Are guns a parallel to SUVs?


PDA






winstonsmith
March 21, 2004, 10:33 PM
People hate assault weapons for the same reason they hate SUVs. Not because of what they are, because of what they represent. Pickup trucks use just as much gas and put out just as much pollution, and hunting and sporting rifles kill just as dead. But SUVs represent affluence and effective weapons represent freedom. Two qualities people who can't or won't acquire-hate.

What do you think?

If you enjoyed reading about "Are guns a parallel to SUVs?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Standing Wolf
March 21, 2004, 10:57 PM
It's more than a coincidence that the people who hate S.U.V.s hate guns. I believe they hate anyone and everyone who declines to embrace their "values."

The like to call themselves "progressives," but they're every bit as hostile toward ordinary law-abiding American citizens as white supremacists are to blacks and Jews.

Josey
March 21, 2004, 11:18 PM
Interesting analogy. I don't embrace it completely. I feel that the radical environmentalists hate everything that represents POWER. SUVs and firearms empower one over them and their world. I have talked to PETA protesters and the one common denominator was their feeling of inferiority. Everyone was bigger than them, had better jobs, higher incomes, higher IQs and dressed in the poor creatures of the forest. I always thought the government should start a welfare program for these poor PETA members. Imagine government sponsored boot camps to teach the weak how to hunt, fish, shoot, off road and actualise themselves. It would work like the old government cheese handout. There would be BBQ pork, a Hummer, a 1911, a wool and camo entitlement and a tax credit for those who bring themselves to the table with food. Food that they have stalked, shot, dressed and prepared properly. Oh well, I can fantasize.

Arcli9ht
March 21, 2004, 11:18 PM
This probably wasnt your intent, but I am an avid shooter that happens to despise SUV's. Well, at least as they are used on my stomping grounds in NYC.

Here, as well as in other urban and suburban centers, people buy the biggest, most gas guzzling monster they can in an attempt to feel better about their poor driving skills and fear of the road.

These vehicles will never be used for their intended purpose (although their owners go on about how glad they are to have a huge 4x4 when we get half an inch of snow... somehow managing to get stuck in the snow and into dumb, easily preventable accidents anyway).

SUV's here are about excess.. which is not necessarily true about firearms. There is excess with some firearms, but usually they're not the type the gun-grabbing crowd is after.

NFA toys and stuff banned by the AWB are not hated because of their excess or environmental impact, but because of the social conditioning that has been drilled into the heads of the sheeple.

/Arcli9ht

RobertHankins
March 21, 2004, 11:42 PM
Packin an H&K in my Denalli

swingset
March 22, 2004, 12:13 AM
Here, as well as in other urban and suburban centers, people buy the biggest, most gas guzzling monster they can in an attempt to feel better about their poor driving skills and fear of the road.

But, would you deny these people the right to choose what kind of vehicle they drive? If so, you certainly wouldn't mind someoen denying you the same right when it's time to choose a gun. A single shot .22 is all you'll need.

I don't drive, or own an SUV. But, if I should want one for convenience or family reasons, I sincerely hope they're still available to buy.

Same goes for an AK.

Mulliga
March 22, 2004, 12:43 AM
Obviously, no one here is advocating banning SUVs. It's simply a social choice - if people really need one (i.e., for hauling kids or equipment), more power to them - but if you just buy one because they're "in," you're simply increasing our dependence on foreign oil.

Guns are a poor parallel to cars. Guns are weapons, cars are not. Guns almost never become obsolete - the old Kentucky rifles can still kill you just as dead as a brand new .308. Guns can assassinate corrupt politicians...well, so can cars, but that's another thread ;).

Arcli9ht
March 22, 2004, 12:55 AM
Valid point. Freedom is a two way street, for better or for worse.

I've had the "but you dont need" argument applied to my firearms choices many times by family and friends, and I usually apply that same logic back at them about their choice of vehicle or size of their house. They dismiss it saying "it's not the same thing" even though at heart, it truely is.

Just because they can buy and drive a monster doesn't mean I have to like it though. I would tolerate them a lot better if I wasn't restricted in the selection for my hobby. :p

I guess its time for bed when part of the logic of what I am saying is coming from southpark. :confused:

/Arcli9ht

"Look, just because you have to tolerate something doesn't mean you have to approve of it! If you had to like it, it'd be called the Museum of Acceptance! "Tolerate" means you're just putting up with it! You tolerate a crying child sitting next to you on the airplane or, or you tolerate a bad cold. It can still piss you off!"

glockcrazy
March 22, 2004, 01:07 AM
I think its like Josey said...
The common denominator is a feeling of inferiority among peta protesters....

They get to feeling like that for whatever reason and start thinking everything they don't have is.....Evil.
When its really just envy.....but you won't catch them admitting it....

mike

ps....i noticed a previous post having a "quote" on it....I have'nt seen a quote button...i assumed this forum did'nt have that option.....did i miss something? Or did you put it in manually?

SteelyDan
March 22, 2004, 01:14 AM
My 2 cents: I think there is a very significant percentage of the population that buys into at least some of the political correctness philosophy that pervades so much of the mainstream media. Within that group, I think there is a range of opinions on what is incorrect. My personal-and- unfounded-and-unsupported opinion is that about 20-25% of the population hates anything to do with guns, and 15% of the population hates SUVs. I suspect there is a strong overlap among those two groups.

raz-0
March 22, 2004, 01:21 AM
I'm with standing wolf on this. Your average liberal with a cause is about the most close-minded, senseless, and neo-fascist individuals around. They'd love nothing better than to have some central authority forcing everyone to obey their personal morality at every turn. Quite often while not exactly leading by example.

There's nothing like a neo-hippy teenage chick wearing leather boots protesting culling the deer population while the deer are starving to death because shooting them would be cruel.

c-bag
March 22, 2004, 01:43 AM
There are legitimate problems w/ SUVs, namely that they use too much gas, are less stable during emergency manuvers, tend to drive over other vehicles in crashes, give drivers a false sense of security, and attract the type of person that probably shouldn't be in a vehicle that has a narrower margin of error.
Each day, I commute about 45 minutes each way on state and federal highways and by far the single biggest group of reckless or neglegent drivers I see are in SUV's.
That said, I abhor tha "lets-pass-a-law-itis" that infects our society.

Preacherman
March 22, 2004, 01:45 AM
Glockcrazy, use the "Testing" forum to experiment with posting replies - you'll find the "Quote" button in the reply page.

As to the assault weapon/SUV conundrum, I think you have something here, Winstonsmith. Bear in mind that to most tree-huggers, a SUV is even more of an "assault weapon" than an AR-15 - assault weapon used against their beloved wilderness, that is. They equate the destruction it (allegedly) causes to the environment with the destruction (allegedly) caused by assault weapons. I don't think they differentiate much between them... and certainly, if I had to get hit by something, I'd rather be hit by a 5.56mm. bullet at 2,900 fps than a Ford Excursion at 60 mph!

George Hill
March 22, 2004, 02:15 AM
"single biggest group of reckless or negligent drivers I see are in SUV's."

Now what I would really like to see is a study regarding the numbers of accidents and the types of vehicles... AND wiht the police reports stating the contributing causes of the accidents.
SUV's do not CAUSE accidents. Drivers CAUSE accidents... I for one am sick of seeing drivers tapping into PDA's while talking on Cell Phones while trying to drive. I see this all the time... Drivers are more and more distracted all the time. Flagrant SUV/gadget owners that get distracted and cause accidents just like flagrant wussycar/gadget owning makeup applying nancies.

SUV's are not the problem. SUV's have nothing to do with anything. The too much gas argument is muckymuck. Like you are going to dictate my fuel consumption? Please. name another vehicle that isn't a van (that get the same fuel mileage BTW) that can take my wife and 5 kids up into the mountains.
Or is this a Haves vs the Have Nots sort of thing? Because I drive SUVs. Now I drive a much BIGGER SUV. I would have had an Excursion if I could have afforded it.... but I can't because I'm pretty much a Have Not. I only buy vehicles in cash because I refuse to finance something that A, loses value like sinking ship... and B, can get wrecked by some Starbucks sipping, cell phone gabbing, Chrysler Town and Country driving, soccer mom.

Now what I would really like to see is a study regarding the numbers of accidents and the types of vehicles... AND with the police reports stating the contributing causes of the accidents.
SUV's do not CAUSE accidents. Drivers CAUSE accidents... I for one am sick of seeing drivers tapping into PDA's while talking on Cell Phones while trying to drive. I see this all the time... Drivers are more and more distracted all the time. Flagrant SUV/gadget owners that get distracted and cause accidents just like flagrant wussycar/gadget owning makeup applying nancies.

SUV's are not the problem. SUV's have nothing to do with anything. The too much gas argument is muckymuck. Like you are going to dictate my fuel consumption? Please. name another vehicle that isn't a van (that get the same fuel mileage BTW) that can take my wife and 5 kids up into the mountains.
Or is this a Haves vs the Have Nots sort of thing? Because I drive SUVs. Now I drive a much BIGGER SUV. I would have had an Excursion if I could have afforded it.... but I can't because I'm pretty much a Have Not. I only buy vehicles in cash because I refuse to finance something that A, loses value like sinking ship... and B, can get wrecked by some Starbucks sipping, cell phone gabbing, Chrysler Town and Country driving, soccer mom.
I once got into it with a coworker about SUV's when she accused me of being an ape for driving a jacked up SUV. Yeah, I have Cherokee with a lift. Big deal. I placed a bet that her Honda Accord had a bigger engine and she took it. A 2.5 4 banger is a lot smaller than an Accord V-6. She paid for my lunches for a week.


http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=885560

You can't tell me what to drive. I'm an American, damnit. I make my own choices. If you think I'm socially irresponsible for driving an SUV an you are so socially aware - then you should be driving a Metro. But don't get in front of my because I'm tired of pulling those dang things out of my air filter.

BluesBear
March 22, 2004, 02:33 AM
I guess some of y'all would consider my Jeep Cherokee to be an SUV.

One of the reasons I bought it was to be better able to get to out of the way places to shoot. It has real 4WD. My arthritis and lower back was making it more and more uncomfortable to drive my old Jeep Wrangler. The Cherokee also has more room for shooting buddies and extra ammo. It gets about 25mpg highway if I keep my foot out of it.

Now if y'all are talking about YUVs (Yuppie Utopia Vehicles) or TBDs (Too Damn Big) then I agree with you. Watching these women out here trying to drive their Ford Excursions with a cell phone in one hand, caramel latte in the other and trying to shift gears while changing lanes every ΒΌ mile. It's no wonder they never use a turn signal, they can't reach the lever with their knees or elbows.

As the frame around my license plate says,
"It's a Jeep thing. You wouldn't understand."

0007
March 22, 2004, 03:00 AM
I bought my first new vehicle in forty years when I knew I was moving to the Middle East. It was the heaviest mid-sized SUV made. Glad I had it when three of us were hit by a ten-ton rock hauler at a traffic light over here. I don't mind if you don't like'm, and I agree a lot of buyers don't "need" them for what they use them for; but that isn't a logical argument and I kinda hoped that most of us here try to stay away from liberal logic; i.e. "I don't think you need this so you shouldn't be allowed to own it"... :uhoh: :barf:

CatsDieNow
March 22, 2004, 06:41 AM
I only hate SUVs when they are right in front of me. This is mainly due to the fact that I drive a Camaro and can't see through or around them. Of course, I also dislike trucks and semis too. It's getting to the point where I can see under them better.

Back home in Indiana, it was kind of funny to watch the SUV drivers pass me like a maniac in the winter and then end up in the ditch because they thought that their all-wheel drive would help them stop on the ice. Pulled more than one soccer mom out with the truck.

Lightsped
March 22, 2004, 07:59 AM
I hate SUVs. They are slow, bulky, suck gas, and have a image problem. Many of them are top heavy resulting in a high turnover rate during accidents too. SUVs are nothing more than glorified station wagons.

The thing I hate worst about them, is every Joe Blow and every Soccor Mom seems to have one. I prefer to be different and drive something that handles well and will get up and go when the acclerator is pushed.

Bullet Bob
March 22, 2004, 08:04 AM
My biggest dislike is that many SUV drivers have more vehicle than ability; if you buy a 500 S&W and can't handle the recoil, you've only wasted your own money. If you can't stay between the lines in a curve, or park, and don't know where the corners of your vehicle are, you're endangering everyone around you.

MAURICE
March 22, 2004, 08:24 AM
I used to despise SUVs, especially Suburbans. (I still dont like the H2 just because they are fugly :p )...But a friend of mine has one, and when we go out and about it is in his Sub. Its comfortable, has a powerful engine, and I feel like we could survive a major wreck- not just survive, but walk away.

I used to say "Why do people need those?" "Who would want one?" Then I realized my own hypocrisy- Do I need all my guns? In reality, probably not. One or two would do most of the work I need to do with them.Just like my 97 Plymouth Breeze gets me from A to B- I do not need a big gas guzzling SUV. Why would I want one? They are loud and expensive- like some SUVs...Its not about needs, its about cans . I can own guns, its my right. Just like driving an SUV.

HankB
March 22, 2004, 09:25 AM
I believe they hate anyone and everyone who declines to embrace their "values." I think this is a cogent observation. With the addendum that they rationalize their view by appearing to embrace some bogus notion of "social responsibility" or "environmentalism." So they can pretend there's some uplifting, noble reason for their hatred.

I don't like guns - so nobody else should have one, either. They kill people.

I live in a small apartment - so other people shouldn't live in a large house. McMansions waste resources.

I have to wear cheap clothing - so other people shouldn't wear leather or fur.A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.

I think deer are pretty, and Bambi is my favorite move - so other people shouldn't hunt. Animals are people, too.

I drive an itty bitty car built on a unibody that, in a collision, will show all the structural integrity of an empty pop can - so other people shouldn't drive SUVs.They use too much gas and are dangerous.

I own guns, have a nice house, wear decent clothes, enjoy hunting, and drive an SUV, so I guess I've given a certain class of people plenty of reason to hate me. :D

And as far as SUV owners being poor drivers . . . that's probably true in some cases, as it is with ALL types of vehicle. But I'd wager some serious money that my SUV driving record is as good as any and better than most of the driving records of econobox owners. :p . . . you should be driving a Metro. But don't get in front of my because I'm tired of pulling those dang things out of my air filter. :D:D :D :D

Andrew Rothman
March 22, 2004, 09:55 AM
I would imagine that SUV drivers cause a plurality of accidents -- they are the most popular type of vehicle on the road today.

Many of them, though, are "Mini-utes" like the Honda CRV, Toyota Rav4, Mazda Tribute (mine), etc.

These are built on modern car chassis with car engines and get modern car gas mileage.

Contrast that with the aging VW microbuses, Volvos and old American monstrosities that many tree-huggers drive. I'm willing to bet that my gas mileage is as good or better, and that I'm spewing less than a tenth of the pollution.

These mini-SUVs also hold a heck of a lot more stuff. All right, so I have a wife, two kids and a house in the suburbs, but please -- please! - don't make me get a minivan!

These little brutes also allow drivers like me to see the road a little better than in Dad's station wagon.

And I need that height -- the road is filled with those darn SUVs! :)

cratz2
March 22, 2004, 10:01 AM
I'm not an SUV kinda guy. We've owned two... a 91 S10 Blazer Tahoe and a 96 4 Runner and neither was 4WD. The Toyota (with the I4) averaged about 28 MPG driving from Chicago (where I bought it) to Indy. I don't complain about the fuel economy of SUVs... If you can afford the SUV (or pickup) and can afford the gas, knock yourself out.

I sometimes like to drive agressively on back country roads and I like cars that are reasonably nimble in the handling department. My last three daily drivers have been a 98 Ford SVT Contour, an 88 BMW 535is and a 99 Honda Civic Si. All are adequately fast, very nimble and generally fun to drive. And get decent mileage (over 25MPG) if you lighten your right foot a bit.

The Excursion is just about the current definition of excess, not so much the initial cost, but the fact that it can seat eight people and I don't think I've ever seen one with more than two people in it.

The 4WD capabilities also get a lot of people into trouble. It would take more fingers than I currently have to count the number of people I've heard first hand say that you can't get stuck with a 4WD vehicle and that you can take turns faster in 4WDs than in 2WDs... These people tend to have zero concept of what driving on ice requires. It may just be my limited experience, or just the fact that I generally don't appreciate the manliness of an SUV over than of a minivan, but it seems that on any given daily drive December through February, there are as many SUVs off the road as so called 'impossible to drive on ice' RWD GMs and Fords. There are many reasons for this and it would be remiss to group all SUV owners in this group, but it is my gut reaction.

Honestly, I can admit that I just don't like them. I'm comfortable with my masculinity, I don't like to use more than 20 MPG, I don't haul or tow things very often, I very rarely have a need to have more than five people in my car... and most importantly, I like agressively handling cars... so large SUVs just don't make sense to me. But I don't knock SUV owners any more than I knock folks that carry 44 Magnums 357 SIGs or 45GAPs... I don't see the point, but they do the job.

:p

I do think it's funny that more ardent anti-SUV folks seem to think that no SUVs get more than about 15 MPG... Granted, Excursions, Expetitions, Navigators, Suburbans etc are going to be a bit harsh, but there are several SUVs that get respectable fuel economy but like anything else, folks that know a little about a lot of things are rarely the folks that are insulting everyone else over their choices. ;)

bigjim
March 22, 2004, 10:19 AM
There is a bubble in SUV accidents numbers in exactly the same proportions
as the bubble in Glock 40 KBs.

I know this is true, because I got it from the HCI/PETA website.

Smoke
March 22, 2004, 10:31 AM
THe media recently got into the argument that SUV's were not safe in accidents. They took the angle that a person in the other car were much more likely to be killed. The person in the SUV however was a non-issue.

Who is going to win a battle the lady in the Excursion with half her sons baseball team or the lady in the Honda Civic? Which vehicle can you see better from. A higher stance off the road allows you to see over many other vehicle and see obstacles and accidents sooner allowing more reaction time.

SUV's are safer. If I'm willing to pay the fuel bill to allow a little extra safety for those I care about, that is my perogative.

No vehicle is safe if you aren't paying attention or driving stupidly. Handling a car requires the same attention to safety as handling a gun.

Smoke - drive what you like

Nick1911
March 22, 2004, 11:03 AM
I don't like to have to try to look over\around them, and personally don't care for the style, but by all means, drive whatever you want.

Gasoline is $1.67 a gallon, if you have the money you can buy as much as you want and burn it in whatever way you chose. It's your money; it's your choice.

As for me, I drive a 1989 Crown Vic; the 5.0L V8 gets about 12 mpg... So touche, my car can suck more gas then your SUV! :p

Nick

Lightsped
March 22, 2004, 11:07 AM
Here is another little tid bit of info to toss into the fire.

Many SUVs are not forced to comply with the same crash test standards of cars. Could this be prehaps why I see so many SUVs laying on their side after a wreck here on Atlanta's highways? These SUVs I see laying on their side remind me of beached whales, or a sleeping Anna Nichole. :p

Another well known issue is that many SUVs have horrible cabin deformation issues. I do realize no vehicle is perfect, and that there are countless numbers of variables that go into each accident. I'm just calling it like I see it.

BTW I still hate SUVs. I demand a good handling car that is fun to drive with strong accleration.

Prehaps when I get old and gray I will appreciate the lazy boy recliner feel of SUVs... Until then, I will spend my excess money on guns and ammo, not gasoline..... :neener:

cracked butt
March 22, 2004, 11:14 AM
I see some paralells with the comparison. I think it has something to do with envy- envy that someone has a bigger shinier toy than you do, or envy that someone else has their sh-- together and you don't.

Given these two situations:
1. A social uprising, disaster, rioting.
2. A head on collision with another vehicle.

and two people:
1. one driving a suburban that owns an ak-47 along with a case of ammo.
2. A "progressive" who owns a rusted out subaru that has its holes patched up with green peace and MMM stickers.

Which type is more likely to survive?


I know I oversimplified the who scenario, but it comes down to whether you are willing to pay for an extra bit of safety or skate with your head in the sand hoping nothing bad will ever happen in your life.

I don't own a SUV, I drive a pickup. I will not ride in a "compactor" car let alone own one. I was in a serious accident in a "compactor" car over a decade ago and no amount of psychotherapy will ever convinve me that its ok to ever get into one again. If I want to buy a SUV, I don't want some self righteous sob telling me that I can't, I feel the same about assault rifles, don't own one yet, but will when I have enough money saved up.

George Hill
March 22, 2004, 12:01 PM
Why should an SUV comply to car standards?
A propper SUV is built on a TRUCK platform.

The popular "Cross-Utes" are built on car platforms and are really nothing more than station wagons with all wheel drive.

TallPine
March 22, 2004, 12:26 PM
SUVs are nothing more than glorified station wagons.
HECK YES!

Why do you think people buy them? Because they don't make the old station wagons anymore.

Maybe you don't need a 44 mag in city park, and maybe you don't ever tow anything or carry more than 2 people.

But other people do!

And some people live out in the sticks where the roads don't get plowed very often and have to drive though 2 foot drifts even a few hours after the plow did come through.

Those people (like me) come to town once in a while (how else to get there?). Some people buy large amounts of groceries and other stuff at one time. Maybe you'd like to limit all the checkouts to 10 items or less?

My observation is that the people in the smaller cars are the ones always darting in and out of traffic and weaving lanes, while I just drive easy and steady.

What does it matter what is in front of you? Don't follow so darn close!!!!

:fire:

dustind
March 22, 2004, 12:52 PM
I have never owned a SUV, I may build an off road Jeep wrangler later on though. I have experience driving highly lifted jeeps (you can sit up comfortably under them) with tiny wheel bases. They drive up and down steep hills, over 4' rocks, and can take corners at decent speed. The roll over stuff people talk about is pretty bogus. The SUVs that do roll are because of too much side force, and the tires not giving. A car in that instance would slide. Lifted trucks are not unsafe. If they were, semis would have the highest accident statistics of any vehicle out there.

I visited an anti SUV website (something about SUV blight) and found that almost every anti was mad that others had more money than them. They came up with other insults, but every one of them said some comment in every post about SUVers having more money than them. They were also some of the most hateful, and dysfunctional (almost bizarre personal problems) people I have seen. More hateful than DU, or Free Republic.

From my motorcycle's point of view you are all being excesive. Who needs four wheels and seating for 3+ in a vehicle that gets under 60 mpg. :D

Diggler
March 22, 2004, 12:55 PM
I have a gun for sporting purposes and to protect myself and my family. I have an SUV for the same reasons (Chevy Avalanche). Makes a darn good hunting vehicle, and I know that if we're in an accident my family will most likely be better off than if we were in whatever hit us.

If you don't like the idea of being in a small car and getting creamed with a big bad SUV in an accident, then buy a bigger, safer car. You chose to drive the small vehicle, I chose to drive the big one. I don't buy a car based on the saftey of others outside my car, just like I don't buy a gun with the safety of the perpetrator in mind. I look out for my family and my family alone; and if everyone else did the same there wouldn't be a problem, now, would there?

XLMiguel
March 22, 2004, 08:48 PM
It's a free country and you can drive what ever you can afford. Besides, in the grand sceme of htings, it isn't what you drive, but how you drive. That being said, a mediocre driver in a big, clumsy vehicle is more of a hazard than is something more agile and responsive.

My beef with USVs is that parked or moving, I can't see around them and they are a major source of congestion because they don't stop, go, or handle very well. A quick look at the road test summary in Car & Driver or any other car rag will bear this out - compare the average time to speed, stopping distance, and lateral acceleration (g-force) of the mid-large format SUV vs almost any car and the SUV is slower, takes longer (time & distance) to stop, and slower to turn. When 30-40% of the vehicles in the traffic mix are SUVs, traffic is going to move a lot slower, and I find it ironic that the big guzzler SUVs have done it to themselves. SUVs certainly have their uses, but their place ain't in the left lane in front of me:cuss:

ducktapehero
March 22, 2004, 10:16 PM
I think that one big reason that enviro-Nazi's are so rabidly against SUV's and not pickups is that Soccer Moms tend to drive SUV's and Working Men tend to drive pickups. Working men are less likely to take crap off of skinny vegan enviro-Nazi's. Kinda the same way that anti-fur people have no problem throwing ink on old ladies wearing fur but are too cowardly to go into biker bars and mess with them for wearing leather.

2nd Amendment
March 22, 2004, 10:29 PM
SUV's are popular because they are big. Between fedgov regulation and silly auto-makers you can't buy a big American car with a V-8 and rear-drive anymore so what choice is there? Americans like big cars. As for gas mileage, I don't even consider it. Fueling up is the price I pay for driving what I want. Right now that's a '90 Suburban 3/4 ton 4x4 and a '94 Fleetwood with the LT1 engine. And for weekend foolishness there's a 160,000 mile Seville STS I got for a song that will still kick butt on most anything.

Same for guns. I like big guns. So what if ammo costs an arm and a leg? Am I supposed to leave this money for my kids?!?!? :) Feh! Now if I can just get the step-daughter to shoot and stop belly-aching for a Toyota. Ick.

Oh, hiya Ducktape!!! :)

ducktapehero
March 22, 2004, 10:41 PM
Hi 2nd Amendment. Are you the 2nd Amendment on Freeconservaives?

ducktapehero
March 22, 2004, 10:45 PM
Actually Ford still makes a big V-8 powered, real wheel drive, full framed car. The Ford Crown Vic(and Mercury Grand Marquis and Lincoln Town Car) is still built on a frame and is a big, heavy, durable, powerful car. I love my 1993 Ford Crown Vic and 1989 Mercury Grand Marquis. Ya gotta respect a car that will pull a bass boat better than a lot of mini trucks.

Jeff
March 22, 2004, 11:06 PM
What is it with everyone believing that SUVs turn over more while maneuvering or during accidents? Or that they are found in the ditch as often as regular vehicles during snowstorms? I do a lot of driving for my work, and I have seen absolutely nothing that would support the above nonsense; nor have I read anything scientific on the matter, either.

I think if John Stossel were to examine this MYTH he would find it a load of BS, like every other MYTH out there. :rolleyes:

GigaBuist
March 22, 2004, 11:13 PM
I hit on this idea in my blog the other day in a way. I was thinking of all the bull I hear with people screaming "we should license guns like we do cars!"

We do. Now, sit down and listen.

Typically SUVs are driven on our roads. That's just sort of what's done with them. People pay a higher tax (registration) fee on them for the right to drive them on our roads. Given their fuel economy they also pay a higher tax when they pull up to the gas pump. This is fair and logical. I've previously owned SUVs and accepted this.

However, this is absolutely NOTHING preventing somebody from buying an SUV, not registering it, not putting plates on it, and using it as a hunting vehicle on private land. Load it up onto a trailer, truck it to the destination, and ride it offroad there. No extra taxes, except the gas taxes.

That is where the parallel between firearms and SUVs breaks down. Currently we firearms owners are fighting for our right to own what we want, in our own home, and to shoot on our own privately owned land. No such movement is in place to prevent SUV sales in such a manner as firearms. I can't help but think of the .50BMG rifles here. If you want to ban me from hunting with .50BMG in publically held land, fine. If you want to keep me from driving a big-ole SUV on public roads, fine. Do not try and prevent actual ownership and private employment of said devices though. That's just nonsensical.

Now, I'm not for preventing SUVs on the road. I'm about the last person to subscribe to the idea that you must justify your need to own something to actually own it. I'm just trying to point out the hypocrisy that actually exists when it comes to vehicles and firearms promoted by those who think we need to license firearms like we do vehicle. The fact of the matter is we do license firearms like vehicles.

At the age of 15, 14, whatever, you can go out and buy yourself a big-ole SUV. I know, I did it at the age of 15. I even drove it home (on a dirt road) ilegally. Yes, Giga is a criminal. I couldn't buy a rifle though. Not for the life of me.

Nick1911
March 22, 2004, 11:25 PM
2nd wrote:

SUV's are popular because they are big. Between fedgov regulation and silly auto-makers you can't buy a big American car with a V-8 and rear-drive anymore so what choice is there? Americans like big cars. As for gas mileage, I don't even consider it. Fueling up is the price I pay for driving what I want.

YES! Americans like big cars, and regulations alomst force someone looking for a vehicle with some khonas to look into that market. The days of the big American V8's are over.

Actually Ford still makes a big V-8 powered, real wheel drive, full framed car. The Ford Crown Vic(and Mercury Grand Marquis and Lincoln Town Car) is still built on a frame and is a big, heavy, durable, powerful car.

The last of it's kind, and IIRC I beleive hearing that they are to be taken out of production from the civilian market in coming years. (Note: I haven't verified this claim, with auto makers, who knows) Even these have been curving to environment standards, the modern Crown Vic has what? A 4.6L? Back in the 80's they could be ordered with a 351 (~5.8L).

That said, I sold my 95 Escort in favor of a 89 Crown Vic for these reasons. And do I feel guilty for cutting my gas milage by a third? No - because I pay what everyone else does per gallon. My return? Smooth power, smooth ride, good acceleration, long drive train life, ect.

I want my guns to exibit these same qualities, I want them to be well made, smooth, and longevous. I am willing to pay more for this.

ducktapehero
March 22, 2004, 11:42 PM
I try to keep up with automotive news and I haven't heard that they are getting rid of the Crown Vic. I hope not. I heard that Chrysler is going to bring back a V-8 powered, rear wheel drive vehicle because of the way the big Fords are selling. Ford has the police car market by the cajones right now.

2nd Amendment
March 23, 2004, 12:11 AM
Well, Duck, I'm the 2A who used to be on FC(among various places). I stepped on too many toes, though. Not that a certain Admin or two will ever admit it. :) But screw 'em, it's more interesting here anyway.

My main problem with what Ford passes off for rear-drive is the fact they STILL haven't learned to build a decent transmission. In 8 years of selling cars for a living I have had to replace exactly two rear-drive GM trannies. I replace nearly half the Ford trannies, though. Even on lower mileage cars. It's not just annoying, it gets expensive after a while. Enough so that I almost don't buy them anymore.

ducktapehero
March 23, 2004, 12:25 AM
From my experience I have never had a Ford Tranny fail on me yet. I guess everyone has their favorites though. I have had a Chevy tranny fail on me. Good to see you here though.

SteelyDan
March 23, 2004, 01:07 AM
Okay, since this is a gun board, I'll ask some of you to relax, close your eyes (um, wait, that won't work--strike that), take a step back mentally, and imagine: (1) a category of consumer products that are readily legal and available in America, (2) that, with some important exceptions, are not really "necessary" for 99% of us, (3) which have the potential to cause serious injury or death, and (4) which are disfavored by a significant percentage of the population.

Now, whether we're talking about SUVs, firearms, or Big Macs, my point is the same; namely, that this is still America, and I fear and dread the day that we may all become some kind of clones that, with the support of the state, tolerate only those things that cannot possibly offend the other clones.

Personally, I dislike SUVs about 95% of the time because I drive a relatively small Japanese car and I can't see around the SUVs. But there were 5 or 6 times this winter that I couldn't have made it to work (or to the grocery store, or the hospital, had it been necessary) if I hadn't been able to take my wife's Grand Cherokee. On those rare occasions when I'm able to go out to the mountains to "explore," guess which vehicle I take.

So next time you're offended by someone else's legal conduct, take a minute, and maybe be grateful that we haven't, at least yet, outlawed all acts that might possibly offend someone else. Because when that day comes, the first thing to go will be our firearms.

artherd
March 23, 2004, 05:52 AM
SUVs are great for what they are, basically enclosed pickups so your stuff dosen't get wet on the way out to the range (in BLM land :) Suburbans, Hummers, etc. are great. Even the Porsche Chyane is excellent (used as a race rescue vehicle very often on local tracks. Real off-road prowice and speed.)

Not so ideal for taking little Jimmy to soccer practice.

I'm not a big fan of the Explorer-type 'SUVs' which don't have much off-road capability (if any) and have poor street suspensions bordering on unsafe. Just closing the door on an Exploder causes it to rock back and forth to an alarming degree. Also, the bumper height for these very much road-car 'SUVs' should not be relaxed as it is now.


A little social responsability (as long as it is not made compulsary, maybe just encouraged?) is a good thing. Being bad is also a good thing every now and again too.

All in all, don't get too wraped up in it. But to liken the current retarted trend, gun owners would be buying cheap chineese replica .700Nitro Express handguns, and then taking them waterfowl hunting (in city limits.)

Langenator
March 23, 2004, 07:38 AM
George Hill wrote:
name another vehicle that isn't a van (that get the same fuel mileage BTW) that can take my wife and 5 kids up into the mountains.

Y'know George, when the religious enivro-weenies were running around spouting "What Would Jesus Drive?," what popped into my head was one of those 12 passenger Ford Econoline vans. How else is he going to haul the 12 Apostles around?

HankB
March 23, 2004, 08:32 AM
Y'know George, when the religious enivro-weenies were running around spouting "What Would Jesus Drive?," what popped into my head was one of those 12 passenger Ford Econoline vans. How else is he going to haul the 12 Apostles around? I figured a pickup truck - after all, unlike the enviro-weenies, He had an honest trade - carpenter.

Andrew Rothman
March 23, 2004, 08:48 AM
...or skate with your head in the sand....
My mind just boggled over that mental picture!

Nightfa11
March 23, 2004, 09:04 AM
Interesting analogy. I don't embrace it completely. I feel that the radical environmentalists hate everything that represents POWER. SUVs and firearms empower one over them and their world. I have talked to PETA protesters and the one common denominator was their feeling of inferiority. Everyone was bigger than them, had better jobs, higher incomes, higher IQs and dressed in the poor creatures of the forest. I always thought the government should start a welfare program for these poor PETA members. Imagine government sponsored boot camps to teach the weak how to hunt, fish, shoot, off road and actualise themselves. It would work like the old government cheese handout. There would be BBQ pork, a Hummer, a 1911, a wool and camo entitlement and a tax credit for those who bring themselves to the table with food. Food that they have stalked, shot, dressed and prepared properly. Oh well, I can fantasize.


Man, I might join PETA for this....


Hunting, Fishing and Off Roading
BBQ
A Hummer (no H2 please, I prefer the real thing)
a 1911
Tax Credit for killing Bambi and properly dressing her :)


What, no rifle????


However, this is absolutely NOTHING preventing somebody from buying an SUV, not registering it, not putting plates on it, and using it as a hunting vehicle on private land. Load it up onto a trailer, truck it to the destination, and ride it offroad there. No extra taxes, except the gas taxes.


Buy a PSD Excursion and use offroad diesel. Then you won't even pay that. I had never thought of this analogy before. I'll have to use it :)

If you enjoyed reading about "Are guns a parallel to SUVs?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!