Seems like a lot of attackers are using vehicles to mow down crowds as of late...

[Jonny Appleseed]

*cough*self-driving cars*cough*mandatory automated braking*cough*humans shouldn't have complete control over 2 tons of speeding metal*cough*

This stuff would prevent more deaths (accidental or otherwise) than outright banning guns.

[gopiscrap]

1. lets do both

[Iggo]

12. Sure, why not.

If it's a good idea for something that's NOT designed to kill people, it oughta be a spectacular idea for something that IS.

I'm for it!

[snooper2]

2. Like they would have a self driving car where the driver could never take control

[Jonny Appleseed]

9. Automated braking already works and ships with a lot of new cars

It brakes if it sees a person, brakes if it detects collisions...

[Amishman]

3. That would mean removing all existing vehicles from the road

Probably even more difficult politically, culturally, and ecnomically than removing all 350-400 million guns from the country.

Plus making all vehicles autodrive only (with no manual override) would put the potential mayhem of a hack as an insane risk. Some evil bastard finds a flaw in Toyota's software and suddenly every Camry is uncontrollably accelerating in a straight line with the passengers trapped inside. Or worse, driven remotely into crowds.

Terrible idea all around

[Jonny Appleseed]

8. Retrofitting

[Marengo]

11. Who pays for retrofitting?

[Jonny Appleseed]

14. Idk

It's like 100 years away from feasibility anyways. We could make a dent with the military budget.

[snooper2]

13. You are going to retrofit a 1994 GMC Blazer for drive by wire?

times a couple hundred million more vehicles? Not to mention all the other systems and computers, or lack of?

[Jonny Appleseed]

15. Technology is wild

If I explained the iPhone to you in 2000 you'd be like "dafuq?", mark my words, in a decade we'll be able to retrofit for a fraction of the msrp (granted that we start investing in this technology seriously).

[Demsrule86]

4. Self driving cars would stop before hitting crowds while cars with drivers

can put the pedal to the metal.

[Calculating]

5. I recall predicting this tactic way back in gun control debates

I suggested that if attackers couldn't get a gun, they would just use a car to mow down crowds of innocent people. And no, the answer is NOT to ban cars, or guns, or pointy sticks. The answer is far more complicated and involves finding ways to actually prevent these attacks from happening by identifying radical individuals within society.

[Jonny Appleseed]

10. As world populations grow that becomes increasingly impossible

Unless you implement something like the system from Psycho Pass, which would take us to cyberpunk dystopia.
Making murder tools harder to commit murder with, and less accessible is the most non-intrusive solution.

[NWCorona]

6. I can't see how automation would stop anything but an impulse attack

There's always a work around. Accidental deaths is a different story.

[lame54]

7. a gun doesn't get me to work

[gilbert sullivan]

16. If someone can craft a law that will actually ensure

guns won't get into the hands of criminals and terrorists, I'll support it but I have no idea what sort of language will magically persuade such people to suddenly start obeying the law.

[gilbert sullivan]

17. And a car can't defend your family

from home invading criminals.

[lame54]

18. I work five days a week...

Never once needed a gun

[gilbert sullivan]

19. As do I, and I buy insurance but have never actually needed it.

Like my gun, I would much rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

[Averagegrunt]

20. Benes!!!

They are also fun to shoot...

[gilbert sullivan]

23. Of course, plus they make it fairly easy to fill my freezer with delicious venison instead of

hormone and antibiotic laced factory beef , pork etc. which come pristinely wrapped in cellophane containers. Of course one can kill a deer with the car but that makes a really awful mess...of the car, and the meat.

[lame54]

21. What insurance are you talking about

[gilbert sullivan]

22. Any and all kinds.

I don't understand your question.

[lame54]

24. If you're financing a house you HAVE to have insurance...

if you drive a car you HAVE to have insurance

you can choose not to own a house

you can choose to not own a car (but that's not very realistic)

I've gone my whole life choosing not to own a gun and I will continue with that choice

[gilbert sullivan]

25. Well, you certainly have that right...I will be among the first to defend it absolutely.

There are people who would gladly deny -my- right to bear arms.

And there are ways to bypass the insurance requirements for encumbered property such as a bonded escrow account (but that's not very realistic for most people.)

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

29. There are places with sufficiently good public transportation

that not owning a car is a realistic choice.

My first seven years that I lived in Alexandria, VA, I didn't own a car. And that was before the Metro opened.

Personally, if I ever move again, it will most likely be to a city with excellent public transport so I can give up owning a car.

[Wounded Bear]

26. Hackers...*cough* *cough* nt

[woodsprite]

27. Some states are trying to say that it's not against the law

if you mow down protestors.

[L. Coyote]

28. cough*define a lot*cough

maybe focus on a much larger probel which has a real solution.

Link to tweet

[KittyWampus]

30. Self driving cares will use systems easily hacked to do the same.

[underpants]

31. In Europe yes - no easy access to guns

BLAM! BLAM!