12gaugeTim
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 293
"Well, I support the second amendment, but I really can't see why anyone would need a military weapon like that."
And the rebuttal:
"Well, cars kills loads more people than guns every year, should we ban them too?"
I see this argument often and it never fails to agitate me. It's about as strong as rice paper. The implications of banning automobiles would entail a complete failure of our economy and way of life as we know it. Most of us could no longer live without automobiles.
It does, however, have potential. It's true driving is dangerous and causes thousands upon thousands of deaths yearly. It's true most people you meet drive daily (apart from inner city and the less fortunate). But how can we bring the analogy closer to home? Banning cars is preposterous. Lets make it more applicable.
The highest posted speed limit in the United States is 85 mph. Anything higher either isn't regulated by the state or is considered a speed limit free road. Therefore nobody needs a car that can go faster than 85 mph, and production of vehicles capable of 85+mph speeds should be banned and limited to the use of highway patrolmen and other LE/MIL personnel only. A registry of current production 85+ cars should be created to keep track of the dangerous people who own pre-ban cars. These pre-bans are grandfatherable but not transferable.
I think an analogy like this makes a lot more sense to someone who doesn't understand why people "need" military style weapons, and thinks they should be restricted to LE/MIL. There are, of course, legitimate arguments as to why owning said firearms absolutely should not be restricted, but this is specifically addressing the poor, and common, car&gun analogy.
And the rebuttal:
"Well, cars kills loads more people than guns every year, should we ban them too?"
I see this argument often and it never fails to agitate me. It's about as strong as rice paper. The implications of banning automobiles would entail a complete failure of our economy and way of life as we know it. Most of us could no longer live without automobiles.
It does, however, have potential. It's true driving is dangerous and causes thousands upon thousands of deaths yearly. It's true most people you meet drive daily (apart from inner city and the less fortunate). But how can we bring the analogy closer to home? Banning cars is preposterous. Lets make it more applicable.
The highest posted speed limit in the United States is 85 mph. Anything higher either isn't regulated by the state or is considered a speed limit free road. Therefore nobody needs a car that can go faster than 85 mph, and production of vehicles capable of 85+mph speeds should be banned and limited to the use of highway patrolmen and other LE/MIL personnel only. A registry of current production 85+ cars should be created to keep track of the dangerous people who own pre-ban cars. These pre-bans are grandfatherable but not transferable.
I think an analogy like this makes a lot more sense to someone who doesn't understand why people "need" military style weapons, and thinks they should be restricted to LE/MIL. There are, of course, legitimate arguments as to why owning said firearms absolutely should not be restricted, but this is specifically addressing the poor, and common, car&gun analogy.
