I know people ask when people ask why you would need a machine gun, pro-gun people would say, why would you need a fast car? And then the other side would shut up because they don't know. I know that the gun and car analogy is flawed, but I can't exactly see how. The pro-gun people know it's flawed too, it's just that they hope that the other side doesn't figure it out.
How are guns different than fast cars?
- Thread starter csr ma71
- Start date
I had a whole essay that I just erased in favor of this: Please clear up the first sentence. And Guns are different than cars because of the roles they play in our lives, if any. Regular cars: multi-tasking. Can commute, some can tow, haul people, groceries etc. Fast Cars (not race): most can still haul 2 people, groceries, golf bag, status symbol. Guns: breaks stuff, kills people and animals. Automatic Guns: Kill people and animals faster, breaks stuff faster. You can't compare the two at all. Guns speak to only a minority of people. Cars of all types speak to the majority of people. It's like Apples and Celery.
Well, you don't need either one, but both can be fun. They both can also kill if misused. Hell, a geo metro will get you from here to there without a problem, so why do you drive a supra, personal choice, it's fun, because you want to. Why do I own a gun, personal choice, its fun, I want to. Seems like a pretty decent analogy to me.
I suppose you could argue that one gets you from point A to point B, and the other eliminates point B.
It just feels flawed because every single person is around cars, so they don't feel threatened by them, they are familiar. Only a certain amount of people have guns and even fewer are comfortable around them. So drawing a line between something we’re comfortable with to something people are uncomfortable with doesn’t feel right even if it might be logical.
People are killed by cars every day, probably more so than guns (in a country that’s not at war on its home soil) we call it an accident and attribute it careless or drunk driving. We accept it, what can we do there are so many cars around someone is liable to get hit. But when a person uses a gun to kill someone its news, people get up in arms and try to do something about it. We accept people will die from individuals irresponsibly driving a car but not when someone shoots somebody. Kind of said how callus our society has become. We should get chocked up about both of them equally.
I suppose you could argue that one gets you from point A to point B, and the other eliminates point B.
It just feels flawed because every single person is around cars, so they don't feel threatened by them, they are familiar. Only a certain amount of people have guns and even fewer are comfortable around them. So drawing a line between something we’re comfortable with to something people are uncomfortable with doesn’t feel right even if it might be logical.
People are killed by cars every day, probably more so than guns (in a country that’s not at war on its home soil) we call it an accident and attribute it careless or drunk driving. We accept it, what can we do there are so many cars around someone is liable to get hit. But when a person uses a gun to kill someone its news, people get up in arms and try to do something about it. We accept people will die from individuals irresponsibly driving a car but not when someone shoots somebody. Kind of said how callus our society has become. We should get chocked up about both of them equally.
guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people. the same can be said about cars. a gun sitting on the ground won't just aim and fire itself at a person and a parked car won't just start itself up and run someone over. so i guess they can be compaired?
i think it is a pretty fair comparison. although, it's only fair from one perspective: the casual leisure user of both. A gun is and always was manufactured to injure people. That is why they need to be limited in use. A car has more recreational value than a firearm, no doubt... which is why the argument is flawed. I know people are gonna argue that "not all guns are designed to injure" but thats fine, this argument is about a machine gun. I know of no prestigious firing competition that uses fully automatic low calibre rifles.
"A gun can be owned used and enjoyed just as much as a sports car if used responsibly.
A car can be owned used and enjoyed just as much as a machine gun?"
somewhere that statement begins to seem pretty one sided.
"A gun can be owned used and enjoyed just as much as a sports car if used responsibly.
A car can be owned used and enjoyed just as much as a machine gun?"
somewhere that statement begins to seem pretty one sided.
Guns dont kill people.......people kill people.
If i wanted to kill someone--i wouldn't have to use a gun, i could use anything thats hard---like a rock or a rather large, heavy stick.
:biglaugh:
If i wanted to kill someone--i wouldn't have to use a gun, i could use anything thats hard---like a rock or a rather large, heavy stick.
:biglaugh:
Matter of perspective I guess. Go over to a third world country where there are more guns than cars and every body is flashing a gun, even 10 year old kids, but you don't see many rocking a car.
Only through the blatant abrogation of explicit constitutional rights is gun control even possible. It must be enforced with such violations of individual rights as intrusive search and seizure.
The various gun control's in today's agenda--including licensing, waiting periods, and bans on so-called Saturday night specials--are of little, if any, value as crime-fighting measures. The assault weapons ban is a joke, and has done nothing but irritate and complicate the lives of the law abiding gun enthusiast. It hasn't affected the criminal one bit. You know why? Because they are criminals, by definition they don't abide by the law...
Banning guns to reduce crime makes as much sense as banning alcohol to reduce drunk driving. Or banning, for example, turbo cars to reduce instances of street racing.
Persuasive evidence shows that civilian gun ownership can be a powerful deterrent to crime.
Additonally, I'd like you to try something. After your home has been broken into, after your Supra has been stolen, after you've been brutally beaten, after you have been robbed, after you have been raped, after your loved ones have been murdered. Attempt to file a lawsuit against the police for not preventing it... No seriously. Try it. You'll get laughed out of court. And the police will tell you "we don't prevent crime, we aprehend those who commit crimes and then turn them over to the courts".
So if it's not the job of the police to prevent crime, who's is it? It's yours my friends, whether you like it or not.
I understand that quite a large portion of the anti-gun crowd are just people who want to feel safe. They don't realize they are being used as a tool by people with political agenda's that have nothing to do with public safety and have everything to do with political expendency and the ablilty to abuse the populace with impunity.
People see horrible things happen. It scares them. But have you ever noticed that the vast majority of these horror scenes happen in so called "Gun-Free Zones"?
Columbine didn't happen at a gun show, it didn't happen at a rifle range, it didn't happen at an NHRA convention. It happened in a school, a school that was already a Gun-Free Zone prior to the killings. Nobody ever seems to stop and look at the DOZENS of laws that were already on the books and were broken when those kids pulled thier idiocy. The laws didn't prevent them, and 101 more laws wouldn't have prevented them either.
Invitation to Terror: This Plane is a Gun-Free Zone
Invitation to Terror: This School is a Gun-Free Zone
Invitation to Terror: This Business is a Gun-Free Zone
Invitation to Terror: This House is a Gun-Free Zone
My fellow Americans, read the damned Constitution and it's original amendments. Read it all. Understand the mindset, understand that these men had just spent thier blood, fortunes & efforts overthrowing a powerful opressive government.
Many people have claimed the following to be ambiguious:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, should not be infringed."
It's not. Take it in context. Paraphrased into modern "dumbed down" English it would be:
"Listen, since the government is going to have to have an army and be armed, the people need to be able to be armed as well."
As cliche as it sounds, it's true: If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.
The world is not made of Nerf (tm), it's never going to be.
The more you restrict liberty, the more you will find all those hard edges that the world had have just been transferred onto the tools of government. And when you have no liberty, they will be applied to you with great force.
What will you do when you have given up the means to defend your own liberty? Who will you trust to hold your liberty in the palm of the hand.
Personally, I prefer to hold on to my own.
'Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.' - Benjamin Franklin
The various gun control's in today's agenda--including licensing, waiting periods, and bans on so-called Saturday night specials--are of little, if any, value as crime-fighting measures. The assault weapons ban is a joke, and has done nothing but irritate and complicate the lives of the law abiding gun enthusiast. It hasn't affected the criminal one bit. You know why? Because they are criminals, by definition they don't abide by the law...
Banning guns to reduce crime makes as much sense as banning alcohol to reduce drunk driving. Or banning, for example, turbo cars to reduce instances of street racing.
Persuasive evidence shows that civilian gun ownership can be a powerful deterrent to crime.
Additonally, I'd like you to try something. After your home has been broken into, after your Supra has been stolen, after you've been brutally beaten, after you have been robbed, after you have been raped, after your loved ones have been murdered. Attempt to file a lawsuit against the police for not preventing it... No seriously. Try it. You'll get laughed out of court. And the police will tell you "we don't prevent crime, we aprehend those who commit crimes and then turn them over to the courts".
So if it's not the job of the police to prevent crime, who's is it? It's yours my friends, whether you like it or not.
I understand that quite a large portion of the anti-gun crowd are just people who want to feel safe. They don't realize they are being used as a tool by people with political agenda's that have nothing to do with public safety and have everything to do with political expendency and the ablilty to abuse the populace with impunity.
People see horrible things happen. It scares them. But have you ever noticed that the vast majority of these horror scenes happen in so called "Gun-Free Zones"?
Columbine didn't happen at a gun show, it didn't happen at a rifle range, it didn't happen at an NHRA convention. It happened in a school, a school that was already a Gun-Free Zone prior to the killings. Nobody ever seems to stop and look at the DOZENS of laws that were already on the books and were broken when those kids pulled thier idiocy. The laws didn't prevent them, and 101 more laws wouldn't have prevented them either.
Invitation to Terror: This Plane is a Gun-Free Zone
Invitation to Terror: This School is a Gun-Free Zone
Invitation to Terror: This Business is a Gun-Free Zone
Invitation to Terror: This House is a Gun-Free Zone
My fellow Americans, read the damned Constitution and it's original amendments. Read it all. Understand the mindset, understand that these men had just spent thier blood, fortunes & efforts overthrowing a powerful opressive government.
Many people have claimed the following to be ambiguious:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, should not be infringed."
It's not. Take it in context. Paraphrased into modern "dumbed down" English it would be:
"Listen, since the government is going to have to have an army and be armed, the people need to be able to be armed as well."
As cliche as it sounds, it's true: If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.
The world is not made of Nerf (tm), it's never going to be.
The more you restrict liberty, the more you will find all those hard edges that the world had have just been transferred onto the tools of government. And when you have no liberty, they will be applied to you with great force.
What will you do when you have given up the means to defend your own liberty? Who will you trust to hold your liberty in the palm of the hand.
Personally, I prefer to hold on to my own.
'Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.' - Benjamin Franklin
L
lanky189
Guest
Yes. Responsible people should have the priviledge of bearing a firearm. But not in public unless required or you know you'll require it. And any convicted criminal should not be allowed to own a firearm. if they made that law, it would protect people who wanted them and were responsible enough (getting a liscence) to use them, and restrict those who couldnt by allowing police to seize and destroy ANY firearm from ANY convicted criminal. no matter it's registration or anything.
L
lanky189
Guest
Felons can't own firearms it is already a lawNATAN666 said:
As was previously stated by Supracentral, if a criminal wants a gun...he/she will get one..there are ways around checks and background deals etc...
England is a good example..handguns are illegal there...however criminals still have them...go figure...
Laws against guns will only keep them out of law abiding citizen's hands. The people who need to protect themselves. Knives are not allowed in prisons, but people still make them, have them and sometimes kill other inmates with them. Rules don't stop anyone but the people who follow them.
Back to the original point. Owning that type of gun has much to do with owning a fast car.
Why do you need an AK47?
I don't need it, I want it.
Why do you need a 10 second car?
I don't need it, I want it.
Same question, same answer
Back to the original point. Owning that type of gun has much to do with owning a fast car.
Why do you need an AK47?
I don't need it, I want it.
Why do you need a 10 second car?
I don't need it, I want it.
Same question, same answer
I'll tell you one big difference from my point of view.
If you drive your Supra up here to visit me in Canada, we'll both be happy and enjoy boosting around the city, viewing all the cool stuff there is to see up here.
If you bring your machine gun, I'll be out looking at the wonderful sights alone, while you sit in a jail cell at the border, waiting for your shot at the rubber glove treatment.
In short, cars of any type are an accepted thing in the vast majority of the world. Guns, again of any type, are not.
If you drive your Supra up here to visit me in Canada, we'll both be happy and enjoy boosting around the city, viewing all the cool stuff there is to see up here.
If you bring your machine gun, I'll be out looking at the wonderful sights alone, while you sit in a jail cell at the border, waiting for your shot at the rubber glove treatment.
In short, cars of any type are an accepted thing in the vast majority of the world. Guns, again of any type, are not.
Mark3Supraholic said:
I would like to read that essay if you ever find it.
I think I'm starting to see it clearly now. The gun's main task is to kill and maim. While the car's main task is to transport. While the car might have an unintended consequence of killing people if used wrongly, the gun kills people used correctly or wrongly. Much like how you can use a gun to hammer in loose nails in your wall, that is not it's main job. You can use a car to maim or kill people, that is not it's main job.
I'm still missing the final piece about why machine guns are different from fast cars. Whenever people ask why you would need assault riffles, people will respond why do people need fast cars? It is like when mk3 owners say, "I might have lost the race to a Dodge SRT4, but I didn't really lose the race because he drives a Dodge." It makes some sense, then when you analyze it later, you can't put your finger on why it's wrong.
dirgle said:
the only problem i have with this quote is the fact that when a person shoots another person they usually do it maliciously.
i believe people should take note of fatal car accidents, it might teach people to be better drivers, but the fact is that they wont because its's consittered common. and that saddens me. :icon_cry: