Time to Take Motor Vehicles Away From the American Public!

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by hoonsince89
reply to post by jar11

 

Agreed, cars arnt the problem, its the people.

That's right. Cars don't kill people. PEOPLE kill people. Hey! It's time to take the public away from the public!

Its the car industry killing people.
Maybe the great paradox of all time.
They give you the car which speed is well over road speed limits. And what would you do?
Ended up in crash

reply to post by zilebeliveunknown


So you get my meanig ?

All rights reserved to ATS.

You are right sir, Cars kill way to many Americans. I think we all know one or two who did not make it through High school and chances are we will all be involved in serious wreck.

Cars are pure evil, and at the center of way to much heartache! Of course if we outlaw them we will make criminals out of ordinary citizens, and create a whole underground of illegal car outlets and black markets. It will only result in even more dangerous cars being readily available.

However, no man should have the right to choose to drive! Our prison systems need a fresh influx of folks and man just think of the jobs locking these folks up will create.

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Hmmm, I can appreciate the analogy, but what I first thought of is how many car fatalities were accidents verses intentional gunshot fatalities?

ETA: FTR I am not a "git rid of all the guns" person.

edit on 5-4-2012 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)

I can build a gun for less that $20.00 with supplies readily available at my local hardware store. You will never get rid of guns! Regulations just hurts the law abiding owner, as criminals could care less if they break the law by building a gun etc...

Any call for gun control is in actuality just a call for a defenseless public. If you take guns from the American public you will increase crime. You ever notice how these mass killings happen at places where people are not armed? Do you think these nut jobs would dare act if an open carry policy was in place at these locations?

Guns prevent crime and help to keep those who would subgegate us in check. An armed public is an essential piece of liberty and freedom in this country. Calls for Gun Control are pure evil!

The idea of taking away motor vehicles is such a backward and primitive ways to think of things. Its so concerned with the fear of things that could "hurt" someone that things should be banned or blocked.

Heres an idea...how about you give INCENTIVES to build smarter, safer, and more technologically advanced cars and amenities. It would HELP the ECONOMY and also provide an update to current safety systems. These upgrades could than be expanded and diversified into new products and industries. Ex: Improved airbag or device that slows down momentum can be incorporated than into racing products or even reach a more outrageous market such as stunt men and help them survive higher falls and actions. My point here is be PROACTIVE because you cant ban everything that people are scared of or can hurt you because thats not logical! Lets progress advancements and work through problems, not back down when facing a life-threatening problem! Its not just a remedy in this situation, its a life motto!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

It baffles me how so many people die in car accidents in the USA.

I remember another thread here on ATS about American car safety a while ago, which was also about the huge death toll in car accidents.

We couldn't figure out what exactly is so different in the US to cause so many deaths but road quality or safety regulations might be the underlying causes.

Really sad and puzzling topic.

ETA: Here is that other thread.

Lol, you'd need to take into account how many cases deal with deaths from accidents, how many from DWI's, and how many from people purposely running over others with their vehicles, then compare the latter to the number of people who purposely shoot others with their firearms.

You'd probably find there are many less accidental deaths which result from firearms, while most vehicular deaths are accidental.


Your argument is flawed.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Welcome to the rat race

Well, its impractical the way our current communities are structured to not have a car...especially surburbian areas.

That was done on purpose. I think a wiki link should work for this one.

en.wikipedia.org...

Only a small handful of U.S. cities have surviving effective rail-based urban transport systems based on streetcar or trams, including Newark, New Jersey, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Boston. There is now general agreement that GM and other companies were indeed actively involved in a largely unpublicized program to purchase many streetcar systems and convert them to buses, which they supplied. There is also acknowledgment that the Great Depression, the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, labor unrest, market forces, rapidly increasing traffic congestion, taxation policies that favored private vehicle ownership, urban sprawl, and general enthusiasm for the automobile played a role. One author recently summed the situation up stating "Clearly, GM waged a war on electric traction. It was indeed an all out assault, but by no means the single reason for the failure of rapid transit. Also, it is just as clear that actions and inactions [sic] by government contributed significantly to the elimination of electric traction."

Suburban sprawl greatly favored many big businesses, including insurance companies and banks. We have built incredibly inefficient social structures for a purpose, it was good for business.

The same reason the small town manufacturing centers were taken down. Industries were not concentrated, people could buy affordable homes near to where they worked. Less distance to shop, and attend activities. Kids could play in their neighborhoods, because in smaller communities there was a great deal more sense of safety, because they were in fact safer environments.

The very structures of our suburban sprawls will soon be completely disfunctional because people won't be able to afford the gasoline to get around, even if we could maintain current oil production capabilities. Maybe some sort of hybrid type vehicle will solve this problem, but the vehicles are likely to be much smaller, and we will still be looking at a whole lot of waste.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Table 1103. Motor Vehicle Accidents—Number and Deaths: 1990 to 2009

[11.5 represents 11,500,000]

Item
Unit 1990 1995 2000 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
ACCIDENTS

Motor vehicle accidents 1 : Million . . .

.........11.5 10.7 13.4 10.9 10.7 10.4 10.6 10.2 10.8

DEATHS

Motor vehicle deaths within 1 yr. 2 : 1,000 . . . .

.........46.8 43.4 43.4 44.9 45.3 45.3 43.9 39.7 35.9


Motor Vehicle Accidents: Number and Deaths

Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2009, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.

Gun Violence Statistics

Come to think of it, time to take the poisons away from the American public!

Neither poison, or motor vehicles are Constitutionally protected by the federal government, yet the federal government turns its head to these most disturbing statistics. To hell with rights! To hell with freedom! To hell with the American public! Time to put that ever so annoying American public in its place!

Just STOP muddying the waters with facts, will ya!? Your'e going to make gun control advocates' heads explode.

Oh, one thing these statistics don't take into consideration is the number of the gun killings that were caused intentionally by criminals with unregistered or stolen guns...in other words, they would have happened whether guns were legal or not.

The ironic part is, if you lived next door to a Prius-driving, pony-tail-wearing, 50 year-old anti-gun nazi and the neighborhood was suddenly taken over by a bunch of gang members, who do you think your neighbor would be calling for protection? "Hey Bob, you know those guns I hate so much? Do you have yours handy? I think we're gonna need em." Fat chance, greenboy, your'e on your own.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

I suppose we could take cars away and go back to walking... or horses maybe. But then the over reactionaries would get ahold of them as well and wind up like this:

Personally , I'll stick with cars for now, as little as possible.

Looks alot better than this...

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Wait a minute, this motor vehicle business is a pitiful analogy at best. You have to look at the function of a vehicle vs the function of a gun. A vehicle is designed to transport things. A gun is designed to inflict harm. When a person dies as a result of a car accident it is not that they were trying to kill someone on purpose 99% of the time with their vehicle. When someone kills someone as a result of the gun being fired, it is more often that they were trying to kill someone.

/Thread Closed

I was going through all the replies made since I've been gone and had to intended to read all the replies that follow your thread closure, but of course, since you closed this thread, I cannot read further, and am now compelled to appeal to you to consider reopening the thread. Consider this:

Guns most assuredly exist with the purpose of killing! However, it is a long understood principle of law that people most assuredly have the right to keep and bear arms. Progressives attempting to take guns away from people have a long uphill battle in the United States. It is wholly irrelevant that guns are designed to kill people and automobiles are not. It is also a long understood principle of law that people have the right to travel, and it is self evident that driving an automobile is travel.

When progressives use the deaths caused by guns to make an argument that long held rights must be abolished they are arguing from a point of tyranny, just as my satire was regarding motor vehicles. If you honestly think this thread is about analogy's, then you have simply missed the point, and very possibly due to your own confirmation bias. I humbly request you reopen this thread and allow the members to voice their opinion on this issue.

Respectfully,

JPZ

Originally posted by NAeagle89
The idea of taking away motor vehicles is such a backward and primitive ways to think of things. Its so concerned with the fear of things that could "hurt" someone that things should be banned or blocked.

Heres an idea...how about you give INCENTIVES to build smarter, safer, and more technologically advanced cars and amenities. It would HELP the ECONOMY and also provide an update to current safety systems. These upgrades could than be expanded and diversified into new products and industries. Ex: Improved airbag or device that slows down momentum can be incorporated than into racing products or even reach a more outrageous market such as stunt men and help them survive higher falls and actions. My point here is be PROACTIVE because you cant ban everything that people are scared of or can hurt you because thats not logical! Lets progress advancements and work through problems, not back down when facing a life-threatening problem! Its not just a remedy in this situation, its a life motto!

Bah!

You sound like one of those capitalist fascists, just looking for a way to exploit the masses and profit from their suffering by devising new gadgets to sell them thereby enriching yourself!

Mao would be so ashamed!

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
Lol, you'd need to take into account how many cases deal with deaths from accidents, how many from DWI's, and how many from people purposely running over others with their vehicles, then compare the latter to the number of people who purposely shoot others with their firearms.

You'd probably find there are many less accidental deaths which result from firearms, while most vehicular deaths are accidental.


Your argument is flawed.

No, the argument is sound - dead is dead. If you're dead, do you really think you'll care whether it was an accident or intention that made you that way?

so true... what is interesting is when things don't make sense the logic algorithm people are employing is dorked up. the events make sense using a more pertinent logic algorithm. it's never about guns and violence rather it is about control. when people wake up to that then they will understand enough to begin searching out the truth.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux


When progressives use the deaths caused by guns to make an argument that long held rights must be abolished they are arguing from a point of tyranny, just as my satire was regarding motor vehicles. If you honestly think this thread is about analogy's, then you have simply missed the point, and very possibly due to your own confirmation bias. I humbly request you reopen this thread and allow the members to voice their opinion on this issue.

Respectfully,

JPZ

Who's closing the thread ?

People kill People. Even my OWN children seem to understand this. I often wondered if we were to abolish stupidity,if the world would be in a better place........

reply to post by JohnCreed777

From your ignorant statements and apparent disgust for the american public, I assume you're foreign? French perhaps?

Nice guess, but as Sonny explained to you I ran away from America and joined the French Foreign Legion, hence the faux French sounding name. I am actually half Klingon and half Irish. My father is Klingon and insists my tendency towards making "ignorant statements" is the Irish in me. My mother is Irish and she insists my proclivity towards "ignorant statements" is the Klingon in me. This is not precisely the reason I ran away and joined the French Foreign Legion, but it was really not based on a hatred of America, just my parents.

Well heres some good ol' American insight. We're not perfect, we know this, we also no that you're no better. Also I get sick of the ignorant hate for us based on actions committed by our government. Heres a news flash Edison! We don't control our government, and our rights merely illusions to satisfy the lust for freedom.

Here is a news flash for you! It is the People of the United States who hold the inherent political power, who Ordained the Constitutions, both state and federal, and not only control the government, they have a profound responsibility to do so. Your "insight" is quite ironically profoundly ignorant. It is even more ironic that you wish to frame me as an American hater while you instantly turn around and reveal your own profound hatred for America. Rights are not merely illusions. Rights are as self evident as the noses on our face.

Our government controls us, we could vote against not having a war this decade, but guess what? Thats not our choice to make.

Whatever your gender be may be, the saying goes: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Your hatred for America is so profound you hope to reduce the inherent political power of the people down to a civil right of voting. Again, this only reveals your profound ignorance. Given that every war the U.S. has fought in this century has been done so by an all volunteer military, it is quite evident it is our choice to make.

This site has a strong belief that ignorance must be denied. It is not enough for anyone of us to simply declare one another ignorant. We have a responsibility to instruct and inform.

The Bill of Rights is not some illusory act of government where rights are granted to people to trick them into believing they are free. This is your opinion and your entitled to it, but you posted your opinion in this site, so now other members have an obligation to deny your ignorant opinion. The Bill of Rights is not a grant of rights in any way shape or form. It is an express prohibition on government. Indeed, the entire U.S. Constitution is a profound indictment on government. It is not just I and those who agree with me who have an obligation to keep a tight reign on government, you have this obligation too!

You can shrug your shoulders and declare helplessness, but this is just your way of shirking your responsibility. Shirking that responsibility, in regards to government, should not be treated lightly. If you love America as much as you pretend to then accept your responsibility. Do more! Learn the law! Deny ignorance. Actual ignorance, deny it!

I think we should ban insurance.

Without insurance, maybe people would start being a lot more cautious, and considerate of others.

Most importantly, we should end laws that force people to buy insurance, or corporate/banking policies that force people to buy insurance.

Wouldn't that bring down the prices of property a great deal.

Who knows, maybe that might lead to ending cradle to grave debt.

I am sorry, but you solicited this person to borrow 20G from you, why should taxpayers pay to get your money back, now that they can not afford to pay their credit car bills. Maybe you should take back some of that exec bonus money?

reply to post by nenothtu



Mon Dieu! Est-ce que vous camarade? Quels souvenirs vous avez maintenant l'élever.

I remember those days well, and will never forget the day that the 2nd and 4th battalions joined forces to quell the enemy. I will never forget how many hostiles you took down with a single rabbits foot! What a day that was, no?

Originally posted by hocuspocus
so true... what is interesting is when things don't make sense the logic algorithm people are employing is dorked up. the events make sense using a more pertinent logic algorithm. it's never about guns and violence rather it is about control. when people wake up to that then they will understand enough to begin searching out the truth.

Hey, is there actually logic in bingo, because BINGO! It is, as it has always been, all about a steady aggregation towards power. The power junkies ignore Lord Acton's maxim that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is why it is the People who hold the inherent political power, to spread the power evenly in an attempt to keep it from corrupting.