>>21894964 Didn't even read the article yet, but I personally would not invite a comparison to such things. Not only does bringing up cars bring up registration and licenses, bringing up drugs brings up the negative implication that it is a vice.
Treat everything as is and use logic, not metaphors to a different set of laws.
>>21894964 >But a saw can’t be used to kill 28 people in less than an hour’s worth of time. I feel like I could kill 28 people in an hour with a saw. I dunno, though. But I sure as shit could kill more than that in an hour with a gun.
>>21894981 I think the main point of pro gunners when bringing up the car comparison is needless deaths. If the gubment was concerned with stopping unnecessary deaths, they would do something about or deadly highways, and not focus so much on gun control. This suggests a hidden agenda. The article clearly misses the point and like most anti gunners, attempt to discredit pro gunners by insulting our intelligence, etc...doesn't really matter
tl;dr: But guns were designed to kill! The second amendment was for national defense! Drugs only cause problems when abused! Seriously, guns have no purpose but to kill! And killing bad guys is nigh irrelevant! You can't beat the US military, but you can't own weapons that could beat the US military!
It's like a happy little compendium of all the arguments they use in all their logical fallacies.
>>21895086 Well, sure. But you won't see me writing an article claiming that they're all illogical mouth-breathing sycophants. I think many of them are just tall children that will eventually find the light with guidance.
>>21895098 I didn't even think about that. You're pretty spot on, though. Excellent. I know it unhinged an ex of mine when I mentioned that statistically she would kill more people with her Honda than I would with all my guns.
>>21895068 >But guns were designed to kill! Yep, and it's my right to defend myself with lethal force if that proves necessary to save myself from great bodily harm or death - same reason Police Officers carry guns. Do you think cops carry guns only to murder people? >The second amendment was for national defense! Yep, so that all able bodied males could bring their rifles and be proficient with that rifle and basic infantry tactics as to defend the US from an invading force, or topple a corrupt government >Drugs only cause problems when abused! Yeah, that's why we needed the FDA to test out drugs before they're sold or prescribed.. because bad things with drugs don't happen from allergies, production flaws, or anything else like that. >Seriously, guns have no purpose but to kill! Yep, and it's your right and my right and every other lawful citizens' right to use lethal force to protect ourselves and our loved ones. The police and the state have absolutely no legal obligation to protect you from harm. I am not willing to bet my life on a 911 call. >And killing bad guys is nigh irrelevant! It's pretty relevant when that bad guy is about to kill you or your family, or even a total stranger. >You can't beat the US military, but you can't own weapons that could beat the US military!
Right, that's why illiterate goat herders with cell phones and 60+ year old AK's and no infantry or marksmanship skills whatsoever have kept the US and other coalition forces mired in serious bullshit in OIF and OEF for all of these years.
Factor in that a large number of gun owners are prior military, and that while US legal firearms are rarely full-auto, we've gotten pretty good at shooting accurately at long distances with much higher quality rifles. Do YOU want to stand on a streetcorner as martial law is declared, and hope that someone with a good deer rifle doesn't think you're the most important dickhead on that corner?
>>21895155 Cars aren't designed to transport. They're designed to propel a mass of metal and plastic at high speed.
>>21895153 To operate a motor vehicle in California it has to have six cylinders or less, be restricted to no more than eight gallons of fuel at a time, said fuel can be no higher than 88 octane and must be at least 85% ethanol.
>>21895151 >fully automatic transmission Oh fuck that's brilliant. >Why do you need a fully automatic transmission, are you trying to drive somewhere fast? Are you trying to get away from someone?
I just have to say though, I can't argue against the "guns were designed to kill thing", but so what? That argument seems like the worst attempt at grasping for straws compared to most other arguments they make.
>>21895172 That's too much. Studies show that your risk of death increases dramatically in crashes over 40mph, ergo I propose that new cars be designed so that they cannot exceed this limit. Older cars will be permitted as long as limiters are installed to bring them in line.
>>21895139 Vehicle size/weight is pretty related to stoppin powah. Speed is related to rate of fire, because if we limited cars to 10 mph, most people would be able to escape after the first attack, much like the arguments against semi-auto and full retard. Mufflers turn the cars into silent death machines that allow you to murder thousands before anyone hears, much like a silencer. Hybrids, too. Of course, public transportation = cops and soldiers. You don't NEED to drive. Hire the professionals for that. And call an ambulance if you want to take a family member to the hospital. They always make it on time, no matter where you live. Gas tank does work with assault clips, as you pointed out. If you have to refuel every few miles, you can't use your car to run over Obama without someone noticing you getting closer. Adjustable stocks and pistol grips are power steering and adjustable seats. Purely for ease of use and comfort. Shoulder things that go up are like seat belts. Only psychopathic spree killers planning to run into dozens of people would bother to use one, since they have no other purpose. Flash hiders are windshield wipers.
Excuse me. What no one here seems to be addressing is the likelihood of an unlicensed user stealing your car and using it to kill people. All cars should be registered only to one person, and require retinal scanning throughout the journey to prevent the deathmobile operator from letting someone else use the car. What if they get carjacked? Without retinal scanners, bad guys are likely to break out the window, unlock the door, unbuckle the seat belt, put the car in park, drag the person out, get in the car, and run the person over. Also, your car should be stored in a government approved facility, and GPS tracking needs to be required. Because all murderers with cars were once good guys with cars until they decided to kill. So GPS tracking would help cops find the criminal. And remote disabling is also necessary, so the police can stop a rampage in progress.
>>21895239 Why do you talk about cars all the time? Are you planning on running over children at the playground!?!? I've never driven in my life, but let me tell you all the things about cars you shouldn't be allowed to do because I would probably fuck up.
>>21895261 I think it's ridiculous. If you want to have the Ford Z4000 V12 model then by all means... go get it. People just find reasons to throw insults since their jealous their car can't drive over buildings.
>>21895132 >>But guns were designed to kill! >Yep, and it's my right to defend myself with lethal force if that proves necessary
Thank you. I hate it when our side shies away from that with idiot statements like, "No, it's designed to throw bits of lead at high speed in a straight line!" Killing is tragic, but not necessarily wrong.
>>21895286 Yes you do. The smaller you go , the bigger the truck. so basically if you get your whole pee pee chopped off , you get a truck that you can drive on both sides of the road at the same time.
>>21895274 What it ultimately boils down to is that near everything that get's the "compensating" argument thrown at it has an odd habit of being a symbol of masculinity and success. Own guns, a luxury car/big truck/sports car, a big house, a boat, or even a really nice home theater system? You have a small dick, hahaha! Because otherwise it would just look like people being jealous assholes trying to tell others how to spend their money, and generally looking like spiteful little faggots. So in all of your wisdom, you take the intellectual high road by...using the muh dick argument. Yep. You sure showed us.
If they ask whether you're compensating for something with your guns, tell them you're compensating for a government that can't and won't protect you. Then cite police response times, and Warren vs DC and the other dozen or so cases that all uphold that police are not required to protect anyone in the course of their duties.
Knock on wood, but I keep wondering why none of these nutjobs going for the high score have tried renting an 18-wheeler and driving into a public gathering - a parade, protest, or something. You could do so much damage and nothing could stop you.
- It's much, much harder to outrun a bullet than it is a car. - You can kill multiple targets MUCH easier with a gun, turning your body and acquiring sight picture vs. turning your car. - You can't hit people from hundreds of yards away with a car. - You can't easily take a car from room to room and run over everyone inside. - You can't easily take a car up multiple floors. - You can't conceal a car on your person - You can't ambush people from a concealed position with a car - It is easier to spot a car than a gunman - etc
Please /k/, don't use this metaphor. Yes, a car is as deadly as a gun if you go by mass shooting standards, but we know better than that. A car ramming through a bunch of people is a drop in the ocean compared to car crashes from bad drivers. A gunman murdering a bunch of high school kids is a drop in the ocean compared to Chicago gun violence.
Guns ARE designed to kill, and they're one of the best tools for it, that's why people paid to kill use guns. If you want to stand by your guns, don't stand by them using cars as a metaphor. Say you own your guns to defend yourself from bad guys or something. Be real.
This is an epidemic in America! We need to have stronger restrictions and licensing tests to make sure these psychopaths can't get behind the wheel of a dangerous vehicle!
We should make it so driving anything larger and/or faster than a four door requires a psych evaluation and extra testing to ensure competency!
Making it so unless your job requires it you have to drive golf carts because those arent that powerful and won't hurt people since they're so small! Why would you need anything bigger unless you're compensating for something!
Only the military and government should have large vehicles with extended cabins, high capacity cargo space, scary chrome and black exteriors, and fully automatic transmissions because they protect us!
A normal citizen doesn't need that kind of horsepower and other unnecessary and ridiculous features! Why does an average citizen need high efficiency engines and high capacity gas tanks?
>But muh freedom of movement!
Just use public transit or take a cab if it's too far! Maybe you could even walk and lose some weight you fat car-nut!
>But cars are inanimate objects!
Cars are dangerous 2 ton pieces of heavy machinery that should only be driven by qualified individuals like the police!
>But why am i being punished for what a small and disturbed minority, whom i don't support, does?
We have to do whats right for the chillins and women! We can't have some car-nut with a fetish of taking out his anger on innocent citizens be able to fulfill his sick and twisted nightmare! (Did i leave anything out fellow MDA supporters? We must get these dangerous trucks and sports cars off our streets!)
>>21895375 >turning your car Not needed in a tight area where people don't have alleys to duck down. Just drive straight and watch the bodies roll off/under your bumper. >being far away A car moves fast. Sure you can't start your rampage far from your victims, but you sure as hell can get away afterwards. And if they get away, they could go somewhere else and do it again. >Inside Lots of people are outside at any time of day, and you can quickly and easily take your car anywhere within 50 miles of you thanks to a wonderfully ubiquitous highway/road system >Conceal a car Not necessary. After all, it's not "scary" >Can't ambush in a car If you've got a good enough acceleration, you can. Also, you can turn corners and speed into people with enough force to drag them completely under the 2 ton+ weight of your vehicle.
>>21894964 deaths are deaths at the end of the day, if you want to ban guns because they kill people then why shouldn't you be opposed to a ban on cars as well? because you're not against deaths you're against guns, when people can admit that they only care about taking guns away and not about actually saving lives then i might listen
>>21895375 >It's much, much harder to outrun a bullet than it is a car. And a car does much, much more damage. >- You can kill multiple targets MUCH easier with a gun, turning your body and acquiring sight picture vs. turning your car. Don't really think so. Even great marksmen miss moving targets all the time. Plowing through a crowd in a truck seems easy enough. >- You can't hit people from hundreds of yards away with a car. True. Not sure it matters in the end. >- You can't easily take a car from room to room and run over everyone inside. You can, however, take one up and down the sidewalks on a crowded street. >- You can't easily take a car up multiple floors. True. Don't think it matters much, though. >- You can't conceal a car on your person But nobody freaks out when they see a car. Why conceal it? >- You can't ambush people from a concealed position with a car Crowd stealth - Assassin's Creed meets GTA. Driving along, no one looks at you, then peel off the road into a crowd. No one sees it coming. >- It is easier to spot a car than a gunman And again, no one sees a car and runs away.
I think it's a fair comparison. A car is the biggest and most lethal possession most people own. You can do incredible damage to whole groups of people by using it irresponsibly, never mind with murderous intent. People just don't think about it that way. The half-crazed crackhead who steals a car could plow into a crowd of schoolchildren. A disgruntled truck driver could drive through a family reunion at a park. Any ordinary person could negligently reach for their cellphone and kill four people in an instant. But people just don't think of it in those terms. They see a gun, and immediately worry about who might be killed - but if my gun is holstered, I can't kill anyone by texting.
The most effective thing people can think of for killing in a car is "PLOW THROUGH THE CROWD, THEN DO IT AGAIN!". People disperse after they see a car ram through people. They run behind corners and walls and places cars can't get to.
>>21895505 And then the car can drive a few dozen yards to the next crowded area that doesn't know it's coming. Police response time is going to be about 10 minutes, and it will probably take at least 2 or 3 police cars to stop a rampaging truck.
>>21895529 Ram people, then run around a corner or two to a street full of unaware people, then ram them, then turn a corner or two for another street full of unaware people, then ram them. At this point, there may be a local police car giving chase. It won't be able to stop a truck on its own and probably won't even try. So until the second and third car shows up, you can just continue to drive down a few streets and find more and more unaware people who have no chance of ducking down an alley because they are unaware of what's happening. A gunman is restricted to a small area that can be evacuated or locked down. A crazed driver can just go find a new area if his current one is evacuated or otherwise devoid of victims.
Remember that guy from Vermont who used a tractor to crush all the police cars in his town? Now imagine if that was a tank (They're legal to own), armored mac truck, or other massive-but-fast vehicle instead of a slow tractor and that the person was actually interested in killing other people. It would have taken a looooong time to get a response that could actually stop him.
I have a feeling that if anyone really did try for the high score in a vehicle, the leaderboards would quickly start to fill up with new names, if you catch my drift. And if you don't catch my drift, I'm talking about the phenomena known as "copycats".
unlike guns cars can be bought from a dealership/store minus the title and a licence isn't needed on private property. If you're about to go on a rampage why would you have your licence on you and why would you use a registered car?
>>21896022 >>21895655 >How many police die from cars each year@ >>21895935 >i mean if police sometimes die from heart attacks or car crashes that means it's OK to shoot them and machine guns should be available to niggers
I am not anti gun but the idea that "if cops sometimes die in car accidents it follows that niggers should have guns because it's OK that they are killed by firearms too"
>>21895817 I forgot to make the equivalence between the 4473 form and title, obviously its not exactly the same but it's still regulation. I was mostly talking about people using unregistered guns and cars for crimes though.
>>21896074 This thread isn't advocating shooting the police because they'd die anyways. That's the weakest strawman I've ever heard, and all my exes are antis. So while you're trying to derail a thread that has predominately been about mocking inane ideas, I'll address you in order to mock yours. The logical fallacy occurs when you pretend that all car deaths are murders, and that the overall murder rate is where it should be. I doubt you'd find a single person on even 4chan who agrees with that, so I'll dismiss your argument at bait, out of hand. Similarly, your attempt at race baiting is pathetically transparent, even for a /pol/ idiot in day/k/amp. In conclusion, I'd like to wish you a hearty, "Fuck off!", and may you step on a lego.
>>21896134 >This thread isn't advocating shooting the police because they'd die anyways. That's the weakest strawman I've ever heard, and all my exes are antis. >So while you're trying to derail a thread that has predominately been about mocking inane ideas, I'll address you in order to mock yours.
people are saying (and frequently say):
oh well why don't the antis want to ban cars, cars kill people via accidents!
you could ban guns in the USA and the country would not collapse, if you banned cars the whole US economy would literally collapse overnight and millions would starve to death in 2 weeks, literally
additionally cars are heavily regulated and their design tightly controlled and regulated by the government and safety requirements have been going up every year for decades and over the last 50 years the number of fatalities per distance driven has gone down dramatically and constantly over time as regulations have gotten tougher
so the argument is actually FOR super heavy euro style regulation as it worked great in cars
>>21896303 Only if the ban actually magically worked somehow, which it wouldn't. Even in AUS, estimates of actual compliance with the gun bans there are under 30%. Here, it would be FAR less than that, and there are FAR more guns per capita.
>>21896354 >Only if the ban actually magically worked somehow, which it wouldn't. >>21896345 >You must think the War On Drugs has been a fantastic success then.
you would not have to ban them in the sense of "nobody may own a firearm at all period"
they could regulate them to the point all you could get without a years worth of paperwork was bolt action rifles
if they regulated the fuck out of them I am sure the murder rate would go down some, I am still pro gun but reality is reality
Cho was not going to fabricate a GLOCK and would never have passed the most basic of psych tests, both cho and homes were turned away from gun stores for being fucking weird and learned to walk in to a new store, state what they wanted, pay, and walk out
and they could barely do that
Lanza had to literally get his idiot mother to buy the guns he had access to because of his assburgers
>>21896387 The murder rate would go down for about 6 months and then would jump up to above pre-ban levels and escalate from there. Look at the crime rates for every country that banned guns. It drops for a very short period of time and then skyrockets to above pre-ban levels (When the criminals set up their new supply lines, basically.)
>>21896489 If they get out of prison, they've already served their time. If they're still dangerous, then why did you let them out of prison? If they aren't still dangerous, then why prohibit them from guns?
>>21896489 >they have far less gun violence in heavily regulated countries >gun violence >relevant stat Pick one The murder rate doesnt change. I dont care whether Im murdered with a gun or a chainsaw. Hell, I'd actually prefer getting shot.
>i bet you think convicted violent felons should be able to legally own firearms if they get out of prison because "they are going to get them anyway" Nice strawman, nigger
No it wasn't. He was actually barred from having guns. He tried to buy legally, and if the authorities actually did their jobs he would have been brought up on felony charges for that. The fucker needed to be committed anyways.
No she should not have kept guns in the same house, and she should not have allowed access. Either way, she paid the ultimate price, along with so many others. People like Lanza would have been committed back in the day. Mental Healthcare in our country is absolute shit right now. We aren't even devoting enough in research as to what causes head-cases like Lanza and Rodgers.
Ironically, the left is also somewhat to blame for this as well, as there was a movement to stop involuntary commitment of at risk individuals. You can't even force them to take their crazy pills anymore. My mother told me stories about how her brother had to disable my grandmas car to keep her from going out and hurting herself or others. They couldn't get her committed, there were times where she practically walked off and that would have nearly been the end of it if some cop hadn't found her.
I recall hearing of some shit-head lawyer that had ties with the ACLU, that was the cause of much consternation in this situation.
So in America there's around 310 million privately owned firearms compared to about 250 million privately owned automobiles. So 60 million MORE guns then cars.
Annually there are about 33,000 auto fatalities. While only about 800 firearms related accidental death plus less than 9,000 homicides annually. Even if you add in suicides, which make up for about 66% of all firearms related deaths, the total death from each are about even despite there being 60 million more firearms then autos.
Thus cars are statistically more dangerous then guns. At which point they'll say, "oh! But people use cars more often"! However all of this contradicts the concept that firearms are on their own intrinsically dangerous.
I know there are problems with the comparison of guns vs. cars and I try to avoid it. But I know one thing for sure. In the 28 years I've been alive I've lost count of the number of times I've almost been in an car accident by no fault of my own and I've also lost track of the number of times I've walked through a crosswalk and almost been splattered by some idiot who doesn't know or doesn't follow the shit he was supposed to know when he read the little state supplied Driver's Manual.
I've *never* been threatened by someone with a gun.
>>21896728 /o/ is kind of like our cousin. We've got a fair bit in common, but we don't really share all the same hobbies, and so we're cool not seeing each other for long periods of time. We have a grand time when we meet up, though.
>>21895386 >ot considered a firearm by the ATF Yeah because it would basically fuck boat owners and contradict the USCG rules on boat safety requiring visual distress signals, especially on large boats
But its a fucking gun that shoots shot shells loaded with pyro
>>21896243 This is because you are on a highway/street with hundreds of other giant steel monsters at any given time, and the people operating with them may be complete fucktards whom you have no control over. With a gun that's been already tested for safety (see: SAAMI and CIP, and your own commen sense) and safe practice you don't have any problems.
Notice how most deaths due to cars are from idiot drivers? How do you regulate being a complete moron?
>>21896243 >you could ban guns in the USA and the country would not collapse, if you banned cars the whole US economy would literally collapse overnight and millions would starve to death in 2 weeks, literally Cars are inefficient and should be replaced by trains, yes.
the fact is intense government regulation has made cars far far safer per mile driven even with other idiots on the road over the last 40 years
machine guns have been intensely regulated since 1934 with huge success, regulation works. Even spree killers who would want nothing more than a machine gun can hardly ever get them
also while there are more guns than cars in the USA most people need to get in a car every day to go to work or school or transport food or whatever, probably less than 5% of people need to fuck with a firearm every day
>You could ban guns in the USA and the country would not collapse, if you banned cars the whole US economy would literally collapse overnight and millions would starve to death in 2 weeks, literally
Minus our corrupt government taking advantage of a disarmed populace, along with criminals who get/make guns illegally.
Also it would be hurting gun dealers, their employees and gun manufacturers that have to compete for US defense contracting or a PMC/Private Security to buy their guns if civilians and private citizens cannot own any. Causing alot of people to be laid off, gun smiths to be put out of business, etc. etc.
Banning guns would be putting the US economy in jeopardy, and putting more people onto the streets because guns don't come out of a vacuum, there's a lot of jobs and careers centered around guns.
>>21897220 When using full auto, you generally don't aim to actually hit people, and in fact, would have a hard time doing so thanks to the recoil. You're just trying to keep them down so they can't hit anyone on your side. Even drive-bys with full auto mostly miss the people they are actually trying to shoot. So if your goal is to actually kill people, as most murderers are, you don't want to use full auto. And if it's not full auto, it's not a "machine gun".
>>21897551 Pretending to be police and executing people who are lined up against a wall isn't the same as firing at people who are moving. And also, gang bangers still have full auto weapons anyway, in the form of cheap and nasty machine pistols and micro-SMGs, even though they're practically illegal. So even though they're banned, criminals still have them. Doesn't help that you can make an effective full-auto smg with a $30 trip to any department store.
>>21894964 The articles argument is that a firearm is a "tool" like any other, but because its an effective tool at what it does, means it should be banned.
With that logic, we should ban cars because with the increasing effectiveness of MPG, the driver doesn't need to stop by a gas station as much. In turn the gas companies lose money, which requires them to get less employees to pay. The employees don't have the money to feed the children, therefore we should all drive a fucking hummer.
>>21897578 >So even though they're banned, criminals still have them
they are hardly ever used
>>21897755 >The use of machine guns in crime was incredibly rare even prior to the NFA. >The myth of mobsters with Thompsons is exactly that, a myth. There were never more than a handful of documented situations of them using MG's.
Considering that hands and feet kill more then ALL LONG GUNS COMBINED annually I doubt it'd have much of an effect on the homicide rate. Not to mention you've proven once again anti fun s don't care about reason or even human lives. They just want other to stop liking what they don't.
>>21897772 I bet you think the "wild west" really was full of violence. Well, it objectively had a lower murder rate than any era after it, and even those famous full-noon duels to the death have happened less than 5 times.
>>21900769 That was addressed by a 2nd amendment guy on a West Virginia public TV interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo9BbB6rBx0
He threw the same question back at the interviewer by saying if the police feel the need to carry AR-15s with 30 round magazines to counter threats than a citizen needs the same weapons to counter the same threats and in fact more so because they have to defend themselves until the police get there.
Lastly he amusedly pointed out that the SC has ruled the police have no duty to protect you.
>>21901219 But as you can also see in the video, the argument is not useful in convincing them. They keep saying, "Well still, the police are trained and responsible. I don't want my neighbor taking one of those high powered weapons and going crazy."
>>21901479 That was not the idea behind his argument, regardless the police have no duty to protect you so you have to protect yourself and semi auto rifles are one of the means to do this. Maybe even from this mythical crazed neighbor with a "Ak-47"
>>21901606 So the idea behind the argument is not enough to convince someone otherwise. The gun grabber's logic is still, "I won't need to defend myself from the crazy AK neighbor with my own assault weapon if he doesn't have an AK in the first place. This means no citizen needs an assault weapon."
All I am saying is that there still is no argument that satisfies this point of view which disappoints me as it's were I find myself stuck most of the time.
>>21901677 And what if your crazy neighbor gets his ak47 illegally, as so many other criminals do? It doesn't even need to be stolen from someone else. The FBI alone "loses" over 500 guns per year, nevermind local police forces. And then factor in smugglers from Africa and Mexico, where AKs of all types are cheap, plentiful, and fully automatic. Banning guns won't reduce the supply of illegal weapons available. Even shitty ghetto pistols get passed around through back alley dealers, and many of them have been used by multiple people to murder others.
Thread replies: 219 Thread images: 22
Thread DB ID: 3699
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.