Reply
Super Contributor
Posts: 22,118
Registered: ‎05-18-2006

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.

Please use plain text.
Valued Contributor
willhaven
Posts: 18,327
Registered: ‎05-27-2007

Re: The Guns/Cars Comparison

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

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

MolonLabe.gif

"Senators say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them."- Gabrielle Giffords


Please use plain text.
Trusted Contributor
guido61
Posts: 28,317
Registered: ‎12-09-2001

Re: The Guns/Cars Comparison

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.
--David

FOR SALE: DBX Driverack PX; DBX 231 EQ; Behringer Racktuner; Rane SAC 22 crossover; Alesis D4 drum module; Line 6 Pod Pro rackmount.

Band website: http://www.JumpStartYourParty.com
http://www.gigmasters.com/Rock/Jump-Start/

Stage gear: Korg Kronos, Yamaha Motif, M-Audio Venom, Neo Ventilator, Digitech GSP-1101, Fender Stratocaster, Takamine Eg544SC, Samson SM10 line mixer, Alesis Picoverb, Samson Airline 77 Wireless, APC Smart-UPS SC 450VA
Please use plain text.
Valued Contributor
kav
Posts: 20,773
Registered: ‎05-31-2009

Re: The Guns/Cars Comparison

It's my right to do a 10-second quarter mile on your residential street, dammit!
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." William J. Casey, Director of the CIA under Ronald Reagan

"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself." Ronald Reagan

"I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally," Ronald Reagan, 1984.
Please use plain text.
Valued Contributor
willhaven
Posts: 18,327
Registered: ‎05-27-2007

Re: The Guns/Cars Comparison


kav wrote:
It's my right to do a 10-second quarter mile on your residential street, dammit!

But you could totally still hit a kid just backing out of your driveway, therefore we shouldn't bother regulating speed limits at all. It won't do any good.

MolonLabe.gif

"Senators say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them."- Gabrielle Giffords


Please use plain text.
Valued Contributor
kav
Posts: 20,773
Registered: ‎05-31-2009

Re: The Guns/Cars Comparison

:cattongue:

 

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." William J. Casey, Director of the CIA under Ronald Reagan

"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself." Ronald Reagan

"I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally," Ronald Reagan, 1984.
Please use plain text.
Ed
Occasional Contributor
Ed
Posts: 24
Registered: ‎01-17-2013

Re: The Guns/Cars Comparison


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.

 

 

Please use plain text.
Super Contributor
Telecruiser
Posts: 7,371
Registered: ‎08-23-2009

Re: The Guns/Cars Comparison


guido61 wrote:
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.

You can own a car when you are 6 years old. You can legally operate a car on private property while drunk. You can legally drive a car on private property even if you are 8 years old. A 6 old can legally own a Ferrari (Assault weapon). The list goes on.

Capitalism, even in the best of conditions, is not perfect. It's just leagues ahead of second place.



Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what is for dinner.

Liberty is a well armed lamb disputing the decision.



Except For Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism, WAR has Never Solved Anything. - unknown



Violence is rarely the answer, but when it is, it is the only answer.
Please use plain text.
Valued Contributor
Davo17
Posts: 26,742
Registered: ‎03-24-2009

Re: The Guns/Cars Comparison


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?

DSM-IV 301.95 Progressive Personality Disorder
A. A pervasive pattern of progressive political and inter-personal thought and action, rooted in discredited leftist (neo-Marxist) beliefs, beginning in early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by at least five of the following (individual must be at least 18 years of age to qualify for the diagnosis of Progressive Personality Disorder, as many of the criteria are age-appropriate for adolescents). This disorder often coexists with Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Utopian thinking, e.g. a delusional belief that there exist simple, linear, side effect-free solutions to all social problems.
Lack of historical knowledge and perspective, and repression of personal memories dissonant with this belief system. e.g., the national mood post 9-11, including that of PPD patients, is suppressed in order to avoid conflict with subsequent reversal of beliefs as the PPD delusions were reinstated - hence the downplaying of terrorism as a threat and the obsessive concern for the "rghts" of temporarily feared and hated terrorists. (Note to clinician: please differentiate between mere historical ignorance, e.g., a doctorate in history from an elite university, vs. neurotic or psychotic delusions necessary to sustain these beliefs. )
Anthroplastic delusion, e.g. The delusion that behavioral conditioning performed by the government or some other collective will cure all behavioral and social problems, rooted in denial of fixed human nature. Implicit in this delusion is the idea that human beings are infinitely malleable and subject to behavioral manipulation leading to perfect control and predictability. Free will, personal conscience, and objective morality are denied, devalued or denigrated.
Anti-theistic rebellion: An emotional antagonism to the Judeo-Christian tradition, rooted in an abnormal persistence of adolescent rebellion (may also be related to the need to avoid counter-arguments that would question utopian, anthroplastic ideation). This behavior ranges from a mere antagonism to Christianity to a hatred of all forms of religion. The rejection of religion leads to a deep longing for a substitute religion, or in extreme cases, a messiah. The more Western a religion is, the more it is despised. Thus, these patients may openly accept more primitive pantheistic, neo-pagan, or animist belief systems, such as Wicca or fraudulent "new age" philosophies, e.g., Deepak Chopra, Tony Robbins, etc.
Animist delusion: The belief that mankind is evil and nature is benign. The incidence of this symptom is inversely related to practical knowledge and experience of nature. Collective self-hatred is a feature in this area, paradoxically existing side by side with egomaniacal omniscience, e.g., ability to accurately predict climate 100 years into the future. Typical thinking includes the self-hating belief that mankind is a cancer on earth and that the planet (subjectively felt as a "feeling being") will "retaliate." The animist delusion includes considerable cognitive dissonance, since the typical Progressive Personality is a believer in natural selection, which has resulted in untold suffering and cruelty, mitigated only by mankind's presence.
a. For example, the belief that an eagle egg or four-toed salamander is entitled to more legal protection than a human baby.
Environmental spasm: Chaotic, unreasonable, or incoherent episodes of manic activity on behalf of the environment or "mother nature." The delusional nature of this activity is evidenced by misanthropic attacks on works of man, and also by a manic focus on visible or totemic biological objects of little rational value. The patient is typically obsessed only with cute or cuddly creatures, often a displacement of the nurturing urge (often unfulfilled due to abortion).
Control obsession: A tendency to strive for excessive control over others through state intrusion. A contemptuous projection of unconscious envy which is subjectively experienced as "compassion." Through the magic of this unconscious mechanism, PPD patients typically want the state to appropriate your wealth while imagining themselves to be generous and "compassionate." Use of state coercion often substitutes for true acts of generosity; a low rate of charitable giving is often present.
Racist/feminist hypocrisy: Passionate advocacy of government-enforced discrimination based on sex or race, with aggressively proclaimed opposition to policies which are "racist" or "sexist." Obsessive conformity of thought within a racially diverse population. For example, a PPD patient might favor seating a racist on the Supreme Court, so long as the person is of the "correct" race. Often the cognitive dissonance normally associated with such beliefs is rationalized by the delusion that the "oppressed" cannot themselves be racist.
Overemotional perception: Excessive concern with how a social action "looks" or "feels," to the exclusion of actual resulting benefits or harm; in particular, any effects beyond the immediate. Resistance to, and denial of, objective evidence proving the adverse consequences of progressive policy. Superficial cognition about most matters of significant import, as the progressive personality relies on the "feel" of issues rather than truly understanding them. Obsession with "fairness" or "social justice" as opposed to what actually works.
Sexual dysfunction: Significant anxiety about sexual matters, manifested as:
a. Obsession with sexual and gender roles.
b. Passionate celebration of nontraditional sex roles and preferences.
c. The compulsion to define individuals by their "sexual preference" and to design social policy as if all individuals share the obsession.
d. An inordinate interest in preserving inappropriate, lewd, perverse, or antisocial forms of sexual expression.
e. Fascination with immature or deviant expressions of sexuality; reduction of human sexuality to animal sexuality.
f. The projected belief that the contradictory beliefs are a result of fear (e.g. "homophobia".
e. Obsession with contraception and abortion ("reproductive freedom").
Replacement of patriotism with matriotism: Unwillingness to defend country when attacked or threatened, allied with inability to name or recognize evil and General devaluation of the masculine virtues.
Cultural and moral relativism: The fervent belief that all cultures are beautiful except one's own, and that it is immoral to judge another's morality unless they are conservative.
Please use plain text.
Trusted Contributor
guido61
Posts: 28,317
Registered: ‎12-09-2001

Re: The Guns/Cars Comparison


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?

--David

FOR SALE: DBX Driverack PX; DBX 231 EQ; Behringer Racktuner; Rane SAC 22 crossover; Alesis D4 drum module; Line 6 Pod Pro rackmount.

Band website: http://www.JumpStartYourParty.com
http://www.gigmasters.com/Rock/Jump-Start/

Stage gear: Korg Kronos, Yamaha Motif, M-Audio Venom, Neo Ventilator, Digitech GSP-1101, Fender Stratocaster, Takamine Eg544SC, Samson SM10 line mixer, Alesis Picoverb, Samson Airline 77 Wireless, APC Smart-UPS SC 450VA
Please use plain text.
Super Contributor
Telecruiser
Posts: 7,371
Registered: ‎08-23-2009

Re: The Guns/Cars Comparison

I think any car that exceeds the federal speed limit should be banned. Why does anybody need to go faster than that?

Capitalism, even in the best of conditions, is not perfect. It's just leagues ahead of second place.



Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what is for dinner.

Liberty is a well armed lamb disputing the decision.



Except For Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism, WAR has Never Solved Anything. - unknown



Violence is rarely the answer, but when it is, it is the only answer.
Please use plain text.
Trusted Contributor
guido61
Posts: 28,317
Registered: ‎12-09-2001

Re: The Guns/Cars Comparison

[ Edited ]

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?


Sure they are.  Just because cars are not specifically protected somewhere in the Constitution doesn't mean you don't have a right to own one.  Try reading the Ninth Amendment.

And yes, criminals will always have guns.  As will good guys.  Nobody is "stripping" anyone of any rights.  No one is saying you can't own a gun.  Unless you're suspected of being mentally deficient, anyway.

If I were you, I'd be more worried about the people on the RIGHT who want to expand the definition of who is crazy and who is not and limit THEIR access to guns than I would those on the LEFT who want to limit you to 10 bullets at a pop.

--David

FOR SALE: DBX Driverack PX; DBX 231 EQ; Behringer Racktuner; Rane SAC 22 crossover; Alesis D4 drum module; Line 6 Pod Pro rackmount.

Band website: http://www.JumpStartYourParty.com
http://www.gigmasters.com/Rock/Jump-Start/

Stage gear: Korg Kronos, Yamaha Motif, M-Audio Venom, Neo Ventilator, Digitech GSP-1101, Fender Stratocaster, Takamine Eg544SC, Samson SM10 line mixer, Alesis Picoverb, Samson Airline 77 Wireless, APC Smart-UPS SC 450VA
Please use plain text.
Super Contributor
Chaunch
Posts: 6,483
Registered: ‎08-25-2007

Re: The Guns/Cars Comparison


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?


You're a BLEEPING joke.

KUDOS on that.

Please use plain text.
Valued Contributor
kav
Posts: 20,773
Registered: ‎05-31-2009

Re: The Guns/Cars Comparison


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.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." William J. Casey, Director of the CIA under Ronald Reagan

"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself." Ronald Reagan

"I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally," Ronald Reagan, 1984.
Please use plain text.
Ed
Occasional Contributor
Ed
Posts: 24
Registered: ‎01-17-2013

Re: The Guns/Cars Comparison


guido61 wrote:

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?


Yes, there is that cost/benefit analysis to consider. The problem is, you're not doing a great job at arguing that clip sizes are going to do anything other than make a few people feel that something is being done.

 

It is just feel-good legislation, and that will do nothing to defray the cost to society.

Please use plain text.
Super Contributor
normh
Posts: 4,839
Registered: ‎04-05-2008

Re: The Guns/Cars Comparison

[ Edited ]

Telecruiser wrote:

I think any car that exceeds the federal speed limit should be banned. Why does anybody need to go faster than that?


Do you know why cars exceed the Federal speed limit?

It has to do with the fact that the faster an engine turns (greater RPM) for a given speed, the more fuel a motor burns.  An engine will generally have the greatest horsepower around 5200 rpm, but this is also the area in which an engine burns the greatest amount of fuel for the given work.  In a normal car, not a purpose built race car, if your RPM is greater than 5250 RPM, you are burning more fuel for less benefit.  As a horsepower/efficiency trade off, most cars are designed to operate at freeway speeds with an RPM in the range of 2250.  You need additional RPM to accelerate to pass another vehicle, accelerate to freeway speed, additional RPM to accelerate in city driving, etc.  We will not even go into the horsepower needed to overcome wind resistance to maintain a vehicle at a constant speed.

Therefore, your question is silly under examination.

Please use plain text.
Trusted Contributor
guido61
Posts: 28,317
Registered: ‎12-09-2001

Re: The Guns/Cars Comparison


Ed wrote:

Yes, there is that cost/benefit analysis to consider. The problem is, you're not doing a great job at arguing that clip sizes are going to do anything other than make a few people feel that something is being done.

 

It is just feel-good legislation, and that will do nothing to defray the cost to society.


It may or may not do any real good.  I think you will; you think it won't.   We won't know until we try it.   And unless I can see where any HARM would come from banning, I see no reason not to try it.

I'm under no illusion that such legislation will stop everything overnight.   What I'm MOST interested in is in taking the first steps towards changing our culture's obsession with guns.  It will take decades.  But a very simple first step is to stop people from accepting the idea that such weapons are legal and good.

When I grew up---in a largely pre-assault weapon era---we all knew that machine guns were illegal and were bad.  It was accepted fact.  Nobody was clammoring to own them or talking about how they were necessary for anyone's self-defense.   Because they didn't really exist except in old Jimmy Cagney movies.  

We didn't need those guns to protect ourselves.  Even though "only the bad guys" owned them and many probably still did.  

It will be slow progress.  It will take decades to change our gun-obsessed culture.  But we need to start somewhere.

--David

FOR SALE: DBX Driverack PX; DBX 231 EQ; Behringer Racktuner; Rane SAC 22 crossover; Alesis D4 drum module; Line 6 Pod Pro rackmount.

Band website: http://www.JumpStartYourParty.com
http://www.gigmasters.com/Rock/Jump-Start/

Stage gear: Korg Kronos, Yamaha Motif, M-Audio Venom, Neo Ventilator, Digitech GSP-1101, Fender Stratocaster, Takamine Eg544SC, Samson SM10 line mixer, Alesis Picoverb, Samson Airline 77 Wireless, APC Smart-UPS SC 450VA
Please use plain text.
Super Contributor
normh
Posts: 4,839
Registered: ‎04-05-2008

Re: The Guns/Cars Comparison


guido61 wrote:

When I grew up---in a largely pre-assault weapon era---we all knew that machine guns were illegal and were bad.  It was accepted fact.  Nobody was clammoring to own them or talking about how they were necessary for anyone's self-defense.   Because they didn't really exist except in old Jimmy Cagney movies. 

My dad stole a machine gun from a military base in the 1940's.  He got into a little trouble when he was caught.  As he told the story, he ran seven miles with the MP's chasing him.  My uncles and grandmother verified his story.

He stole the weapon from the San Pedro Japanese internment camp.

Therefore, I am going to have to say that in your memory there is no such thing as a pre-assault weapon era and that you are living in a fantasy on that issue.

Please use plain text.
Regular Contributor
moonlightin
Posts: 181
Registered: ‎01-17-2013

Re: The Guns/Cars Comparison


willhaven wrote:

kav wrote:
It's my right to do a 10-second quarter mile on your residential street, dammit!

But you could totally still hit a kid just backing out of your driveway, therefore we shouldn't bother regulating speed limits at all. It won't do any good.


I don't see no stinking speed limit sign on my driveway.

"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details." ~ Einstein

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." ~ Einstein

" I generally avoid temptation unless I can't resist it. "~Mae West

The man and the gun become intimate and they cannot do the act without each other. So the gun is part of the problem."
Please use plain text.
Valued Contributor
willhaven
Posts: 18,327
Registered: ‎05-27-2007

Re: The Guns/Cars Comparison


normh wrote:

guido61 wrote:

When I grew up---in a largely pre-assault weapon era---we all knew that machine guns were illegal and were bad.  It was accepted fact.  Nobody was clammoring to own them or talking about how they were necessary for anyone's self-defense.   Because they didn't really exist except in old Jimmy Cagney movies. 

My dad stole a machine gun from a military base in the 1940's.  He got into a little trouble when he was caught.  As he told the story, he ran seven miles with the MP's chasing him.  My uncles and grandmother verified his story.

He stole the weapon from the San Pedro Japanese internment camp.

Therefore, I am going to have to say that in your memory there is no such thing as a pre-assault weapon era and that you are living in a fantasy on that issue.


Runs in the family? Just like the "160 IQ"?

MolonLabe.gif

"Senators say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them."- Gabrielle Giffords


Please use plain text.