I think cars should be banned cuz anybody can use their car as a weapon & kill a bunch of people.

Oh wait.

Cars do NOT require liscensing, training, etc UNLESS they are used off of private property.

Ownership/possession of cars is what I meant.

Or in a private parking lot?

inspections, and then you could only use them in a heavily regulated manner that takes up thousands of pages in the federal and state codes.

cuz I can't count the number of times of heard of people committing mass homocide with their automobiles.

I hear about people committing mass homocide with their automobiles practically every time I read the godforsaken newspaper.

It may seem like a silly argument or comparison to some people, but it's a valid argument just the same. A gun becomes (more)dangerous when someone decides to use it to commit a crime. The only person MY gun poses a threat to is someone who would decide to enter my house that doesn't belong here. Period, end of discussion. A legally registered and licensed vehicle in the possession of someone committing a crime (driving drunk) poses way more threat to way more people than legally registered, legally owned guns EVER will.

:hi:

Ghost

I give props to what you're sayin'. And I am not for the repeal of the second amendment. But to have people be upset about restricting the sale of automatic weapons or cop killer bullets is the same, in my humble opinion, as being upset that the govt. doesn't allow people to drive as fast as they want whenever they want or cause a ruckus over the fact that it is illegal to have a car that spills oil out of the back to prevent the police from catching you for speeding. The author of this post MAY be on to something here by his/her comparison. There are REASONS for some restrictions and to sacrifice future lives over principle seems ludicrous to me.
:pals:

But that occurs in Iraq, not here in the U.S.(except for Tim McVeigh & WTC in '93, two tragic incidents), and we can't even get the country to step up on several issues, let alone being able to ban cars or guns there if we tried. So, your example falls on deaf ears. Try again.

or Belize... of Belfast... or Rome... or... well, you should get the picture. Wasn't it explosives in a rental truck that took down the Murrah Building? How about the '93 attack on the WTC?

That TOTALLY compares with the gazillion mass murders committed by guns in the US dude! TOTALLY!:headbang:

Then again, it is not the CAR/TRUCK that is the problem, but the exposives inside. In your scenario, shouldn't we prevent the sale or use of bomb making material?:patriot:

What's with all the sensationalism in the news when one happens then? Do they get way under-reported or something? It shouldn't be a big deal if gazillions of them happen every year, that would equate down to about a million per day, or in gobbledygook speak, "awholehellofalotta" mass murders happening every day.

You said:

"Then again, it is not the CAR/TRUCK that is the problem, but the exposives inside. In your scenario, shouldn't we prevent the sale or use of bomb making material?"

So by that logic, we can conclude that GUNS don't kill people, the explosive ammunition inside it kills people. So, in your scenario, we could just prevent the sale of bullets and cure the problem, right? A gun is just the delivery vehicle for the explosive, just like a car is the delivery method for a car bomb.

A FEW FACTS:

"According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2005, 16,885 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes - an average of one almost every half-hour. These deaths constituted approximately 39 percent of the 43,443 total traffic fatalities.

This is a slight decrease from 2004, when 16,919 people were killed in alcohol-related traffic crashes, representing 39 percent of the 42,836 people killed in all traffic crashes.

Nationally, alcohol-related fatalities are fairly flat, down .2% from 16,919 to 16,885 and fatalities involving a driver at or above a .08 were down 1.2% from 13,099 to 12,945."
http://www.madd.com/stats/1112

"Weapons 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Total 14,061 14,263 14,465 14,210 14,860
Total firearms: 8,890 9,528 9,659 9,385 10,100
Handguns 6,931 7,294 7,745 7,286 7,543
Rifles 386 488 392 403 442
Shotguns 511 486 454 507 517
Other guns 59 75 76 117 137
Firearms, type not stated 1,003 1,185 992 1,072 1,461
Knives or cutting instruments 1,831 1,776 1,828 1,866 1,914
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) 680 681 650 667 597
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)2 961 954 962 943 892
Poison 12 23 9 13 9
Explosives 4 11 4 1 2
Fire 109 103 170 118 123
Narcotics 37 48 44 80 44
Drowning 23 20 17 16 20
Strangulation 153 145 184 156 120
Asphyxiation 116 100 131 109 96
Other weapons or weapons not stated 1,245 874 807 856 943

1 The murder and nonnegligent homicides that occurred as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, are not included.
2 Pushed is included in personal weapons. "
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html

It looks like more people are killed by drunk drivers than by guns, so yes, by all means, let's ban cars!..... and alcohol!!

LONG LIVE AMERICANS!!!

I'll just interpret your reply to mean "I'm sorry, the facts are clear, and I have NO substantive, intelligent or educational reply for you"... does that about sum it up? This was looking like it could have been a good conversation/debate, though. Did I jump straight to checkmate too fast?

PEACE! (it's NOT just for hippies anymore :hippie: )

Ghost

I most certainly gave you the wrong impression. My bad. No checkmate here that I can see. Your facts are irrelevant to the argument at hand. The original poster said we should ban cars because they are as deadly if not more deadly than guns when one is compared to the other. My previous post was not a capitulation, rather it was to point out that it is the combination of alcohol and cars that made cars "more dangerous", not cars themselves.

So, I was trying to point out that it is alcohol ALONE that should be banned, not cars. I assume one could also argue that car accidents WITHOUT alcohol are also more prevelant than gun deaths. Whether this is the case or not, we have legislation in place that if followed would prevent such a high number of car deaths: speed limits, a good night's sleep, having a driver's license and so on. Also, one can clearly state that the percentage of people who obtain guns to kill another human being (versus to defend themselves) is MUCH greater than the percentage of people who purchase cars to do the same. However, to go one step further with your analogy and facts, however unpersuasive they may be, I will give you my own analogy:

DUIs cause more deaths than guns. Agreed. YET, there are laws in place to attempt to prevent these tragedies. That is why police give field sobriety tests, confiscate cars and send people to jail. Although I never intentionally meant to imply that I want to repeal the second amendment, I do firmly believe that, like cars, there should be restrictions on the use of guns. Automatic weapons and cop killer bullets are as uselful as having a mini-bar in the front seat of a car. Why should we encourage dangerous situations, whether it be with cars OR guns? I certainly do not want to take away your right to own a gun, only your fictitious right to have any type of gun or bullet that you desire.

Lastly, if you are promoting no restictions on "bearing arms", then any American should be able to buy a tank, a bazooka or even a nuclear missile, since they are all arms of one type or another. Can you imagine a group of people putting all their money together to buy a nuclear bomb that any of them could use whenever he/she wanted? Or someone having the ability to shoot a bazooka at the White House because he/she felt the president was a threat to his/her safety? Or another wanting to drive down the road in a tank because he/she feared being carjacked and since a tank has weaponry, his/her right to bear arms permits him/her to use such a vehicle?

I think most people would have to admit that such freedom to purchase and use such weapons would be madness. Therefore, we have restrictions that are not argued. However, there are some of us who think that there is another argument that indicates that allowing someone to purchase an automatic weapon that could paralyze a police unit is complete and utter foolishness. Now imagine how we feel about a mentally deranged person being able to buy an automatic weapon because there are no requirements to determine the mental health of the buyer. None of your "facts" about cars will dissuade us from thinking that their should also be (further) restrictions on guns. Admittedly, I was never clear on my perspective until now, but there it is. And I also want to apologize for my part in making our discourse somewhat acerbic.

No where is that joint? I know I dropped it around here somewhere, dude. :hippie:

I think we are coming from the same place, just using a different approach to get there...

Like I said, I support banning automatic assault weapons being sold to civilians, as well as background checks and registration. I don't support banning cars, I just use the parallel when the gun grabbers start getting rabid.

thanks for the buzz! Darn, I drank beer first! :puke:

peace

But it wasn't the car that killed them, it was the water. :hi:

Bullets do!

so why not compromise? Let's keep people from buying bullets for their guns and lakes for their cars.

gun control...

Sure, a car can be used as a weapon if it's used IMPROPERLY. A gun, on the other hand, kills when it is used properly.

murder is irrelevant to the dead people.

x(

:shrug:

:argh:

My firearms mostly sit in a safe appreciating in value. Sometimes I shoot them for amusement, and to teach others how to handle them safely.

To kill.

Maybe we should just fully fund public education.

Ya with me?????

:)

So many pedestrians, so little time. :eyes:

that when someone is too old or mentally incapacitated to use them, their doctor simply makes application to have their license taken away .
Oh wait? They don't do that?
Ohhh those are DRIVERS LICENSES that they do that with.
So sorry...my mistake.:eyes:

Or, swimming pools, candy-bars, and bridges.

Whereas, guns are designed to comb ones hair with.

"I'll kill you with my teacup." --Riddick

You could kill someone with a diaper. Lets ban those too.

It is a good point - guns were meant to kill game - they are used by humans as weapons against other humans, but so is anything and everything else.

and there should be a requirement to carry insurance on them.

Might be a good idea for guns as well. :shrug:

Then why are you absent from the discussion started by you???

hmmmm yeah.... food for thought,,, riiight

For those of us in the pedestrian minority who don't drive.

Thanks, Full Citizens of the Empire (i.e. People who drive!)

But you already knew that.

Just when you think you've seen the dumbest thing evah...

If so, you sure will be far up in the rankings.

laughable. :eyes:

It would make the world a much better place. And if we don't do it, Mother Earth will.

Uh oh, I've just insulted the true national religion of the United States. We worship cars here, which is really no different than worshiping buffalo or bears or trees or something, except that it makes a lot less sense.

:hide: