01-20-2013 10:29 AM
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.
01-20-2013 10:37 AM
But if we outlaw cars, only outlaws will have them.
If I can't defend my family with an H2 Hummer, that's tyranny.
"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
01-20-2013 11:09 AM
01-20-2013 11:21 AM
01-20-2013 11:23 AM
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.
"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
01-20-2013 11:27 AM
![]()
01-20-2013 11:32 AM
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.
01-20-2013 11:43 AM
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.
01-20-2013 11:43 AM
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?
01-20-2013 11:45 AM
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?
01-20-2013 11:48 AM
I think any car that exceeds the federal speed limit should be banned. Why does anybody need to go faster than that?
01-20-2013 11:49 AM - edited 01-20-2013 11:50 AM
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.
01-20-2013 11:54 AM
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.
01-20-2013 11:57 AM
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.
01-20-2013 12:08 PM
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.
01-20-2013 12:19 PM - edited 01-20-2013 12:20 PM
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.
01-20-2013 12:26 PM
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.
01-20-2013 12:36 PM
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.
01-20-2013 12:40 PM
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.
01-20-2013 12:40 PM
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"?
"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
About HCHarmonyCentral.com is the leading Internet resource for musicians, supplying valuable information from news and product reviews, to classified ads and chat rooms.
Advertise on HC