There are more deaths every year by automobiles than by guns!

[freetobegay]

So I propose that we ban automobiles! They are going to be the death of us all. Remember it not the automobiles that kill, it's the people driving them.

[freetobegay]

1. I'll bet noone is going to touch this one with a 10 foot pole!

:)

[iverglas]

6. I hope you're right

I'd hate to see anyone waste his/her time on it.

[CO Liberal]

30. Of Course Not

It's such a stupid argument it's unworthy of comment.

[OpSomBlood]

35. Is it more stupid...

...than claiming that semi-automatic rifles are significantly "more lethal" than semi-auto pistols? And doing so when "assault weapons" are consistently used in less than 3% of gun crimes?

[iverglas]

36. or more stupid ...

than claiming that the earth is flat? the moon made of green cheese?

Anybody hereabouts doing that?

Anybody hereabouts claiming that semi-automatic rifles are significantly "more lethal" than semi-auto pistols?

I dunno. Maybe there is somebody. I know it isn't moi, that's for damned sure. Can you name names? Someone whose opinion has been stated HERE and therefore would be a proper point of comparison ("more stupid than") for something else in issue HERE?

Or shall we just have a discussion of the shape of the earth, and the substance of the moon, and what someone somewhere sometime may have said about assault weapons?

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

40. dear me

Isn't your actual mission to make me all anxious and distressed and twitchy and red-faced and steamy??

It sounds like you actually think you've accomplished it, so I'd expect you to be a little happier.

It's beyond my powers to demonstrate to you the extent to which you have *not* accomplished it, so I'll just play along.

Celebrate with a fine glass of



on me.

[OpSomBlood]

43. Sorry.

You can continue to think what you think I think you think as much as you want. It seems like a cute little way to kill time.

But at the end of the day, you're still just angry little words on a screen to me. Lots and lots of them.

[Gildor Inglorion]

2. I think that's a splendid idea!

I hate driving anyway; always have. Banning automobiles would greatly improve the environment; lead to the development of convenient, comfortable, and safe mass transit; and encourage better physical fitness due to walking, biking, and the like. It makes so much sense that there's no way in hell it will even be considered. What a world. ;(

[Township75]

3. I hope you are serious....

because I am when I say I wouldn't fight a ban on automobiles.

I use my bike the most, followed by walking, then I take mass transit. It works very well.

[Gildor Inglorion]

34. Very serious

I really LOATHE driving, which I why I live in a tiny town in south Mississippi. I can go almost everywhere I need to by walking. On a more practical level, since we all know cars will never be banned, raising to price of gasoline to, say, $15.00 per gallon would accomplish many of the same goals while providing much-needed funds for a national health-care plan. Again, no chance.

[zbdent]

4. I'm pissed that I can't drive my car

in the library!

There's so many damn regulations!

Besides, a good percentage of the auto deaths involve alcohol, while a good percentage of the deaths by guns, um, well, never mind.

[Burma Jones]

5. No, but you could regulate gun ownership at the same level as automobiles

Make people take tests, obtain licenses and purchase insurance. Driving is a fairly regulated activity. Also, you could make guns as expensive as cars too. And the maintenance costs as well as the cost of gas. If guns cost as much as automobiles to own and operate, there would be far fewer of them.

Personally, I like to shoot and will be teaching my children to shoot. Guns are OK, it's the owners and criminals that can be the problem.

[freetobegay]

9. We would probably then have old junker guns.

[Burma Jones]

14. I've seen more than a few old junker guns n/t

[Union Thug]

23. I like old junker guns! eom

[el_gato]

24. driving is heavily regulated and yet there is still way more damage

than from guns

As well, there is pretty much a saturation level for both cars and guns. In other words, just about anybody who wants to operate a gun or a car already do just that.

[library_max]

52. Because a lot more people drive and they drive a lot more often.

Which in turn is because people need cars and they don't need guns.

[Oggy]

7. There are more deaths every year by Mosquito's than Automobiles

So I propose we ban Mosquito's! Remember it's not the Mosquito's that kill, it's the Plasmodium falciparum infecting them.

[OpSomBlood]

8. I don't drive, so banning cars wouldn't affect me much. Sure.

n/t

[OpSomBlood]

10. Nobody needs a car of their own.

There are buses and trains for transportation. We should depend on the government to fulfill all of our needs.

[Hrumph]

31. But we can't do it all at once.

We have to start by banning those evil Assault Vehicles (SUV) that spray bullets... er... guzzle gas. Then, when we can demonstrate that's made no measurable difference then we can expand the prohibition.


Still, though, we're going to have an awfully hard time banning something that 95% of the population owns, uses, and has at least a passing understanding of. Much harder to sell them a load of crap than, say, guns which many people have no understanding of whatsoever.

I know! We'll go the Amish for their thoughts on transportation policy! We'll exhault them as experts in the field with an inate understanding of the issues BECAUSE THEY FREAKING CARE. Then, maybe, we can get our government to live up to its responsibility of making all our decisions for us and treating us all like 3-year olds.

[OpSomBlood]

11. I'm really only in favor of banning extra-lethal "assault vehicles"

n/t

[OpSomBlood]

12. Look at how the scummy auto industry markets to children:

http://www.mercedes-benz.com/omb/motorsport/e/magazin/kids.htm

[Township75]

16. LOL!

Good one OpS!

[Bowline]

59. They even encourage parents of young children to buy these death machines!

[OpSomBlood]

13. The "car rights" movement is really secret code for racism:

Just look at this racist "gold tooth" ad from Toyota:

[Pert_UK]

15. Thank you for making my point for me.........

Only somebody with a total logic failure could make this point.

Congratulations.

How on earth do you expect to be taken seriously if you genuinely think that this is an intellgent attack on somebody who says, "Guns are dangerous and should be banned"?

Aside from anything else, there is virtually NOBODY on here who actually favours an outright ban or who believes it would work.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ET Awful]

19. Another way to think of it. . .

Sure cars kill more people. . . of that number though, how many are through malicious intent and utilizing the automobile for it's sole intended purpose?

[library_max]

21. For that matter, failed heart valves kill more people than guns or cars.

So, by the original post's "logic," maybe we should ban heart valves.

Maybe we should ban sex to end venereal disease.

Maybe we should ban the human body to end all kinds of disease.

Maybe we should just kill everybody, then no one will ever die again.

:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:

[el_gato]

25. That's the whole point, life entails risk, and we can't all live in cages

so for those who see the solution to every problem is to take away more of our freedom, you are headed down the slippery slope of a creeping police state.

I'll take my risks.

[library_max]

51. But obviously there are risks we can reasonably control and risks we can't

It is sensible to separate the one from the other. People (outside of a few large metropolitan areas on the East Coast) need cars. They don't need guns.

[Retired AF Dem]

56. Most fatal car "accidents" occur while the drivers are

breaking the law, running stop/red lights, driving to fast for road conditions, illegal passing and DUI. Usage is a famous word on this page but it still boils down to one thing, assholes behind the wheel.

[library_max]

20. People need automobiles. They don't need guns.

It's really that simple. Automobiles have an actual purpose, that being transportation. The only thing guns are good for is to hurt and kill people and animals. They just aren't necessary.

[Columbia]

22. Better tell that to your friendly, local Police Officer Joe

"The only thing guns are good for is to hurt and kill people and animals."

And because of that belief (which is totally incorrect, but I will humor your) you only want the government to have them?

[library_max]

27. Okay, what else can you do with a gun?

Make candy?

It is one of the basic responsibilities of government to have a monopoly on organized violence. Without that, you have anarchy, and anarchy is government by whoever is the most vicious. Calvin Coolidge may not have been much of a President, but infinitely preferable to Al Capone, for example. Anarchy is really just rule by the Al Capones.

[Hrumph]

32. Competition, recreation.

Just because YOU'VE never needed a gun, doesn't mean no one else has. If that's the case then congratulations. I, on the other hand, have been forced to do so on more than one occasion. I thank God that I didn't have to shoot anyone.

[OpSomBlood]

33. The concept of recreational shooting is just foreign to some people.

I am leery of anyone who tries to dictate to me what my hobbies should be.

[library_max]

46. I forgot killing paper and clay targets.

I've played a party game where you run a relay while carrying water in a spoon you hold in your mouth, with the team that fills the water jar first winning. But I don't think anyone would call that the primary intended use of spoons.

I hesitate to ask what occasions you've had when you "needed" a gun for fear of invoking the High Noon mentality. A lot of situations could better be defused in other ways, but power junkies must use their guns. Most police departments will tell you, for example, that you're better off cooperating with a mugger or pretending to be asleep with a burglar. Both want your money, not your life, but they'll shoot it out with you if you force them to, and their gun is already in their hand.

[Hrumph]

53. "Most police departments" would be wrong

Any law enforcement officer who would say such a thing would be wrong. They tend to think, as you do, that they're the only ones with the super-human strength, wisdom, and mental stability to be able to use such a tool.

According to the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 2000 (the latest edition available), Section 3, Table 3.23 - "Estimated percent distribution of violent victimizations in which self-protective measures were employed" - By person taking measure, type of crime, and outcome of measure, United States, 2001; In all crimes of violence, defensive measures on the part of the victim helped the situation 67.8% of the time.

I decline to offer any such information regarding my defensive use of firearms because I believe any such use would appear to you as a "high noon" event.

[library_max]

54. Any stats on how many of those "defensive measures" involved guns?

As opposed to, say, locking the door, calling the police, yelling for help, screaming "no" at a rapist, etc.?

Are there any figures on the proportion of the remaining 32.2 percent of the time "defensive measures" actually escalated the crime from a property crime to a homicide or severe injury?

[FeebMaster]

58. Screaming "no" at a rapist?

I'm sure that's effective.

[library_max]

61. Well, that's what they teach in self-defense classes.

It's not all they teach, obviously.

[FeebMaster]

63. I don't think those people are getting their money's worth. (nt)

[OpSomBlood]

26. Is the only purpose of the police to hurt and kill people and animals?

n/t

[library_max]

28. Kind of obvious, isn't it, that the reason a police officer has a sidearm

is so that he or she will have the ability to hurt or kill people or animals (a rabid dog, say) when necessary? I mean, it's not a fashion accessory, y'know.

[OpSomBlood]

29. Why should only the police be granted the right to use their judgment?

Or do bad people or animals (a rabid dog, say) only attack police officers?

[library_max]

48. No, but it's their job to deal with such. And they have the training.

They have the responsibility. They have mechanisms in place to verify that their judgement is worth a sh*t. They have to pass screenings to get the job in the first place, extensive training to get cleared to carry a gun, and extensive reviews regarding any discharge of same. They have to account for the bullets. Their guns are registered. They are professionals.

You might as well ask, why are only doctors granted the right to perform heart surgery? After all, a neighbor or loved one might have a heart attack too far away for the ambulance to reach them in time.

[iverglas]

37. if I may clarify

Kind of obvious, isn't it, that the reason a police officer has a sidearm is so that he or she will have the ability to hurt or kill people or animals (a rabid dog, say) when necessary

... in the public interest?

That there be the distinction between firearms in the hands of public authorities and firearms in the hands of private individuals, I think you would agree.

[OpSomBlood]

39. It's a good thing we have a cop on every corner 24 hours a day.

Because they are the only ones we can trust to keep us safe.

[Hrumph]

42. Tisk, tisk...

Now YOU know that's not their job just as well as I do.
</sarcasm>

[iverglas]

44. you're just an expert at this, aren't you?

Just in case the goddess's help might be of some use, here's your problem again.

What you said:

It's a good thing we have a cop on every corner 24 hours a day.
Because they are the only ones we can trust to keep us safe.

What I said, paraphrased:

The reason that cops have guns is so that they can use them to protect the public.

You see, that's what the discussion I was participating in was about -- why cops have guns. Not whether the earth is flat or the moon cheesy.


Hmm. Hmm. Hmm.

If I said "the reason that teachers have books is so that they can use them to teach children things", would you say "it's a good thing there is a teacher on every corner, because they are the only ones we can trust to teach children things"?

Well ... probably.

Would you say that I had just said that no one but teachers should have books?

Again ... probably.

Except that I never said anything about who should have guns, or books -- and I never said that the only way to protect people is to have cops, or that the only way for children to be taught things is to have teachers.

Nope. I just said that the reason cops have guns is to protect the public.

If you actually read that as "the only people who can protect the public are cops", well, perhaps an assessment of some kind is in order. Reading things backwards seldom works, and may be symptomatic of a problem.

The reason I have a hairdryer is to dry my hair ... the only way anybody's hair will dry is to use a hairdryer. Nope, doesn't work.

The reason I have a credit card is to buy cigarettes ... the only way anybody can buy cigarettes is with a credit card. Nope.

The reason I hang out in J/PS is to get a few good laughs a day ... the only way anybody can get a few good laughs a day is to hang out in J/PS. Nope, thank goodness.

The notion that cops are the only people who can be trusted to keep us safe is entirely of your own invention, has nothing at all to do with anything I said, and is really quite bizarre, if I may say.

[Hrumph]

66. Close but no cigar

The reason that cops have guns is so that they can use them to protect the public.

That's not exactly accurate. It is the policeman's job to maintain order. He carries a gun because it is reasonable to assume that in the course of maintaining order he may come across those who will violently resist him. In short, he carries a gun for self-defense.

There are, of course, notable exceptions such as precision marksmn whose job is really to engage the designated target.

[library_max]

62. There isn't a heart surgeon on every corner 24 hours a day either.

But I refuse to support your "right" to engage in amateur-hour heart surgery.

[Hrumph]

41. Makes sense to me.

And that's exactly the same reason the rest of us are armed.

[library_max]

47. "The rest of us" don't have intensive training when to and not to shoot.

"The rest of us" aren't responsible for every bullet fired, which should be the standard for cops (and is, in a great many departments). "The rest of us" aren't subject to a dozen kinds of mental and psychological testing before being allowed to carry a gun and a dozen kinds of review after any incident of discharging one. The police are held to a MUCH higher standard than just the criminal code. Also, their guns are all registered. And it's their job.

[Hrumph]

49. The hell we aren't!

Civilians are absolutely held responsible for every shot they fire. Shoot the wrong person, expect to go to jail. Of course, when someone dies as a result of "suspect management" issues on the part of the police then we're all supposed to give them a pass because their job is so stressful.

AND, even if you aren't held criminaly liable, there's still the civil litigation hanging over your head. And civil cases are decided on a perponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a much tougher standard to meet in one's defense.

And please list for me the "dozen kinds of mental and psychological" tests these "intensively trained" professionals have to pass.

[library_max]

50. Be obtuse and see if I care.

The police are held to a much higher standard than just the criminal and civil codes (which of course also apply to them). This is well known, and I'm not going to run out and do a bunch of research just because you have a thing about cops.

To whom do you have to account for the bullets you fire?

[Hrumph]

57. Make unsupported statements, see if I care.

I am accountable to the same damned people the cops are, even more. If my weapon discharges I'm responsible for where that bullet winds up. If it results in personal injury or property damage, I'm responsible both criminally and civily. Even if no one is hurt, I'll end up having to explain the situation to the police and, face the possibility of being arrested for wreckless endangerment, disorderly conduct, or similar charge.

Interesting factoid: Most local, state and federal law enforcement agencies have changed their issued handguns (or the list of approved handguns) to Glocks or other weapons with a Glock type fire control system (trigger mechanism). The reason is simple: There is a documented reduction in the number of accidental/negligent discharges which such a change is made. One might expect that such "intensely trained experts" shouln't have that many AD's, but it does happen and with enough frequency to cause concern.

LEO's spend a lot of time at the academy. That doesn't mean they're trained that well in actually using their firearms. The vast majority of the officers I see at the range are downright usafe with their weapons. They are awkward and clumsy in their gun handling and all too often sweep those around them with the muzzles of their guns. On top of that, their marksmanship is attrocious.

[library_max]

60. None so blind as they that will not see.

Or they that can see only their own prejudices.

BTW, a "factoid" and a fact are not the same thing. But I'm willing to believe that the Glock thing is a fact. It is just one more indication of how the police are more proactively concerned about safety than the average gun-owning citizen, whatever you may think about their gunslinging prowess "at the range."

[Hrumph]

64. While safety may, in fact, be a factor,

Police chiefs make these decisions based mostly on their budgets. AD's cost them money and reducing them reduces their expenses.

Any firearm can be handled safely. Some designs are a bit more forgiving of incompetence. The Colt 1911 design, which has fallen out of favor with most of the LEO comunity, is by far the most widely used design for competition shooting. We're talking about custom guns costing anywhere from 1400 to several thousand dollars. The owners can afford to buy whatever they want but they choose the design because it best suits their needs for speed and accuracy. The 1911 is NOT a gun I would recomend for a beginner or anyone not willing to put in the requisiet training to become proficient. Such guns are not inherently "unsafe," they're just less forgiving of stupid mistakes.

(Interesting side note: The FBI Hostage Rescue Team still used 1911s, last I heard. I can't be sure what they're using now because they tend to switch around a lot. Before that, they were using .40 Cal Browning Hi-Powers which is really a variant of the 1911 design and, in fact, was designed by the same man, John Moses Browning. "Elite" units in both the military and LEO worlds often get to choose their equipment outside of the normal policies. But then, they're expected to actually be proficient.)

[TX-RAT]

65. I've only met 2 other people with as much contempt for LEO as you

One was a member of the Republic Of Texas, that was arrested in the Big Bend area. He's now doing a 20yr sentence at a state pen.

The other had escaped from a Georgia penitentiary, he led us on a 45 min chase through the county, before wrecking out killing his female passenger. He's now doing a life sentence.

Not that I'm comparing you to them but please explain where all this contempt of yours comes from.

[Wickerman]

45. I have a right to drive a car and the church I attend refuses to

allow me to drive it inside. They even have a sign - Cars are not allowed on these premises.

Its an infringement of my personal liberties and I am not going to tolerate it any longer. I should be able to drive my car wherever I would like - my convenience is my right.

I am so sick of people attempting to ban an inanimate object just because people don't follow the laws that are already in existence. Its not the car, its the people, I wish you car-grabbers would get it through your thick heads. Us legitimate car-owners should not be held hostage by you authoritarians just because a very small percentage of car owners behave irresponsibly.

Also, can you even define what a high-performance vehicle is? Is it big tires and lots of chrome? Hah, I laugh at your ignorance. How can you hope to even argue the high performance car ban if you don't know the difference between cosmetics and performance?

You claim high performance cars kill more and make those of us who want to own them pay higher insurance rates but if you really look at the actuary tables you would see that actual high performance car owners are some of the safest drivers about. We spend so much on our cars that we simply can't afford to drive in a manner that would give us expensive tickets.

You won't allow me to drive my car in my church and you want to ban my hi-performance ride - and now its evident all you car-grabbers are out to eliminate all civilian use of autos. Sick, simply sick. Its that kind of agenda that wins votes - for the RIGHT WING!

[iverglas]

55. well just wait

for the first time somebody shouts "fire" in the middle of one of your services and the congregation needs to get the hell out real fast. They'll wish you had your high-performance car in the nave then, won't they?

I wouldn't be surprised to see an epidemic of people shouting "fire" during church services and watching all those Lutherans trying to ride their covered dishes down the aisle ...