1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

If antis were after cars instead of guns.

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by FROGO207, Jan 24, 2013.

  1. FROGO207

    FROGO207 Well-Known Member

    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?
  2. Blackstone

    Blackstone Well-Known Member

    The argument you get back is that there is a use for cars, whereas guns are designed just to kill.
  3. cfullgraf

    cfullgraf Well-Known Member

    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.
  4. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Well-Known Member

    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.
  5. tarosean

    tarosean Well-Known Member

  6. Deltaboy

    Deltaboy Well-Known Member

    In any given year more people die because of drunk driving. But no-one in DC trying to ban booze or cars.
  7. snake_plisskin

    snake_plisskin Well-Known Member

    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
  8. jamesbeat

    jamesbeat Well-Known Member

    Exactly, which is why I keep one for home defense.
  9. TennJed

    TennJed Well-Known Member

  10. cfullgraf

    cfullgraf Well-Known Member

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

    Godsgunman Well-Known Member

    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.
  12. BADUNAME30

    BADUNAME30 Well-Known Member

    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 ?
  13. etcher1

    etcher1 Member

    What ever happened to majority rules? Seems a few can make the rules anymore.:(
  14. BADUNAME30

    BADUNAME30 Well-Known Member

    Benjamin, is now the majority.
  15. ApacheCoTodd

    ApacheCoTodd Well-Known Member

    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.
  16. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Well-Known Member

    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.
  17. USAF_Vet

    USAF_Vet Well-Known Member

    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.
  18. aeriedad

    aeriedad Well-Known Member

    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:

  19. brnmw

    brnmw Well-Known Member

    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.
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2013
  20. Godsgunman

    Godsgunman Well-Known Member

    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.

Share This Page