piisfish 140 #26 January 17, 2013 well I demand that people like Lindsay Lohan and such recidivist DUI drivers should be revoked their access to driving vehicles. Even a bicycle.scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #27 January 17, 2013 Quote So you have no issue with mandatory registration for any gun you will have in a public place, and having to sit a test to allow that? Awesome. Sure for any gun I'll have with me in public in a populous place like a shopping mall. Applicable in all 50 states. No registration required if I want to keep it at my home, take it to privately owned firing ranges, and/or use it on less urban places under government control like BLM land. Relevant analogs are street cars (guns I take shopping with me) and race cars/dune buggies/fork lifts which aren't registered and don't take operating licenses. Provided that's _ANY_ gun including automatic weapons and 20mm anti-tank rifles. Just like a car or truck where I can have one which goes 200 MPH or totals 65' in length with attached boat trailer. With no artificial restrictions, like I can't own one made after 1986 so the price tag will be $16,000 not the $800 police departments pay. No special requirements for transport across state lines - just take it and go. With a test so simple I can pass after 15 minutes of study and no additional test required for my lifetime provided that I don't move between states. Quote Many posters here would turn blue and their heads would explode if that was proposed. Many people suggesting that guns should be treated like cars don't mean it literally like I do. Naturally I wouldn't accept such a thing without an increase in the sorts of guns I'm allowed to own and the ability to carry any gun I want in every state everywhere in public. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #28 January 17, 2013 Quote I do have a problem with those who want to arbitrarily reduce my ability to get out of a situation using maneuverability and speed. That's why I refuse to drive cutback/locked up trucks... I do not think it is safe... The truck I drive will do about 112mph... When I was young and in my prime... I ran that truck 100 mph all the time... I'm older now and turning gray and happy to run 70 all day...Killler You're confusing me. I've been gray...and I'm in my prime.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #29 January 17, 2013 Quote In reply to I think you should have to pass a test and have a license in order to own one,and then it should have to be registered. oh wait..... Right,like that has stopped the carnage. Actually road carnage HAS been reduced significantly due to stricter vehicle safety laws.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
killler 2 #30 January 17, 2013 Quote Quote I do have a problem with those who want to arbitrarily reduce my ability to get out of a situation using maneuverability and speed. That's why I refuse to drive cutback/locked up trucks... I do not think it is safe... The truck I drive will do about 112mph... When I was young and in my prime... I ran that truck 100 mph all the time... I'm older now and turning gray and happy to run 70 all day...Killler You're confusing me. I've been gray...and I'm in my prime. You know that saying about not arriving at the grave in good shape when you die?? That you should come sliding in at 100 mph with your hair on fire screaming.... WHAT A FUCKIN' RIDE... Well , I missed the spot !!!! Even my mother didn't think I'd make it to 30 and most thought 25 would be a stretch.... Hell... I'm a grandpa!!! My son told me,.. Just enjoy the sail boat ride !! Killler.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #31 January 17, 2013 Quote Quote In reply to I think you should have to pass a test and have a license in order to own one,and then it should have to be registered. oh wait..... Right,like that has stopped the carnage. Actually road carnage HAS been reduced significantly due to stricter vehicle safety laws. Yes but we can do better. Lets mandate a redesign of brakes. This can be accomplished for just an additional $5000 per vehicle. I think it's worth it if it saves just one life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #32 January 17, 2013 Quote Quote Quote In reply to I think you should have to pass a test and have a license in order to own one,and then it should have to be registered. oh wait..... Right,like that has stopped the carnage. Actually road carnage HAS been reduced significantly due to stricter vehicle safety laws. Yes but we can do better. Lets mandate a redesign of brakes. This can be accomplished for just an additional $5000 per vehicle. I think it's worth it if it saves just one life. A better use of the money would be to reinstitute research on gun violence, which has been hamstrung at the NRA's insistence for well over a decade. (I wonder why the NRA wanted to gag research on this topic )... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #33 January 17, 2013 To me, comparing guns to high-speed vehicles is fair. That vehicle, like a gun, will not hurt a living soul. Not until it gets in the hands of a human. It all depends on who's hands it is in. From my observations over the years, I see too many drivers in a hurry and impatient. Not allowing enough time to get where they need to go. Not driving for 'conditions'. Doesn't matter if they are driving a small car, SUV or muscle car or an 18-wheeler. All the safety devices in the world won't change people's driving habits. They'll find a way to get around those devices. The bottom line is, it's not the gun or the vehicle, it's all about people. All the laws won't change things either. They may help with some folks but there will always be that element of society who won't follow the rules. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #34 January 17, 2013 Quote Quote Quote Quote In reply to I think you should have to pass a test and have a license in order to own one,and then it should have to be registered. oh wait..... Right,like that has stopped the carnage. Actually road carnage HAS been reduced significantly due to stricter vehicle safety laws. Yes but we can do better. Lets mandate a redesign of brakes. This can be accomplished for just an additional $5000 per vehicle. I think it's worth it if it saves just one life. A better use of the money would be to reinstitute research on gun violence, which has been hamstrung at the NRA's insistence for well over a decade. (I wonder why the NRA wanted to gag research on this topic ) Typical academic response. We know what the problem is and we know what needs to be done to solve it. What we don't need is another research project that politicians will try and influence the outcome of, or simply spike the recommendations. We also don't need more stupid, feel good laws that do nothing more than attack the rights of law abiding citizens. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oldwomanc6 52 #35 January 17, 2013 QuoteTo me, comparing guns to high-speed vehicles is fair. That vehicle, like a gun, will not hurt a living soul. Not until it gets in the hands of a human. It all depends on who's hands it is in. From my observations over the years, I see too many drivers in a hurry and impatient. Not allowing enough time to get where they need to go. Not driving for 'conditions'. Doesn't matter if they are driving a small car, SUV or muscle car or an 18-wheeler. All the safety devices in the world won't change people's driving habits. They'll find a way to get around those devices. The bottom line is, it's not the gun or the vehicle, it's all about people. All the laws won't change things either. They may help with some folks but there will always be that element of society who won't follow the rules. Chuck Many good points, here!lisa WSCR 594 FB 1023 CBDB 9 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #36 January 17, 2013 QuoteTo me, comparing guns to high-speed vehicles is fair. That vehicle, like a gun, will not hurt a living soul. Not until it gets in the hands of a human. It all depends on who's hands it is in. From my observations over the years, I see too many drivers in a hurry and impatient. Chuck And driving on the road requires training, testing, licensing and insurance. Vehicles have to obey mandatory standards for crashworthiness, brakes, lights, etc...... Not to mention that additional testing is required for certain vehicles (HGV, commercial buses...) and that not everyone gets to drive an F1 car on the public roads.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #37 January 17, 2013 QuoteQuoteTo me, comparing guns to high-speed vehicles is fair. That vehicle, like a gun, will not hurt a living soul. Not until it gets in the hands of a human. It all depends on who's hands it is in. From my observations over the years, I see too many drivers in a hurry and impatient. Chuck And driving on the road requires training, testing, licensing and insurance. Vehicles have to obey mandatory standards for crashworthiness, brakes, lights, etc...... Not to mention that additional testing is required for certain vehicles (HGV, commercial buses...) and that not everyone gets to drive an F1 car on the public roads. Absolutely. Seems like, I've seen too many drivers in small cars driving like they were in an F-1 or NASCAR vehicle. A lot of aggressive driving. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #38 January 17, 2013 > Why does anyone need a car with 400 horsepower? No reason. No one needs to skydive either. >Why does anyone need a car that will accelerate from zero to 60 mph in 6 seconds? Again, no reason. >Why does anyone need a SUV that weighs 6,000 pounds? Some people need SUV's to carry thousands of pounds of people or stuff over less-than-ideal roads, although most people just get them for fun. > I think it's time to ban these dangerous high-capacity assault vehicles. You've made an illogical jump from "people don't need them" to "so therefore they are dangerous." If they ARE dangerous (i.e. they don't have brakes, or they explode without warning, or they don't have horns, brake lights etc) then they present an unnecessary risk to other people on the road, and they should be banned. But a car that simply weighs a lot is not a risk in and of itself, provided it complies with safety requirements. It DOES damage the roads more, but that is made up for by higher gas taxes and higher registration fees. Thus no need to ban high performance cars - only a need to ban cars that present an unnecessary risk to others. >I demand that the President immediately issue a series of executive orders to deal >with this ongoing massacre. Already done! EO 13513 EO 13043 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
killler 2 #39 January 17, 2013 And a loaded firearm is also not in and of it's self dangerous sitting on a table or in a persons hand it'll the trigger is pulled... It is a tool that is no more and no less dangerous then any other.... Cars don't kill people... Hammers don't kill people.... Bats don't kill people..... The ONLY thing that kills people is people... Why can't you understand this..... Because you don't like guns and are scared of them and will only be happy till they are removed from all people... But the GOVERNMENT.... Killler Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #40 January 17, 2013 Quote> Why does anyone need a car with 400 horsepower? No reason. No one needs to skydive either. >Why does anyone need a car that will accelerate from zero to 60 mph in 6 seconds? Again, no reason. >Why does anyone need a SUV that weighs 6,000 pounds? Some people need SUV's to carry thousands of pounds of people or stuff over less-than-ideal roads, although most people just get them for fun. > I think it's time to ban these dangerous high-capacity assault vehicles. You've made an illogical jump from "people don't need them" to "so therefore they are dangerous." If they ARE dangerous (i.e. they don't have brakes, or they explode without warning, or they don't have horns, brake lights etc) then they present an unnecessary risk to other people on the road, and they should be banned. But a car that simply weighs a lot is not a risk in and of itself, provided it complies with safety requirements. It DOES damage the roads more, but that is made up for by higher gas taxes and higher registration fees. Thus no need to ban high performance cars - only a need to ban cars that present an unnecessary risk to others. >I demand that the President immediately issue a series of executive orders to deal >with this ongoing massacre. Already done! EO 13513 EO 13043 I wonder if, people buy big SUVs like Expeditions, because it causes them to feel 'safer? Also, why ban the vehicles... ban the people that dis-regard the safety of others? There seems to be a lack of courtesy and consideration for others. People pay taxes for highways but that doesn't mean they 'own' the entire highway and can jeapordise other's safety. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #41 January 17, 2013 >And a loaded firearm is also not in and of it's self dangerous sitting on a table or in a >persons hand it'll the trigger is pulled... Agreed! Which is why it's not illegal to have a car without brakes sitting in your garage. It's just illegal to USE it. >The ONLY thing that kills people is people... Why can't you understand this.... Yes. And guns make it much easier to kill lots of people very quickly - which means they are not like spoons, and should not be regulated the same way. >Because you don't like guns and are scared of them and will only be happy till they are > removed from all people... You know what they say about assumptions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
killler 2 #42 January 17, 2013 A person would kill and hurt a lot more people driving their car down the sidewalk on a sunny day.... And though I may not know that "you" want all guns removed... THAT IS THE STATED GOAL of the anti-gun movement.... Killler Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #43 January 17, 2013 >A person would kill and hurt a lot more people driving their car down the sidewalk >on a sunny day.... Can you point to the last massacre where dozens of people were killed by a mass murderer with a car? >And though I may not know that "you" want all guns removed... THAT IS THE >STATED GOAL of the anti-gun movement.... Uh, OK. Which movement is that? Most Americans just want more control over guns; they don't want to ban all guns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #44 January 17, 2013 Quote>A person would kill and hurt a lot more people driving their car down the sidewalk >on a sunny day.... Can you point to the last massacre where dozens of people were killed by a mass murderer with a car? >And though I may not know that "you" want all guns removed... THAT IS THE >STATED GOAL of the anti-gun movement.... Uh, OK. Which movement is that? Most Americans just want more control over guns; they don't want to ban all guns. Apples and Oranges. Requiring someone to go through some government mandated gun training program will do little to address the problem of mass homicides any more than a driver training course for automobiles. Do you really envision someone being required to sit down and have several sessions with a psychologist before being "allowed to own a gun? Seriously??? Driver training for an automobile is necessary because there is far more likelyhood that a person could accidently lose control of their car on ice or snow, not leave the proper distance to stop etc. I have not heard of a huge problem with someone accidentally going on a mass shooting spree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toolbox 0 #45 January 17, 2013 If you look at the sheer number of people riding in or driving vehicles and the frequency and amount of time of riding in or driving them, driving kills a small fraction of the population,but still a much larger fraction than guns kill or injure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #46 January 17, 2013 Quote> Why does anyone need a car with 400 horsepower? No reason. No one needs to skydive either. >Why does anyone need a car that will accelerate from zero to 60 mph in 6 seconds? Again, no reason. > I think it's time to ban these dangerous high-capacity assault vehicles. You've made an illogical jump from "people don't need them" to "so therefore they are dangerous." ...and in doing so he's got some of the makings of a decent metaphor to the assault weapons ban, but he is missing a step... The step missing in his jump is to assert that the features being talked about are surely only useful to someone intending to use the vehicle in an illegal way. That's why I proposed banning anything more than 3 forward gears. You only really need a couple gears to accelerate safely to any legal speed, and a cruising gear to get good gas milage on the freeway. Any additional gears are just used to accelerate/drive recklessly. CVTs technically have more than 3 gear ratios and electric motors are usually direct drive, but I reserve the right not to think my proposed law through. Banning wheels greater than 17" in diamater is because I've seen commericals for the Fast and Furious movies and all those cars looked like they had big rims and those people were all illegally street racing. But I'm not here to take all your cars... you can keep the ones you have, I'm just making it illegal to produce any vehicles with these features in the future. I think this will reduce street-racing related deaths. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #47 January 17, 2013 >Apples and Oranges. OK. You should probably take that up with the guy that made the comparison in the first post. >Requiring someone to go through some government mandated gun training program >will do little to address the problem of mass homicides any more than a driver training >course for automobiles. Agreed. Both will reduce accidental deaths, but will not affect intentional use of a weapon to kill people. However, drunk driving and reckless driving laws DO reduce the risk from would-be criminals, and crumple zones and pedestrian-safety features reduce the harm any sort of driver can do with their vehicles, whether or not they intend harm. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 800 #48 January 17, 2013 Yet we still do not take away your car nor alcohol because others drive DUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #49 January 17, 2013 >Yet we still do not take away your car nor alcohol because others drive DUI. Well, you cannot buy certain kinds of cars because of the safety problems they present - when driven by anyone, but of course drunk drivers present a higher likelihood of presenting those safety problems. However, you are literally correct - you can buy any car on the market without regard for how others drive drunk. Similarly, you'll be able to buy any gun on the market without regard to how others use them for crime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #50 January 18, 2013 Quote And a loaded firearm is also not in and of it's self dangerous sitting on a table or in a persons hand it'll the trigger is pulled... It is a tool that is no more and no less dangerous then any other.... Cars don't kill people... Hammers don't kill people.... Bats don't kill people..... The ONLY thing that kills people is people... Why can't you understand this..... Because you don't like guns and are scared of them and will only be happy till they are removed from all people... But the GOVERNMENT.... Killler Bill has not written a single thing to suggest that he dislikes guns or is scared of them, or wishes to ban them, in the 10 years that I have been reading the DZ forums. You need to get your anger under control, you are becoming irrational.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
