Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd love to see the left's reaction to someone who's entire family was killed in a car wreck. They wouldn't give two craps, as the hypocrites they are. I would take the same exact position I'm taking now, as someone who is consistent in my beliefs.
Then you are absolutely wrong.
Who kicked off the auto safety movement with "Unsafe at any Speed", a conservative?
Who exposed Ford's beancounter nonchalance towards exploding gas tanks killing people in Pinto crashes, conservatives?
What about investigating Explorers and Firestone for deadly failures? SUV rollover deaths?
Not conservatives or libertarians. They were crying foul over govt intrusion and making the same argument that the deaths were just the price we should accept for our freedom.
And that has absolutely nothing to do with the laws. Are you telling me that if guns and cars are legal, people shoot and drive 24/7? The issue is the end result of that legalization, all other intermediate factors are irrelevant.
I didn't say the two had anything in common besides the fact that the ability to own them inevitably results in thousands of deaths.
I've read your posts concerning the vehicle/gun comparisons and in a very oblique, legal way I actually see where you're coming from. I think you could use your current line of reasoning to present a brief to the SCOTUS when the issue of what is reasonable restriction comes before it.
What will derail you is Intent. All criminal law is judged for intent. If an elderly man has a heart attack and plows into 20 kids at a bus stop and kills them all he will walk a free man probably without a ticket. If someone walks into a classroom with a gun and slaughters those same twenty kids he's gonna die. Same results but different outcomes all because of intent. Intent determines degree of innocence or guilt.
This in itself is enough reason to limit the availability of large capacity military grade weapons to the general public at large. At least without extensive screening. These should be special weapons not for general distribution more in the realm of the current regulations of machine guns or ClassIII items. They, like the machine guns they copy, ARE weapons of mass destruction in an open society such as ours.
The winds of change are blowing gale force, Sam. I figured out early to turn around and pee in the other direction. NRA and a lot of hard right politicians are facing in the same direction.
Who kicked off the auto safety movement with "Unsafe at any Speed", a conservative?
Who exposed Ford's beancounter nonchalance towards exploding gas tanks killing people in Pinto crashes, conservatives?
What about investigating Explorers and Firestone for deadly failures? SUV rollover deaths?
Not conservatives or libertarians. They were crying foul and making the same argument that the deaths were just the price we should accept for our freedom.
Right or wrong, I fail to see ANY relevance. Do you know my position on safety laws? I'd gladly explain them to you if you didn't approach me in such an underhanded manner, trying to throw me off with irrelevant crap to my current argument.
You can't explain why intent does matter though, can you? All you can do is say it. It's been asserted for 3 pages.
But no one can tell me why a society is better off with 40,000 unintentional deaths than 12,000 intentional deaths.
I'll give it a go. Listen, I understand what you're saying. And in some aspects you're correct. But there's a certain senselessness and pure anger that pervades people after events like these (especially like this one) - because there was no meaning behind it, except for whatever was going on in one person's not right mind.
If a kid dies in an accident, well the kid was going about their life, and we're all subject to accidental death. While it sucks, it's accepted that risk is a part of life.
However, when somebody murders people they don't know for no reason, or drives drunk and kills a van full of kids, then there is something that drives people to do something about it, because these are not pure accidents and were avoidable we think, on some level.
There are certainly people that try to ban cars for certain unsociable people, like drunk drivers. If it's been proven that you are not responsible enough to drive a car, then you don't get to. Doesn't matter if you own a car if you can't drive it.
FWIW, I don't drive because my biggest fear is that I might run someone's kid over. I don't think I could live with that.
Cars are dangerous enough, and they aren't meant for hurting people. I think it's the sheer waste of lives that gets to people. And I think emotions do matter, which is why a gun massacre is worse than a car pile up on the freeway. People in the cars likely had a purpose for driving. No innocent person has a purpose being shot.
Because accidents are statistically unlikely? Seems obvious, and irrelevant.
Would you care to explain how 200 million guns only commit 12,000 murders per year?
Interesting how you skew the numbers to make your ridiculous argument.
Why do you get to reduce the number of gun deaths by eliminting 18,000 suicides and accidents, but you lump in ALL deaths from cars which include sucides and accidents? Wouldn't you be more intellectually honest to compare apples to apples by comparing gun MURDERS to car MURDERS?
What will derail you is Intent. All criminal law is judged for intent. If an elderly man has a heart attack and plows into 20 kids at a bus stop and kills them all he will walk a free man probably without a ticket. If someone walks into a classroom with a gun and slaughters those same twenty kids he's gonna die. Same results but different outcomes all because of intent. Intent determines degree of innocence or guilt.
But we're not talking criminal law here. That has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Perhaps in some certain legal context, which I am anything but an expert in, and therefore can not comment on.
I'd be arguing intent in that context if I were to proclaim that people who crash their cars should be tried as murderers. Which would be ridiculous.
What I am arguing here is societal impact.
When liberals take this hard stance against guns, and imply that one death is too many, it's blatantly hypocritical.
My argument in short is this: Society allows death on a daily basis, for things as ridiculously stupid as the right to freely eat cheeseburgers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
This in itself is enough reason to limit the availability of large capacity military grade weapons to the general public at large. At least without extensive screening. These should be special weapons not for general distribution more in the realm of the current regulations of machine guns or ClassIII items. They, like the machine guns they copy, ARE weapons of mass destruction in an open society such as ours.
I've actually voiced my ability to compromise on these things on this very forum, referencing the exact same thing you are now. Again, I'm trying to make a broader point here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by logline
Interesting how you skew the numbers to make your ridiculous argument.
Why do you get to reduce the number of gun deaths by eliminting 18,000 suicides and accidents, but you lump in ALL deaths from cars which include sucides and accidents? Wouldn't you be more intellectually honest to compare apples to apples by comparing gun MURDERS to car MURDERS?
Okay.
Would you care to explain how 200 million guns only cause 40,000 deaths per year?
Right or wrong, I fail to see ANY relevance. Do you know my position on safety laws? I'd gladly explain them to you if you didn't approach me in such an underhanded manner, trying to throw me off with irrelevant crap to my current argument.
I just gave you evidence countering your assertion that liberals are uncaring about those who suffer from auto related deaths, and you say it's irrelevant.
What do you have to back your assertion that liberals wouldn't give a crap about a family dying in a car accident?
I'll give it a go. Listen, I understand what you're saying. And in some aspects you're correct. But there's a certain senselessness and pure anger that pervades people after events like these (especially like this one) - because there was no meaning behind it, except for whatever was going on in one person's not right mind.
Of course. Do you think I don't feel the same way? But rationality must prevail. Emotion must be put aside, these are serious issues. And once emotion is put aside, the facts are clear. Society accepts death for a myriad of reasons. Tens of thousands of deaths, every year. Adults, children, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus
If a kid dies in an accident, well the kid was going about their life, and we're all subject to accidental death. While it sucks, it's accepted that risk is a part of life.
However, when somebody murders people they don't know for no reason, or drives drunk and kills a van full of kids, then there is something that drives people to do something about it, because these are not pure accidents and were avoidable we think, on some level.
And there you bring another point to the table.
But let's take two allowed items here. Are the intermediate factors really relevant, when we're considering the end result of these items' existence within society? At the end of the day, these items cause death when humans have them. And we are human. That's one of those variables we can not change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus
There are certainly people that try to ban cars for certain unsociable people, like drunk drivers. If it's been proven that you are not responsible enough to drive a car, then you don't get to. Doesn't matter if you own a car if you can't drive it.
FWIW, I don't drive because my biggest fear is that I might run someone's kid over. I don't think I could live with that.
Cars are dangerous enough, and they aren't meant for hurting people. I think it's the sheer waste of lives that gets to people. And I think emotions do matter, which is why a gun massacre is worse than a car pile up on the freeway. People in the cars likely had a purpose for driving. No innocent person has a purpose being shot.
There I must disagree with you.
You take a risk every time you leave your house. You can be driving, walking, crawling. You can get in a car accident, get shot by a psycho, fall down a well, anything can happen. To phrase this as you did, people walking down the street have a purpose for doing so.
There is nothing that sets driving apart besides the level at which the risk is present.
Quote:
Originally Posted by robbobobbo
I just gave you evidence countering your assertion that liberals are uncaring about those who suffer from auto related deaths, and you say it's irrelevant.
What do you have to back your assertion that liberals wouldn't give a crap about a family dying in a car accident?
It's not relevant. Liberals accept death. Everyone does. They may try to stop it, but there comes a point when it can't be stopped. And they would accept it all the same.
Your argument would only be valid if liberals were against cars unless laws were enacted that would prevent 100% of automobile fatalities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
