Harmony Central Forums
Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Guns/Cars Comparison

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse









X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Guns/Cars Comparison

    I've been hearing the argument "cars kill more people than guns" around here a lot.

    Cars are titled, registered, and inspected for safety by the government. The government requires owners to insure their vehicles for liability of harm to others. The government maintains records of sales, transfers of ownership, accident records, and safety (product defects/recalls), and mileage performance on your vehicles. In order to operate a vehicle, drivers need to demonstrate a basic knoledge and operational competence before given a licence. Those licences are revoked when infractions occur.

    If you would like to treat guns like cars, then sure - let's go for it.


  • #2

    But if we outlaw cars, only outlaws will have them.

    If I can't defend my family with an H2 Hummer, that's tyranny.


    TWO TERMS BITCHES! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Comment


    • guido61
      guido61 commented
      Editing a comment
      Or let's treat cars more like guns.

      Why have speed limits? The responsible, law-abiding car owners know what the safe speed to drive is, and the outlaws are going to break the speed limits anyway. By having speed limits, we're only infringing on the rights of the law-abiding car owners.

      Only the bad guys kill people with cars. Putting speed limits on the law-abiding car owners will do nothing for public safety.

  • #3

    BA.Barcolounger wrote:

    I've been hearing the argument "cars kill more people than guns" around here a lot.

    Cars are titled, registered, and inspected for safety by the government. The government requires owners to insure their vehicles for liability of harm to others. The government maintains records of sales, transfers of ownership, accident records, and safety (product defects/recalls), and mileage performance on your vehicles. In order to operate a vehicle, drivers need to demonstrate a basic knoledge and operational competence before given a licence. Those licences are revoked when infractions occur.

    If you would like to treat guns like cars, then sure - let's go for it.


    And they still end up killing quite a few people.

     

    The guns/cars comparison is used because of the logic Biden used when he said "if it saves just one life". We can use all sorts of other comparisons to things that are inherently dangerous if the car one doesn't make sense to you, but they all amount to the same thing.

     

    If it can cause harm, it should be legislated out of existence.

     

     

    Comment


    • guido61
      guido61 commented
      Editing a comment

      Ed wrote:

      BA.Barcolounger wrote:

      I've been hearing the argument "cars kill more people than guns" around here a lot.

      Cars are titled, registered, and inspected for safety by the government. The government requires owners to insure their vehicles for liability of harm to others. The government maintains records of sales, transfers of ownership, accident records, and safety (product defects/recalls), and mileage performance on your vehicles. In order to operate a vehicle, drivers need to demonstrate a basic knoledge and operational competence before given a licence. Those licences are revoked when infractions occur.

      If you would like to treat guns like cars, then sure - let's go for it.


      And they still end up killing quite a few people.

       

      The guns/cars comparison is used because of the logic Biden used when he said "if it saves just one life". We can use all sorts of other comparisons to things that are inherently dangerous if the car one doesn't make sense to you, but they all amount to the same thing.

       

      If it can cause harm, it should be legislated out of existence.

       

       


      We use a cost/benefit analysis system when coming up with safety laws in the US.  It's an outgrowth of being both a democracy and having a free-market economy.   When things have a great benefit to society--like the automobile--we're going to be much more tolerant of their inherent danger than something --like aerosol spray cans containing fluorocarbons--that doesn't really benefit us or can't be replaced by something less dangerous.

      Yes, cars are very dangerous.  So we regulate them and limit their use and outlaw the ones where the danger far exceeds the benefit.  We don't have jet-powered cars on the highway.  They'd be very dangerous and you can get to work and back just as effectively in a Subaru.  

      This is the same debate we're having with guns right now.  Certain guns and certain-sized magazines present an inherrant danger, but do they provide any benefit to society that other, less dangerous guns and ammo provide?


    • rishabhsachan
      rishabhsachan commented
      Editing a comment

      hey friends Is it that time of year again already? Time for the antis to trot out some ginned up stats about which to hyperventilate and


  • #4

    BA.Barcolounger wrote:

    I've been hearing the argument "cars kill more people than guns" around here a lot.

    Cars are titled, registered, and inspected for safety by the government. The government requires owners to insure their vehicles for liability of harm to others. The government maintains records of sales, transfers of ownership, accident records, and safety (product defects/recalls), and mileage performance on your vehicles. In order to operate a vehicle, drivers need to demonstrate a basic knoledge and operational competence before given a licence. Those licences are revoked when infractions occur.

    If you would like to treat guns like cars, then sure - let's go for it.


    cars are not rights.

    and your little dream dismisses the reality that criminals will always have guns...you seek to strip americans of their rights.  wanna push it?

    Comment


    • kav
      kav commented
      Editing a comment

      Davo17 wrote:

      BA.Barcolounger wrote:

      I've been hearing the argument "cars kill more people than guns" around here a lot.

      Cars are titled, registered, and inspected for safety by the government. The government requires owners to insure their vehicles for liability of harm to others. The government maintains records of sales, transfers of ownership, accident records, and safety (product defects/recalls), and mileage performance on your vehicles. In order to operate a vehicle, drivers need to demonstrate a basic knoledge and operational competence before given a licence. Those licences are revoked when infractions occur.

      If you would like to treat guns like cars, then sure - let's go for it.


      cars are not rights.

      and your little dream dismisses the reality that criminals will always have guns...you seek to strip americans of their rights.  wanna push it?


      Just because you can't afford one does not mean you don't have the right to purchase one.

      As to guns, strictly speaking, the Constitution states you have the right to "bear arms". It mentions nothing about owning them.


    • The Badger
      The Badger commented
      Editing a comment

      BA.Barcolounger wrote:

      I've been hearing the argument "cars kill more people than guns" around here a lot.

      Cars are titled, registered, and inspected for safety by the government. The government requires owners to insure their vehicles for liability of harm to others. The government maintains records of sales, transfers of ownership, accident records, and safety (product defects/recalls), and mileage performance on your vehicles. In order to operate a vehicle, drivers need to demonstrate a basic knoledge and operational competence before given a licence. Those licences are revoked when infractions occur.

      If you would like to treat guns like cars, then sure - let's go for it.


       

      In some respects, the "cars vs. guns" comparison is invalid; cars have other uses than using metal pelets to makie holes in things, and occasionally killing something. Or somebody. On the other hand, I have written posts, here and elsewhere, that proposed licensing guns and their owners the same way we do cars and their drivers. Gun licenses of that sort may not completely eliminate gun violence any more than car and driver licenses eliminate drunk driving, but it will make it easier for the cops to catch and stop the bad actors who ruin it for the law abiding majority. A comprehensive data base of weapons violations and "unstable person" warnings would also make it easier for everyone from the police to gun sellers to know who they can sell to and who they shouldn't.

       


      Davo17 wrote:

      cars are not rights.

      and your little dream dismisses the reality that criminals will always have guns...you seek to strip americans of their rights.  wanna push it?


       

      Davo, you never cease to amaze me. I should think that a man in your profession -- assuming you're not making the whole "EMT/Paramedic/Physician Assistant" thing up to impress us -- has treated enough victims of both cars and guns, bound their wounds and in some cases, watched them die, to know how dangerous guns are. And yet you champion "gun rights" as if they were handed down from God, Himself, and are somehow beyond all control.

      Here is the text of The Second Amendment

       


      The Second Amendment:

       

      "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

       

      The most important clause in that sentence is, "A Well Regulated Militia." If taken literaly, that could mean that only soldiers and members of the Armed Forces Reserves and the National Guard should be allowed to own guns. Further, the words, "well regulated" suggest that not only should guns be regulated, but that regulations are necessary. The Second Amendment says does not endorse the kind of free-for-all, "guns for everybody" chaos we have now, where anybody who is physically big enough to lift a gun is "old enough" and "responsible enough" to own and use one.

      Strange as it may seem, I do not approve of knee-jerk reactions to a tragedy and/or instant, legislation  ill-considered legislation to "fix" a problem. I oppose any effort, The 18th Amendment, to "save" people from themselves by fiddling with the Constitution. Prohibition did not end drinking, it just made the situation worse, allowed tainted liquor onto the market and created a new class of criminals and made things worse, rather than better. I fear the same kind of "social reform" in the form of eliminating the Second Amendment would open the door to still more abuses. That's why I oppose some gun legislation, but not all of it.

      That said, however, with rights come responsibilities. Those who would have guns must accept that they need to be responsible for their weapons, how they store and use them. If they won't do it themselves, the government will impose restrictions on them, and those restrictions will be tigher than anything one would do voluntarily.

      Thus, if you -- and the nation's gun owners, as a group -- cannot prove that they can use guns responsibly, somebody will make them prove it through tests, licensing and demonstrations akin to "road tests" for student drivers. Come to think of it, maybe it's about time. Nobody who can pass a gun-ownership test would be denied gun ownership. But those who can't pass the test probably shouldn't be allowed to have guns in the first place.


    • quickie1
      quickie1 commented
      Editing a comment

      Davo17 wrote:

      BA.Barcolounger wrote:

      I've been hearing the argument "cars kill more people than guns" around here a lot.

      Cars are titled, registered, and inspected for safety by the government. The government requires owners to insure their vehicles for liability of harm to others. The government maintains records of sales, transfers of ownership, accident records, and safety (product defects/recalls), and mileage performance on your vehicles. In order to operate a vehicle, drivers need to demonstrate a basic knoledge and operational competence before given a licence. Those licences are revoked when infractions occur.

      If you would like to treat guns like cars, then sure - let's go for it.


      cars are not rights.

      and your little dream dismisses the reality that criminals will always have guns...you seek to strip americans of their rights.  wanna push it?


      First....you need a chest befor you try to puff it out......toughguy.


  • #5

    I agree guns and cars aren't a valid comparison. However arguments can be transferable in their entirety.

     

    For instance it's widely known that the amount of automobile accident fatalities has a correlation to speed.

     

    So we could save countless lives by limiting speeds to 30mph.

     

    After all, no one NEEDS to go 70mph, or even 50mph. And beside, only men with small **bleep** like cars that go fast.

     

     

    Comment


    • Opposite Day
      Opposite Day commented
      Editing a comment

      nedezero1 wrote:

      I agree guns and cars aren't a valid comparison. However arguments can be transferable in their entirety.

       

      For instance it's widely known that the amount of automobile accident fatalities has a correlation to speed.

       

      So we could save countless lives by limiting speeds to 30mph.

       

      After all, no one NEEDS to go 70mph, or even 50mph. And beside, only men with small **bleep** like cars that go fast.

       

       


      Clear thinking. :robothappy:


    • Booker
      Booker commented
      Editing a comment

      nedezero1 wrote:

      I agree guns and cars aren't a valid comparison. However arguments can be transferable in their entirety.

       

      For instance it's widely known that the amount of automobile accident fatalities has a correlation to speed.

       

      So we could save countless lives by limiting speeds to 30mph.

       

      After all, no one NEEDS to go 70mph, or even 50mph. And beside, only men with small **bleep** like cars that go fast.

       

       


      Your poor attempt at a retort aside, you make a good point.

       

      We should have cars that are governed in there speed. I totally agree.

       

      I also think we should be working towards making our highways totally automatic. It would be much more efficient and would result in many less deaths due to speed and **bleep** driving.


    • guido61
      guido61 commented
      Editing a comment

      nedezero1 wrote:

      I agree guns and cars aren't a valid comparison. However arguments can be transferable in their entirety.

       

      For instance it's widely known that the amount of automobile accident fatalities has a correlation to speed.

       

      So we could save countless lives by limiting speeds to 30mph.

       

      After all, no one NEEDS to go 70mph, or even 50mph. And beside, only men with small **bleep** like cars that go fast.

       

       


      Again, it's the cost/benefit analysis that we've done on the issue.  30MPH would slow commerce if all trucks moved only that fast and peoples quality-of-life would be greatly diminished with the increased commute times.   Yes, fast cars are dangerous, but we've decided 65MPH provides the right balance between cost and benefit.  Is it the BEST place to draw the line?  Who knows.  We tried 55MPH and most people thought that was TOO slow.  So back to 65 we went.   The risk is greater, but so is the benefit.

      And again, there seems to be no similar cost/benefit relationship with assault weapons and large magazine clips.  They are GREAT for killing a bunch of people in a short amount of time, but it's hard to see what the benefit is for the law-abiding American that they don't get from a "slower" gun.


  • #6
    You're wrong, Ned. "Need" is PRECISELY the standard we use to determine when and how to regulate items and weigh that against rights. We don't "assign" rights. Rights are preexisting. But we DO use "need" as one basis for establishing regulations concerning those rights.

    Also, your right is one to keep and bear arms to protect yourself. That right in no way means you have a right to any weapon, anywhere, at any time. None of the restrictions being proposed prevent you from being to protect yourself with a gun. Until you can show that it does, then you've got no constitutional ground to stand on.

    There is also nothing that states that the only laws and restrictions that can be implemented are those that have "immediate" effect. Who came up with that notion??
    _________________________________________________
    band websites:
    http://www.JumpStartYourParty.com
    https://www.gigmasters.com/Rock/Jump-Start
    https://www.facebook.com/JumpStartYourParty
    http://www.weddingwire.com/biz/jumps...587fe5f12.html

    Comment


    • nedezero1
      nedezero1 commented
      Editing a comment

      guido61 wrote:
      You're wrong, Ned. "Need" is PRECISELY the standard we use to determine when and how to regulate items and weigh that against rights. We don't "assign" rights. Rights are preexisting. But we DO use "need" as one basis for establishing regulations concerning those rights.

      Also, your right is one to keep and bear arms to protect yourself. That right in no way means you have a right to any weapon, anywhere, at any time. None of the restrictions being proposed prevent you from being to protect yourself with a gun. Until you can show that it does, then you've got no constitutional ground to stand on.

      There is also nothing that states that the only laws and restrictions that can be implemented are those that have "immediate" effect. Who came up with that notion??

      Your perception of need is not the standard, neither is mine. We regulate individual rights by letting rights go as far as they possibly can until it proves harmful to society. And on that note, in spite of emotionally leveraged discrete tragedies exploited by the left, there still isn't a societal need to ban high cap mags or ugly guns based on the numbers...you know....solid-objective data.

      Until you can show how high cap mags or ugly guns is a greater threat to society than other rights that aren't limited, you've got no leg stand on.

       

      Besides, it's looking like a moot point since there's no political will at the federal level to ban anything at this point. Nor will there be in the near future.

       

      I'll tell you something similar to what pro-abortion folks like to say....don't like high cap magazines and ugly guns....don't buy them.

       

      Wanna save little kid's lives....ban alcohol and set speed limits to 3omph.



Working...
X