I was looking at fatalities per miles traveled (given that is the measure of how much we use cars). It seems the trend line was dropping pretty nicely before the 70's, so I am not sure how much all the safety requirements have actually changed things. Seat belts and air bags might account for the delta from the 70's, but I am not sure it isn't the same reasons we see a reduction from the 30s. Looking at what happened after a change is good, but it needs to be in the context of what was happening before.
> What remains notable about the gun debate in the US, is that we're not arguing about "what to do" so much as arguing about whether to study the problem.
You must be watching some other debate, I consider new legislation being introduced "what to do".
> "I am not sure how much all the safety requirements have actually changed things"
Well, absent digging into details that neither of us have, that's going to come down to a philosophical position: do you think that trends will continue indefinitely in the absence of any additional efforts to sustain them?
> "You must be watching some other debate, I consider new legislation being introduced "what to do"."
I'm watching the debate where practical political reality says every legislative proposal, other than "study the problem", is trivially DOA due the lobbying power of the NRA and Congress' makeup and existing obstructionist strategy.
This thread is how I wish all discussions were on this site. Disagreement that is just polite enough, tons of facts on both sides, both sides with reasonable opinions founded in reality. Thanks roc and protomyth.
> Well, absent digging into details that neither of us have, that's going to come down to a philosophical position: do you think that trends will continue indefinitely in the absence of any additional efforts to sustain them?
I would expect continued downward trend, but it cannot go down indefinitely (limit on flukes). I expect a upswing in the first couple of years of automated vehicles just because new realities tend to make for bad times (see the 1930's) then another sharp downward trend.
> I'm watching the debate where practical political reality says every legislative proposal, other than "study the problem", is trivially DOA due the lobbying power of the NRA and Congress' makeup and existing obstructionist strategy.
Just as I hope the EFF and ACLU will be obstructionist in defending some of the other amendments. The NRA is not powerful by itself. It is powerful because of the number of members. I dearly wish we had an NRA for the 5th amendment, but it seems we are getting beat there very badly. I would say the Senate has been more obstructionist due to their failure at passing a budget. They should remember which house is supposed to be preeminent in that regard.
> What remains notable about the gun debate in the US, is that we're not arguing about "what to do" so much as arguing about whether to study the problem.
You must be watching some other debate, I consider new legislation being introduced "what to do".