- cross-posted to:
- news@beehaw.org
- world@lemmy.world
- canada@lemmy.ca
- vancouver@lemmy.ca
- cross-posted to:
- news@beehaw.org
- world@lemmy.world
- canada@lemmy.ca
- vancouver@lemmy.ca
You must log in or register to comment.
police are describing as a car-ramming attack
Call it what it is please.
Terrorism.
Terrorism implies some kind of political motivation. They’ve already ruled that out.
They are saying that attacker has mental health issues. He may not hate Philippinos specifically, but hating people in general is apparently not terrorism.
Please look up the word “terrorism” in a dictionary.
I hate cars as much as the next person here, but we know next to nothing about this person other than a single sentence statement from the police. And also charges haven’t been laid yet because the investigation is still ongoing and likely hasn’t been sent to the crown counsel yet.
The point about charges is fair. Custody is more important than the process/speed of listing all charges. I’m just not liking the setup for an insanity defense
Cars are weapons and should be regulated as such.
So you’re advocating a regression to 19th century mental asylums? Discarding humans as “hopeless” cases with no attempt to reintegration? That’s a bit sick.
Do you think Adolf Hitler could be rehabilitated?
Maybe through empathy, or the power of prayer, a mosquito can be convinced to live a vegan lifestyle?
Ah yes, the mentally ill are literally Hitler. Or literally insects. What a well-rounded person’s opinion.
I don’t think that’s the point.
Either you believe anyone could be rehabilitated, including Hitler. Or alternatively, you don’t believe that, but that is an admission that there exists some line which if crossed means a person becomes irredeemable.
Then the question becomes: where is that line for you?
Ok but Hitler was literally mentally ill. Could he have been rehabilitated? With the methods available at the time? The methods of today? Would that be just? Safe? How much do you trust the science?
It’s not some crazy hypothetical. There are thousands of people walking around right now who have that same capacity and drive to do evil.
No. Just that where gun licensing/purchase criteria apply to cars and/or SUVs.
Wow. So, basically anyone with any kind of criminal record would be prohibited from getting a driver’s license? I’m pretty sure that would require at least a few human rights violations.
There’s no “human right to drive”. It’s why you need to get a license in the first place.
@ChairmanMeow @Archangel1313 There are already lots of things that keep people from getting driver’s licenses, from disabilities they have no control over like visual impairment or epilepsy to relatively minor and not directly safety-related civil matters like failure to pay child support or overdue court fees. A reasonable society would do a lot more to protect innocent lives from having people drive when they’ve demonstrated they can’t do so safely regardless of the reason.
There is the basic human right that says once a person has served their time for a crime, they should be allowed to reintegrate back into society again. That means restoring their ability to access basic services that everyone else relies on…including a driver’s license. Or do you think they should be penalized permanently?
Well that’s A) not a basic human right (though I generally agree with it) but mostly B) a drivers license is not available to everyone. There are plenty of crimes that can see you get your license revoked entirely, potentially permanently.
If you’ve exhibited clear mental volatility, a tendency for mass violence or straight-up potential for terrorist activities, why should society trust you with a car? Perhaps experts should first determine the risk of you driving before allowing you to obtain a license.
Being allowed to drive is a privilege, not a right. It’s fine to extend that privilege to those who are deemed fit to have it, so then it should also be fine to deny it to those who are deemed a danger.
Contrary to what car makers would like you believe the right to drive is not a basic human right. In fact if anything designing a society solely for cars is what ignores the rights of many who naturally can’t drive (e.g. for health reasons).
Except that being able to drive is often required to obtain, as well as hold down a job. So, it’s not a matter of the license being a human right, it’s what taking away someone’s license would do to their ability to survive.
@Archangel1313 @humanspiral Honestly, I am sorry in your country driving is a presequisite of living, but driving an SUV is very much not a human right
In a better world, yes. In this world, capitalism won the fight for well-designed cities so now we are in a bind where people that shouldn’t drive “have” to be able to, and a driver’s license is just a suggestion. Cheap cars are abundant and easily available so unless a person is in jail, they can’t practically be prevented from driving.
Whatever sensible conditions to prevent people from owning firearms, should apply to even more deadly weapon. They should still be able to have access to a motorcycle, or the vehicle class that is Citroen Ami, which is a 25mph maximum speed car classified as somewhat close to a bicycle. License still needed, but 14 year olds can access.
Where are these diving licenses for cars? I know a few vehicles I’d like to throw in a lake.
Also, what’s a violently mentally ill doing driving? Someone take the keys away from the DSM
