Sounds like all that focus on regulation and inspections is to enforce safety and sport rule compliance. The presumption is that if you use your car correctly no one should get hurt. If an accident should happen, they want to minimize the injuries. Also, people shouldn't have an unfair advantage.PUCKER wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:39 am Just speaking from the perspective of a racecar driver/owner here (and I totally get your comparison, please don't think I'm knocking you, because I most certainly am not!)...most race tracks (of any decent reputation) will not let you on track without a car inspection. Race sanctioning bodies (SCCA, Trans Am, NASCAR, IMSA, F1, etc) require annual safety inspections of both car / safety equipment and then there's more: in Trans Am, much like NASCAR, the car has to go through Tech every race weekend *before* you get on track - that is more about ride height, wheelbase, wing angle, body template, etc. than safety - to make sure that you are in spec.
I don't think much of that applies to gun fights. When used correctly, the gun is supposed to cause the fear of injury and actual damage. There are plenty of guidelines for gun fights, but the rules are pretty slim like imminence, proportionality, reasonableness, etc. Month long background checks and bans on scary accessories can't prevent future misuse.
The comparison of cars vs guns misses the critical distinction of purpose and intent. The podcast Guns Guide to Liberals episode 1 (starts at minute 39) takes a good stab at making this argument.
acronym 3/31/2021 9:29 AM