risked/saved versus extent of encroachment on right, etc.) but at face the critique may very well be valid. I do not think the OP has done nearly enough leg work to make the case a strong one, and it is certainly a false assumption that all gun control advocates oppose lowering the speed limit... but I think it is a bit too easy to dismiss the criticism altogether.
Thorn Clarified Banned