So then let's just get rid of all the stop signs.

[nationoflaws]

48. Fun for me includes playing Devil's advocate to make sure an argument is sound.

Plus the OP was not in the Gungeon, so I'm just playing along.

However, back to your question:

Um, yes, yes, there are circumstances where the intended non-destructive use of a motor vehicle may require you to drive faster than the speed limit. To get out of immediate harm, for example, or to transport someone to an emergency room. One does not need a Ferrari to do so, however. How does that fit into your analogous argument?

The OP was complaining about people speeding on his street and endangering the neighborhood residents. I proposed that we limit the speed of new vehicles to not be allowed to go over that limit. You counter that sometimes it may be necessary to go faster in order to protect one's self and others in danger, in spite of the fact that if you do so on the OP's street, you are increasing the risk to his neighbors.
In the gun argument, people complain about gun crazies shooting up the neighborhoods on shooting sprees. They propose to limit the capacity of new weapons to not allow high bullet capacity in order to prevent this. Gun advocates (and you by your argument) counter that sometimes it may be necessary to have higher capacity in order to protect one's self or others in danger, in spite of higher risk to others by doing so.

Sounds like the same analogy to me.

Are you saying that you will argue it is necessary to speed down the OP's street if you are trying to get to the hospital, while the old people and children on roller skates take their chances?