OT: Reporter and camerman shot on live tv in Virginia

[ruhudsonfan]

Drivel? From the guy with 30,000 posts hitting refresh every minute. Pretty ironic.

And yes, the Iraqi's are really holding off the full mite of the US military. Thanks genius for pointing that out. They're giving us all we can handle, all right.

The insurgency in Iraq "held off" a smoothed out average of 160,000 combat troops on the ground in Iraq at the high point.

You're not seriously making this argument are you?

We would decimate 20x20 city block neighborhoods in Iraq and they would be overrun with insurgents within 10 days.

You're out of your depth here.

Your entire premise is ridiculous for 2 reasons.

1. American troops would never execute those unlawful orders.

2. Even if they did, guys running around the desert in sheets and camels are keeping themajority of the world's militaries totally stymied for going on 4 years now (ISIS and its precursors). To suggest the money, firepower, brainpower and numbers of the american public, couldn't do the same is dumb. Additionally, American terrain would make an insurgent battle against the military a very scary proposition for the military. They wouldn't be shooting fish in a barrel on sand.

 

[theRU]

But people who don't shoot don't EVER want to take even a minimum amount of time to educate themselves on what they are so very quick to suggest should be banned.

Best part of your post... Same way we all debate legislation without reading any of it....Heck our politicians didnt even read the obamacare laws.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

4Real: You missed my point. What if in the future weapon technology -- specifically firearm/bullet technology -- advances to where lethality is exponentially more devastating than even today?

I only ask because that's exactly what happened since 2A was originally conceived.

Ammunition has improved in terms of ballistics. But the fundamental functioning of the "rifle" and certainly the shotgun, is almost identical the last 100+ years.

Your thesis is flawed.

If you want me to state that I'm for certain items being military only, I'm fine with that. I would imagine that nuclear "bullets" would be in that category. Just like incendiary rounds are now. I have no problem with that. I don't think individuals need grenades or RPGs either.

There are plenty of items that often get lumped into these debates that I'm also fine with limiting. Those are:

night Vision equipment
other optics
body armor
Secure Comms

I don't think the latest generation of those items are protected under 2A arguments.

 

[miketd1]

Ammunition has improved in terms of ballistics. But the fundamental functioning of the "rifle" and certainly the shotgun, is almost identical the last 100+ years.

Your thesis is flawed.

If you want me to state that I'm for certain items being military only, I'm fine with that. I would imagine that nuclear "bullets" would be in that category. Just like incendiary rounds are now. I have no problem with that. I don't think individuals need grenades or RPGs either.

There are plenty of items that often get lumped into these debates that I'm also fine with limiting. Those are:

night Vision equipment
other optics
body armor
Secure Comms

I don't think the latest generation of those items are protected under 2A arguments.

Forget all the inherent human rights gunk that has clogged up the feed. I think everyone can agree with what you wrote (bolded). The issue is where to draw that line.

By the way, for the record (not to you directly), I don't care if folks want guns. I'm perfectly content with the laws as they currently are.

 

[rurichdog]

I'm saying we aren't free to do whatever the hell we want to. I agree to abide by the laws of this country, which are tend to be restrictive by design. I have no desire to drive 150MPH on the turnpike, but I'm glad there are laws restricting those who want to. That's what I'm saying.

Notice how they restrict the activity (driving above a safe speed limit) and not limiting the tool (you can still buy a Ferrari). How come I can't own an AR-15 so long as I don't kill anyone with it, according to your opinion?

 

[ruhudsonfan]

Forget all the inherent human rights gunk that has clogged up the feed. I think everyone can agree with what you wrote (bolded). The issue is where to draw that line.

By the way, for the record (not to you directly), I don't care if folks want guns. I'm perfectly content with the laws as they currently are.

I think reasonable gun owners (and yes, there are unreasonable gun owners) are fine with the following:

1. Background checks

2. Limiting weapons, ammunition and accessories that could reasonably called "military" grade. That, however, would not include the AR-15 platform or magazine capacity.

Where you would have some traction, but also some pushback, would be:

1. Restricting dealings between individuals (this, more than anything is the gun show loophole).

Total Non-starters:

1. National registry.

2. Banning ANYTHING that is currently legal--due to size, shape, coloration, magazine capacity or caliber.

 

[miketd1]

Because killing is against the law.

 

[RUsSKii]

I'm saying we aren't free to do whatever the hell we want to. I agree to abide by the laws of this country, which are tend to be restrictive by design. I have no desire to drive 150MPH on the turnpike, but I'm glad there are laws restricting those who want to. That's what I'm saying.

All laws should not only be grounded in sound principle/logic, but also must not infringe on established individual rights.

In order to purchase a firearm, I am okay with undergoing a full background and mental health check, since those in principle weed out convicted felons and those otherwise unfit to have a deadly weapon. However, requiring me to give any sort of justifiable reason for possessing a firearm, as well as long wait periods and an arduous permitting process, infringes on the aforementioned 2nd Amendment rights. Wanting to 'ban assault weapons' is ridiculous, because those mentioning this have no idea what those even constitute, and referring about tanks/nuclear weapons/rocket launchers is irrelevant since they were never addressed by the Constitution and have significantly different mechanics/physics relative to basic firearms.

As far as your analogy goes, I agree that 150 mph on the NJ Turnpike is not a safe design speed for the vast majority of vehicles and their human drivers in all but the most empty/dry conditions. However, the currently posted 55/65 mph limits are significantly below the safe design speed of that highway in most conditions, which supports my argument that certain laws can become unnecessarily restrictive. Unfortunately, the right to travel at what I deem to be a safe speed based on conditions/traffic volume is not enumerated in the constitution, but rather subject to individual states' laws. I'm not interested in the same thing occurring with guns.

 

[rurichdog]

Because killing is against the law.

Speeding is against the law, so why should anyone be allowed to buy a car built solely for the purpose of driving fast? My guns haven't killed anyone, why do you want to take them away?

 

[miketd1]

Rich: I don't want to take away your guns. I'm merely standing by what I originally wrote in this thread: Giving up certain freedoms comes with the territory of being part of a civilized society. I don't know why I received some of the responses I did -- is there something about that statement that is incorrect? (not addressed to you directly, rich)

 

[miketd1]

Speeding is against the law, so why should anyone be allowed to buy a car built solely for the purpose of driving fast? My guns haven't killed anyone, why do you want to take them away?

By the way, you can argue that a car's primary purpose is to get from A to B, regardless of speed.

 

[RUsSKii]

Rich: I don't want to take away your guns. I'm merely standing by what I originally wrote in this thread: Giving up certain freedoms comes with the territory of being part of a civilized society. I don't know why I received some of the responses I did -- is there something about that statement that is incorrect? (not addressed to you directly, rich)

Yes that's incorrect, because you're implying that those freedoms would be given up entirely, rather than restricted/limited. Any talk about giving up basic freedoms such as the one being discussed in this thread entirely is a nonstarter.

 

[RUsSKii]

By the way, you can argue that a car's primary purpose is to get from A to B, regardless of speed.

And you can argue that a gun's primary purpose is to hunt, as well as adequately protect the user or others from bodily harm regardless of their size/physical capability. Your point?

 

[RCTrooper]

No they wouldn't have.

I don't argue that every tragedy would be carried out with a different weapon. Just like you can't reasonably argue that any of them could be prevented.

What is the common thread?

My answer to the problem is not to restrict rights of the law abiding.

You can't prevent every tragedy. To suggest you can, misunderstands the very essence of protecting people--something else I know quite a bit about.

I'm not saying you can prevent every or any tragedy but you can certainly prevent the magnitude of the tragedy. Not by eliminating guns. Just some minor modifications could make a big difference. Case in point, in the Gabby Giffords shooting, the shooter was tackled after his first 30 round Glock clip emptied and he was reloading with another. Now a standard Glock clip is 17 rounds. 6 people were killed, 14 injured. How many lives would have been saved altered if the shooter only had 17 rounds to shoot before he tried to reload?

The fact pattern was the same in the Fort Hood shooting.

But the NRA has politician quaking in their boots and there is zero tolerance for any type of reform because "oooh it's too complicated" and "where do you draw the line?".....so do nothing because 'murica!

 

[miketd1]

It's not a non-starter. Hudson just listed a bunch of items that he himself would be fine without. In other words, it's not a binary, yes/no proposition. There are limits to what 2A protects and that is the subject of this thread (well, the hijacked subject anyway...).

 

[jiggscasey]

All laws should not only be grounded in sound principle/logic, but also must not infringe on established individual rights.

In order to purchase a firearm, I am okay with undergoing a full background and mental health check, since those in principle weed out convicted felons and those otherwise unfit to have a deadly weapon. However, requiring me to give any sort of justifiable reason for possessing a firearm, as well as long wait periods and an arduous permitting process, infringes on the aforementioned 2nd Amendment rights. Wanting to 'ban assault weapons' is ridiculous, because those mentioning this have no idea what those even constitute, and referring about tanks/nuclear weapons/rocket launchers is irrelevant since they were never addressed by the Constitution and have significantly different mechanics/physics relative to basic firearms.

As far as your analogy goes, I agree that 150 mph on the NJ Turnpike is not a safe design speed for the vast majority of vehicles and their human drivers in all but the most empty/dry conditions. However, the currently posted 55/65 mph limits are significantly below the safe design speed of that highway in most conditions, which supports my argument that certain laws can become unnecessarily restrictive. Unfortunately, the right to travel at what I deem to be a safe speed based on conditions/traffic volume is not enumerated in the constitution, but rather subject to individual states' laws. I'm not interested in the same thing occurring with guns.

Disagree on your assessment of the speed limits. Speed limits aren't for how fast you can operate the vehicle but how fast you can stop. The stopping distance increases exponentially with speed and while the ride has gotten smoother human reaction time has not improved and the laws of physics for stopping are immutable

 

[ruhudsonfan]

Rich: I don't want to take away your guns. I'm merely standing by what I originally wrote in this thread: Giving up certain freedoms comes with the territory of being part of a civilized society. I don't know why I received some of the responses I did -- is there something about that statement that is incorrect? (not addressed to you directly, rich)

Because we've given up many of those freedoms already.

I'm a veteran of one of the most specialized fighting forces in the history of the world. I've never been arrested, let alone convicted of a crime. I held the highest security clearance the nation grants. Currently, I can't walk into Dick's in Freehold and buy more than 2 boxes of 9MM ammunition at a time without them reporting me to the government.

If I want to add a handgun to my collection, not only do I need to produce my Firearm ID card, I must apply for a second handgun permit which has a finite period of time for me to execute the purchase. I need to undergo the same background check over and over again.

And you know what? I've come to accept that as a price to pay for living in NJ (one of many I suppose). But that is where I draw the line. Now, some total LOON shoots 2 people dead--yes, totally tragic--and I'm once again put on the defensive with questions about "why do you need a gun that holds 16 rounds? Why do you need an AR-15? Why do you need anything beyond a rock lashed to a wooden club."

 

[miketd1]

And you can argue that a gun's primary purpose is to hunt, as well as adequately protect the user or others from bodily harm regardless of their size/physical capability. Your point?

We're going to have to disagree there. I view a gun as a weapon first and foremost and by definition a weapon's primary intent is to inflict harm.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

Disagree on your assessment of the speed limits. Speed limits aren't for how fast you can operate the vehicle but how fast you can stop. The stopping distance increases exponentially with speed and while the ride has gotten smoother human reaction time has not improved and the laws of physics for stopping are immutable

Speed limits on Interstates in NC and NV, to name but 2 states, are 70 mph. Are the physics different there? or are speed limits of 55 mph totally random and arbitrary? Or are they designed to generate revenue? I'll let you decide.

 

[rurichdog]

Disagree on your assessment of the speed limits. Speed limits aren't for how fast you can operate the vehicle but how fast you can stop. The stopping distance increases exponentially with speed and while the ride has gotten smoother human reaction time has not improved and the laws of physics for stopping are immutable

So why haven't speed limits increased due to technological advancements that have greatly decreased stopping distance or provide early warning to drivers of hazards ahead? Because what you wrote is bunk.

 

[miketd1]

Hudson: I understand your frustration. But that's exactly what I mean -- it's just the price we pay for being a part of this civilized society.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

We're going to have to disagree there. I view a gun as a weapon first and foremost and by definition a weapon's primary intent is to inflict harm.

Well you need to get out more.

Inflict harm on what?

Here is a totally random personal anecdote. I met my wife while I was in college. She's been with my previous career every step of the way. That said, she isn't a huge gun person. One of our mutual time wasting activities is to watch a plethora of the Alaskan reality shows. One night not along ago, she looks at me and says, "I never really would have put 2 and 2 together in realizing how much all these people depend on their guns for things from hunting, personal protection, protecting their livestock from predators, etc."

Sure, there are weapons whose sole design is to provide a method of self defense--ie: kill someone who is trying to harm you. But the overwhelming majority are for sport, survival or work.

 

[RU4Real]

4Real: You missed my point. What if in the future weapon technology -- specifically firearm/bullet technology -- advances to where lethality is exponentially more devastating than even today?

I only ask because that's exactly what happened since 2A was originally conceived.

First of all, in terms of weapons in private ownership, that's not really true. Guns haven't changed that much. The only real advancement is those associated with reload speed, since we've obviously moved beyond muzzle-loading muskets.

But even so, it doesn't matter because the 2A isn't about "people should be allowed to have guns, ya know, until guns get really dangerous". That's not part of the calculus, because guns have always been really dangerous. The 2nd Amendment is about the right of the populace to be armed for the purposes of maintaining a maintaining a military force separate from that of the government.

In terms of limiting the actual firepower, the various federal Gun Control Acts ('34 and '68 mostly) and a couple of SCOTUS decisions have set that straight. The case law is that people should be allowed to own any weapon that is in common circulation, that they might be reasonably expected to bring to a fight. Additional legislation, upheld by SCOTUS, has determined that fully-automatic weapons, artillery, etc., do not qualify as "militia weapons" and so are not subject to private ownership.

Now, thanks to Brady, etc., we have background checks and waiting periods. These efforts, we were told at the time, would "dramatically reduce gun violence". Guess what. Nope. As per my previous post on the subject, the problem here ain't guns, folks, and it ain't gun laws. The problem is people. Gun laws don't fix people.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

Hudson: I understand your frustration. But that's exactly what I mean -- it's just the price we pay for being a part of this civilized society.

So why should law abiding gun owners pay an even higher price? To prevent what exactly? nearly everyone here today agrees that this guy would have killed these people regardless.

 

[miketd1]

Well, no one said society was smart. Our society caters to the middle and the middle isn't very bright.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

I'm not saying you can prevent every or any tragedy but you can certainly prevent the magnitude of the tragedy. Not by eliminating guns. Just some minor modifications could make a big difference. Case in point, in the Gabby Giffords shooting, the shooter was tackled after his first 30 round Glock clip emptied and he was reloading with another. Now a standard Glock clip is 17 rounds. 6 people were killed, 14 injured. How many lives would have been saved altered if the shooter only had 17 rounds to shoot before he tried to reload?

The fact pattern was the same in the Fort Hood shooting.

But the NRA has politician quaking in their boots and there is zero tolerance for any type of reform because "oooh it's too complicated" and "where do you draw the line?".....so do nothing because 'murica!

The NRA takes that position because exactly what happened in NY and NJ as a result of Sandy. NJ took it as an opportunity to go from XX to 5.

And it's magazine, not clip.

 

[RU4Real]

Disagree on your assessment of the speed limits. Speed limits aren't for how fast you can operate the vehicle but how fast you can stop. The stopping distance increases exponentially with speed and while the ride has gotten smoother human reaction time has not improved and the laws of physics for stopping are immutable

Cars, on average, require 30 feet less distance to stop from 70 mph now than they did 40 years ago. Why haven't the speed limits been modified to take advantage of that?

 

[ruhudsonfan]

The irony of your post about the NRA being unreasonable is staggering. But again, people who don't shoot don't know it.

The conversation on the left starts with "BANNING." And then they work from there.

Do civilians need 30 round magazines? I'm not prepared to say they do or don't. However, I am prepared to say that even a moderately practiced shooter can change a magazine in under 5 seconds.

If you'll sleep better at night resting your head on those 5 seconds, that's up to you.

 

[miketd1]

Hudson: that's part of the problem. Look at all the yahoos causing all the trouble. What percentage of them were "practiced shooters"? I would rather the dope shooting up the school fumble around changing mags wouldn't you..?

 

[theRU]

1. It's SEAL--if you're gonna post about it, at least write it correctly. KThanks.

2. I'm neither "right wing"--as plenty of people on the CE board will tell you, nor am I a gun nut. However, what I am, is an expert on the subject matter of:

2a. Killing people efficiently
2b. Dozens and Dozens of ways to accomplish 2a (including a great deal of familiarity with guns of all makes, models and countries of origin).
2c. Tired of otherwise intelligent folks losing their bearings when a tragedy such as this occurs.

There is not a single shred of credible evidence, that a person who went through the obvious premeditation we saw this morning, would have been deterred from killing these people if a semi-automatic handgun was not accessible to him. None.

So, you can wish in one hand and shit in the other on your fantasy island of "these tragedies would be eliminated if we banned guns" and see which one fills up first.

You not liking guns is your business. You telling law abiding citizens what has utility to them or what they "need" is another.

I'm seriously developing a man crush here. Your posts are spot on.

 

[RCTrooper]

The irony of your post about the NRA being unreasonable is staggering. But again, people who don't shoot don't know it.

The conversation on the left starts with "BANNING." And then they work from there.

Do civilians need 30 round magazines? I'm not prepared to say they do or don't. However, I am prepared to say that even a moderately practiced shooter can change a magazine in under 5 seconds.

If you'll sleep better at night resting your head on those 5 seconds, that's up to you.

I might not sleep much better, but the people shot with bullets #18-#30 at Tuscon and at Fort Hood probably would (presuming they still have the capacity to sleep). Just one example of one bit of reform may have made a difference.
The conversation with the NRA starts with any "any restriction is Unconstitutional" and they don't move from there.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

I might not sleep much better, but the people shot with bullets #18-#30 at Tuscon and at Fort Hood probably would (presuming they still have the capacity to sleep). Just one example of one bit of reform may have made a difference.
The conversation with the NRA starts with any "any restriction is Unconstitutional" and they don't move from there.

What evidence do you have from Ft. Hood, Columbine, Va Tech or Sandy that that would have made a difference?

Short answer is, it wouldn't have.

While Gifford's shooting is also tragic--as they all are--I don't come down on the side of public policy based on a single incident. Sorry. I just don't.

 

[jiggscasey]

So why haven't speed limits increased due to technological advancements that have greatly decreased stopping distance or provide early warning to drivers of hazards ahead? Because what you wrote is bunk.

Early warning systems are more available but they aren't standard and the speed limits can't be set just by what is available in some vehicles. If the technology was standard you could have higher speed limits but just because some vehicles on the road have something you shouldn't change the rules for all.

Speed limits on Interstates in NC and NV, to name but 2 states, are 70 mph. Are the physics different there? or are speed limits of 55 mph totally random and arbitrary? Or are they designed to generate revenue? I'll let you decide.

Different roads have different speed limits. The physics aren't different but the road design is. I am a GIS analyst and cartographer for the Texas Department of transportation. Texas increased some roads to 85 but some sections have seen an increase in the accident rate in darkness hours because of the inability of drivers to recognize animals in time There are considerations to reduce the speed back down to 75 if it persists. Also 18 wheeler tires aren't designed to handle more than 75 mph.

Speed limits are set by 5 mile increments arbitrarily by reason of easy math, but the 55 mph was originally set because of fuel efficiency. Most passenger vehicles see a peek in fuel efficiency somewhere between 45 and 60 mph depending on their shape. The 55 mph national limit was set for this reason. Some roads around the country are surely still set to this for this reason but most highways have been changed. Most trucks won't surpass 68 mph because the fuel efficiency numbers get downright ugly after that point.

Most highways should have a sped between 60 and 70 mph. A speed limit of 75 or greater should require 12+ foot lanes, grades of under 1.5% shoulders of 10+ feet and consistent uninterrupted field of view of at least half a mile meaning that you can see the entire surface of the road for at least a half a mile. There are also other factors related to drainage, surface type and HPMS standards for roadway composition.

Many of the cars on the road can handle speeds of greater than what there are now but as I said before things should be set by all the cars that are on the road, (at least in significant) numbers. But most people aren't doing a calculation when they think speed limits should be changed. They are just thinking about their comfort level in driving fast when things are going well. I'm sure many roads should be changed but they should be on a case by case basis and I trust the civil engineers and people at the various departments of transportation to decide those. And I don't think they are chosen arbitrarily.

 

[ArminRU]

So what is the solution to the problem if more restrictions is not?

 

[theRU]

I might not sleep much better, but the people shot with bullets #18-#30 at Tuscon and at Fort Hood probably would (presuming they still have the capacity to sleep). Just one example of one bit of reform may have made a difference.
The conversation with the NRA starts with any "any restriction is Unconstitutional" and they don't move from there.

How much of that has to do with "you give and inch, you give a mile" People have moved away from the middle and thats the first problem with the US. And largely why i think Trump actually has a shot even though I dont agree with his style.

 

[jiggscasey]

Cars, on average, require 30 feet less distance to stop from 70 mph now than they did 40 years ago. Why haven't the speed limits been modified to take advantage of that?

First off speed limits have increase some. Secondly the 30 feet is insignificant. Speed limits are set by 5 mile increments. An average sedan comes to stop from 65 in about 900 feet, from 70 at 1025 feet, and 75 at just under 1200 feet. The 30 feet is not significant number. If stopping distance from 70 decreased by 100 feet there might be something to that.

 

[RU4Real]

So what is the solution to the problem if more restrictions is not?

It's the same as the solution to every problem, at least in terms of complex problem solving.

First you chase the low-hanging fruit. If you eliminated drug and gang violence in inner cities, the firearms homicide rate in this country would drop by 90%. And since NONE of those perps have legally obtained guns, it's not a gun law issue, as we've been saying. It's a law enforcement issue.

I have advocated, for a number of years, using RICO to combat inner city gang violence. The statutes are applicable. If the local governments in Chicago and Detroit don't want to cooperate, bring in the feds. Lock people up for the simple crime of being demonstrably gang-affiliated. Make every street-level crime with a demonstrable gang affiliation a federal case. Employ serious sentencing guidelines. In other words, make the enforcement and punishment environment such that gangs are no longer a good alternative to boredom.

Simultaneously, spend money to spin up programs in inner cities that actually provide hope and opportunity as an alternative to gangs. Reward school attendance. Reward good grades. Reward not getting locked up for dealin' heroin.

That's Step 1.

 

[theRU]

So what is the solution to the problem if more restrictions is not?

Maybe we can start with better parenting, mental health support. Something DIFFERENT! You already have gun control and its not helping at all. Any further control is pointless in my opinion .

 

[RU4Real]

First off speed limits have increase some. Secondly the 30 feet is insignificant. Speed limits are set by 5 mile increments. An average sedan comes to stop from 65 in about 900 feet, from 70 at 1025 feet, and 75 at just under 1200 feet. The 30 feet is not significant number. If stopping distance from 70 decreased by 100 feet there might be something to that.

What??

Dude, you're ridiculously wrong. An "average sedan" stops from 70 mph in about 150'. Where the hell do you get your numbers?

 

[RUsSKii]

Early warning systems are more available but they aren't standard and the speed limits can't be set just by what is available in some vehicles. If the technology was standard you could have higher speed limits but just because some vehicles on the road have something you shouldn't change the rules for all.



Different roads have different speed limits. The physics aren't different but the road design is. I am a GIS analyst and cartographer for the Texas Department of transportation. Texas increased some roads to 85 but some sections have seen an increase in the accident rate in darkness hours because of the inability of drivers to recognize animals in time There are considerations to reduce the speed back down to 75 if it persists. Also 18 wheeler tires aren't designed to handle more than 75 mph.

Speed limits are set by 5 mile increments arbitrarily by reason of easy math, but the 55 mph was originally set because of fuel efficiency. Most passenger vehicles see a peek in fuel efficiency somewhere between 45 and 60 mph depending on their shape. The 55 mph national limit was set for this reason. Some roads around the country are surely still set to this for this reason but most highways have been changed. Most trucks won't surpass 68 mph because the fuel efficiency numbers get downright ugly after that point.

Most highways should have a sped between 60 and 70 mph. A speed limit of 75 or greater should require 12+ foot lanes, grades of under 1.5% shoulders of 10+ feet and consistent uninterrupted field of view of at least half a mile meaning that you can see the entire surface of the road for at least a half a mile. There are also other factors related to drainage, surface type and HPMS standards for roadway composition.

Many of the cars on the road can handle speeds of greater than what there are now but as I said before things should be set by all the cars that are on the road, (at least in significant) numbers. But most people aren't doing a calculation when they think speed limits should be changed. They are just thinking about their comfort level in driving fast when things are going well. I'm sure many roads should be changed but they should be on a case by case basis and I trust the civil engineers and people at the various departments of transportation to decide those. And I don't think they are chosen arbitrarily.

You just made my point for me. I'm a civil engineer, with experience in highway construction (want to take a guess where?).

The NJ Turnpike mainline roadway happens to have 12' wide lanes, 12'+ wide shoulders on both sides of the roadway (except at certain overpasses), generally low grades of 1.0% or less, and relatively few curves sightlines of over one mile on straights. In dry conditions and light- to moderate-traffic, this high level of service leads to a design speed in the vicinity of 100 mph. With a posted LIMIT, as a general rule you should be establishing a speed that approximately 85% of motorists can safely maintain and stop from if necessary. By simple calculation, a posted speed limit of 85 mph (as on the Texas tolled highway) can easily be justified.

The high number of lanes compared to most highways/interstates and separation of cars from trucks/buses on approximately half of the NJ Turnpike also works to safely spread out vehicular traffic, to the point where natural off-peak hour traffic volumes travelling at 90 mph for cars and 80 mph for trucks are not uncommon.

As a experienced, focused driver (no cell-phones, conversations, yelling passengers) in my sports car, I can and may have safely maintained/stopped from triple digits as needed.

This may seem off-topic, but as long as we're talking both speed limits and guns the point is this: I don't agree with limiting the rights of law-abiding, otherwise capable individuals to satisfy a group's misdirected calls for increased perceived safety. Personal responsibility and proper training are the keys here.