If antis were after cars instead of guns.


PDA






FROGO207
January 24, 2013, 06:47 AM
I use this analogy of how the antis in government work instead of arguing till I am out of breath with a typical anti about gun control.

There were many people who used a car to move around every day without incident. Then one day an angry troubled young male decided to go out while making a statement. He has a few drinks and gets into a souped up classic car that is BTW stolen from someone he knows and rams it into a school bus full of kids one morning killing himself and 20 kids.

Everybody in the nation hears about it due to great media coverage and then there are several intrepid reporters that dredge up similar incidents from the past about this ALMOST happening before and there is a pattern of abuse by car owners.

The government and a lot of CONCERNED citizens call for tougher restrictions on all drivers to be implemented immediately. So the President takes up the cause and even though the people that drive safely try to stop it they enact some laws "for the children" while saying that they understand all the drivers are not a problem so we will work to keep cars for those with those that are still OK to drive.

One is that cars of a certain type go too fast so they should be banned because they look fast.
Next they say that because the person that acted with a car that all cars capable of hitting something should be limited to three tires so they cant do that again, motorcycles to one tire for the same reason.
Then they say that a steering wheel is a dangerous thingy and needs to be banned from all cars.
And on and on-------------------:banghead:

Next comes the press conferences that all the banners like to attend where they point out that you STILL can own a car and the children and general public are now safe from harm from a few individuals that MAY have been able to do this.

The last time I looked at the laws of the great United States we as citizens were supposed to be innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. Somehow this seems not the case anymore and you are helping this become commonplace.


That is what I use.:) Does this look like the typical antigun philosophy to you?

If you enjoyed reading about "If antis were after cars instead of guns." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Blackstone
January 24, 2013, 07:23 AM
The argument you get back is that there is a use for cars, whereas guns are designed just to kill.

cfullgraf
January 24, 2013, 07:30 AM
Another look, the government bans everyone from owning and using Fords because law enforcement agencies use Ford Crown Victorias.

Can't have the public driving cars that look like police cruisers. Since police cruisers have four tires and a Ford blue "jelly bean" symbol on it, then all Fords must be banned.

beatledog7
January 24, 2013, 07:31 AM
The argument you get back is that there is a use for cars, whereas guns are designed just to kill.

Isn't it amazing how inefficient guns are. Imagine: things like swimming pools and automobiles, which are designed not to kill people but to help them, kill so many more people than guns do.

tarosean
January 24, 2013, 07:36 AM
Here is your good example...

Aurora Shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting

Texas pickup crash...
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/23/us/texas-truck-wreck/index.html


Posted the links so you can see the dates... More people died in the crash than the movie theater yet one still receives attention while the other has been forgotten..

Deltaboy
January 24, 2013, 07:38 AM
In any given year more people die because of drunk driving. But no-one in DC trying to ban booze or cars.

snake_plisskin
January 24, 2013, 09:33 AM
The problem with the car analogy is that every vehicle is registered to the owner and you need a government issued licence to drive one. Also you need government mandated insurance. I tend to stay away from using the car analogy with antis for this reason

jamesbeat
January 24, 2013, 09:39 AM
The argument you get back is that there is a use for cars, whereas guns are designed just to kill.
Exactly, which is why I keep one for home defense.

TennJed
January 24, 2013, 09:40 AM
The problem with the car analogy is that every vehicle is registered to the owner and you need a government issued licence to drive one. Also you need government mandated insurance. I tend to stay away from using the car analogy with antis for this reason
Yep

cfullgraf
January 24, 2013, 10:24 AM
The argument you get back is that there is a use for cars, whereas guns are designed just to kill.

There are a number of folks that do not realize animals are killed to make the packages of meat in the super market.

Godsgunman
January 24, 2013, 10:31 AM
The one and ONLY reason they go after guns is because it is about the government having complete control. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with saving lives. Its their smokescreen that they try to fly under. The right to bear arms is the most important right we have. Once that falls all is lost. When dealing with a corrupt government, force is the only thing that will work. The founding fathers understood this perfectly and wanted to make sure that what was happening to them would never happen to this country again. Look at where we are as a country, no one really cares about such little loss of life caused by firearms, only about power. 3,000+ people are killed a day through abortion yet our current government supports it. I know that was not firearms related but proves the point perfectly that they are NOT for saving lives or even preventing crime with this, its ONLY about control.

Jim, West PA
January 24, 2013, 10:45 AM
Why don't we go a step further.
Why don't they ban abortions ?
Abortions murder more than 3000 children a day.
FAR more than guns , or anything else.
Multiply that 365 x's.
Where's the outcry and restrictions for them ?

etcher1
January 24, 2013, 10:46 AM
What ever happened to majority rules? Seems a few can make the rules anymore.:(

Jim, West PA
January 24, 2013, 10:47 AM
Benjamin, is now the majority.

ApacheCoTodd
January 24, 2013, 11:04 AM
One way in which "antis" did go after cars or more directly - Pick-ups and SUVs is in forcing manufacturers to come up with the ridiculous bumper requirements to protect everyone else on the road from an implement on the front of a vehicle which was designed solely to protect the truck and by implied extension to overly damage little cracker box cars.

If you watched the movement a few years ago against evil SUVs you saw very much the same media alienation of SUV owners which you see in the case of firearms.

Uncaring, heartless, selfish "clingers" without a care for children and innocent lives lost.

They won in this case. Think of it as truck, bumper or SUV control.

Remember all the news items they used to run where people weren't killed or injured by another driver but in fact by an "SUV" as though outlawing SUVs might have kept the incident from happening or at least limited the damage.

There isn't a single item out there that doesn't have an "anti" constituency group looking to limit others use or ownership.

Some of the ones I dealt with living in California:

"Assault dogs" really! a five dog list.
2 Stroke dirt bikes.
Road bikes over (insert your random HP/displacement here).
Four wheel drives.
Classic cars.
Scuba diving.
Of Course - shooting.

MachIVshooter
January 24, 2013, 11:05 AM
The problem with the car analogy is that every vehicle is registered to the owner and you need a government issued licence to drive one. Also you need government mandated insurance. I tend to stay away from using the car analogy with antis for this reason

On the other side, you can use it to point out that despite the mandatory licensing, registration and insurance, motor vehicles still kill more people than firearms, and there are more guns in the USA than cars.

I don't like drawing the parallel either, because it's a terrible analogy no matter how it's spun. But pointing out the above will rightly and quickly shut an anti up when they try to use the "licensing and registration works with cars" argument. You can also point out that you don't need either to purchase or possess a car, only to drive it on public roads; of the 49 states that allow CCW, 46 require a license to concealed carry a gun in public.

USAF_Vet
January 24, 2013, 11:11 AM
The problem with the car analogy is that every vehicle is registered to the owner and you need a government issued licence to drive one. Also you need government mandated insurance. I tend to stay away from using the car analogy with antis for this reason
Because being registered to an owner ensures that the car will never get stolen, right?

You don't need a license or insurance to drive. These things are required by law to legally operate a vehicle on public roads, but they are not required to make the vehicle function.

The car/gun analogy is a bad one in general, but most people approach these situations with the perspective of law abiding citizens. Criminals are not law abiding citizens.
Criminals will steal a car, drive it uninsured, without a license, while drunk, and use it for nefarious purposes. Just like criminals will steal a gun, possess it illegally, and use it for nefarious purposes.

Criminals don't steal cars to chauffeur their grandmothers to and from church, and they don't steal guns to spend a day with their kids at the target range.

Lawmakers also approach gun control from the perspective of law abiding citizens. That is the fundamental mistake when trying to control crimes.

aeriedad
January 24, 2013, 11:34 AM
The argument you get back is that there is a use for cars, whereas guns are designed just to kill.

Every analogy breaks down if you extend it long enough. Car vs. Gun ownership analogies, though often flawed, can be useful because they involve a subject most people already understand.

Here's something I posted to Facebook about a month ago:

In 2010, there were 10,389 U.S. drunk driving fatalities, and 8,775 firearm fatalities. None of the former were lawful, though at least some of the latter were the result of lawful self defense. Nevertheless, a few mentally unstable individuals have committed horrific crimes using firearms, and some elements of society want to punish law-abiding gun owners with draconian measures that promise nothing more than "security theater." Let's apply the anti-gunners' "logic" in the battle against drunk driving:

1. Restrict automobile registration to only those who can demonstrate a compelling need for such a dangerous weapon.
2. Impose a 10-day waiting period to purchase any motorized vehicle.
3. Restrict purchases to no more than one motorized vehicle per month.
4. Possession of fast automobiles shall be permitted to the government only (i.e., police, fire fighters, military, politicians, etc,). No citizen needs a vehicle capable of speeds greater than 80 MPH.
5. Require bar and liquor store and owners to register every sale with ATF.
6. Require auto dealers and gas station owners to register every sale with the DOT.
7. Consider legislation to hold automobile manufacturers, oil companies and alcoholic beverage producers liable for all deaths, injuries or damages that result from lawful or unlawful use of their products.

I'm sure there are many more, but these will be tough enough to enact anyway, and this is a good start. Also, there is no shortage of bureaucrats who can conceive far more creative and restrictive measures.

Clearly, although we can't rule out personal responsibility as a factor in drunk driving fatalities, America has an automobile problem, and it's time we implement "sensible car control."

brnmw
January 24, 2013, 11:45 AM
The sad thing is they are already after: not only guns but cars (Not a joke and nothing new). More restrictive EPA std's are again going to be the virtual death of aka "Muscle Cars" as we know them to be (Same with our guns mainly AR's and AK's any and all semi-auto's) it happened in the 1970's and it will happen again. Somehow even as I drive around in my 400hp 4.6 Ltr. Ford Mustang hearing the rumble of the exhaust I know deep down there is a plan to put a 4 banger in the thing and give it a turbo (Kind of like our clip capacity)....somewhere somehow that will eventually be the case. When everything is said and done no part of our lives will be as we have come to appreciate and love. I for one do not cherish the thought of driving around in anemic V-8's or turbo 4-banger "Rice burner" sounding cars that only maybe look like a cool muscle car... Oh man, don't get me started on the Mustang II. I know this was a comparison to the gun culture but the idea is still sound....Where does it end? Answer: It does not and will never stop.
(For the record all you GM guy's out there getting ready to pounce on me: GM killed my beloved Trans Am and made a mockery of the GTO I once loved so yes I went "Dark Side" even as I speak I have more "HEMI" guy's try and race my little 4.6 Ltr. Mustang and get stomped. So far I have claimed 2 SRT8's (300 series and Charger), 3 HEMI trucks, and one dude in a 5.7 Ltr. HEMI RS Challenger surprisingly only one new Chevy Camaro SS did challenge and beat me but was very surprised by how not much and even to my surprise one guy in a brand new Maserati GT fast but not that fast...that one even surprised me.(Way off topic but never count out the underdog!...EVER!) > And right now we are the underdogs... Stay Focused and Stay Strong!

I actually do not like the car analogy it only goes along with the baseball bat analogy or I could kill with a 2X4 analogy it is not all about what you could actually kill with it has to do with a fundamental freedom we all have to our 2nd Amendment.

Godsgunman
January 24, 2013, 12:58 PM
To add what I posted earlier, the car/gun comparison shouldn't even be used becaue they are not of the same importance. One is a God given right guaranteed and protected by the Constitution (supposed to be anyways) while the other is a mere convenience and not a right and can be infringed upon. Lets not lower a Constitional right to something so trivial. We need to compare apples to apples when presenting our case to antis. Compare infringement upon the 2nd Amendment to that of taking away their freedom of speech or freedom of religion because thats what it equals. I'm tired of even our side lowering the importance of an amendment to something much lesss important.

Just One Shot
January 24, 2013, 01:07 PM
I understand the comparison however, driving is a privilege and gun ownership is a right!

aeriedad
January 24, 2013, 01:12 PM
To add what I posted earlier, the car/gun comparison shouldn't even be used becaue they are not of the same importance. One is a God given right guaranteed and protected by the Constitution (supposed to be anyways) while the other is a mere convenience and not a right and can be infringed upon.

But that's just the point. The foundation of the 2nd Amendment is our Natural Right to defend ourselves, whether from a common criminal or tyrannical government. I'm not saying car/gun analogies are vital to the defense of our rights, but they can help demonstrate the absurdity of the other side's position. Anti's are willing to restrict a basic right in the name of safety or violence prevention, but allow much more reckless behavior when it comes to daily convenience. Pointing this out is a great way to get to the heart of the matter: It's not about safety or violence prevention; it's about control.

FROGO207
January 24, 2013, 05:49 PM
As I said this is one way that we can get SOME of the antis to see (at their level:D) how absurd it really is to try to restrict something that is not necessary.

We must use their own tactics against them to really prove that we mean business. No joke!

gunsandreligion
January 24, 2013, 06:56 PM
Theres no reason I should be able to own a car thats able to lift its front wheels. However, we all know that banning cars like that would have little effect on the number of deaths due to street racing. And unlike a car, a gun actually can also be used for self defense, so its even less reasonable to restrict them.

FIVETWOSEVEN
January 24, 2013, 08:54 PM
Read my sig didn't you?

gunsandreligion
January 24, 2013, 09:20 PM
Nope, but I like it. Actually this discussion scares me, I mean I really dont want to give THEM any ideas. Pretty soon my car will be banned because of evil features that endanger the public such as adjustable coilovers, subframe bracing, roll bar, and especially a supercharger whith detachable pulleys that allow over 10lbs of boost before changing gears.

FIVETWOSEVEN
January 24, 2013, 11:17 PM
They should ban racing stripes though. They make the car go faster. ;)

gunsandreligion
January 24, 2013, 11:30 PM
Just having racing stripes makes you have an urge to top the car out. Many people have said they're afraid if they had those stripes they would want to race. You deserve the Nobel peace prize for such exellent commonsense measures.

If you enjoyed reading about "If antis were after cars instead of guns." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!