Time to Take Motor Vehicles Away From the American Public!

Originally posted by Echtelion
+- 10 millions in car accidents Vs +- 100 000 for guns?

Well I'd sure love to show that to gun control shills out there...

You're okay with 100,000 mostly preventable deaths caused by guns?

reply to post by Afterthought


Jetpacks have jet engines.. which are motorized. Motorcycles are also motorized.. Hence motor vehicles.

I would love for them to all be gone for a few decades. I probably won't get my wish of a few decades, but I have a strong hope that gas creeps up to like.. 15 bucks a gallon and people just simply stop driving. It would be at least a year before the Oil Lobby and the Automotive Lobby were able to untangle themselves from each other and we start to see affordable non-petrol automobiles on the market.

Can you imagine what that will be like?

Yes I'm waiting for the moment that the same argument will be used on guns...



So taking away cars from ppl is your solution to the bad driving in the states? How about you raise your stupid driver license age to 18 or 21 since most of the fatal accidents that happen involve stupid teenagers, and theres no way that a 16 year old has the notion, the knowledge, or the responsibility to drive a car?

Raise that driver license age to 18 or 21 and you'll see how much those statistics drop...its just stupid to give a car, specially an american one (since we all know american cars are utter crap) to a 16 year old and expect something intelligent to come out of it.

Other solution is... TEACH PPL HOW TO DRIVE... and third is, America, learn to build cars... not giant v8 engines with the chassis of a fishing boat and 100hp, a real car. Learn to build them.

Great thread, JPZ; love the satire. No matter how polarized ATS gets over an issue, we can always count on you to bring some (un)common sense into the mix.

S&F

Deaths are necessary and oftentimes engineered in order to keep a balance.

Subtract all those vehicle death each year and watch the unemployment and crime statistics skyrocket.

No matter how much people talk about wanting to prevent unnecessary deaths, it's the last thing any society needs. We're way overpopulated even now.

Originally posted by Furbs
reply to post by Afterthought

 

Jetpacks have jet engines.. which are motorized. Motorcycles are also motorized.. Hence motor vehicles.

I would love for them to all be gone for a few decades. I probably won't get my wish of a few decades, but I have a strong hope that gas creeps up to like.. 15 bucks a gallon and people just simply stop driving. It would be at least a year before the Oil Lobby and the Automotive Lobby were able to untangle themselves from each other and we start to see affordable non-petrol automobiles on the market.

Can you imagine what that will be like?

Is that you Barry.....

Des

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by aching_knuckles

 

All people are born with rights. It is self evident that all people have the right to life. You can reply to that with more questions asking for clarification, but what I have just stated is as self evident as the day time sun. If you were to ask me questions in reply demanding clarification, all I can say is that I see someone hiding in a cave all day long only to come out at night and read what I say, and then ask for clarification how the sun is self evident.

This entire thread revolves around the belief that everyone has common sense.
But sadly, many just don't.

Originally posted by Destinyone

Originally posted by Furbs
reply to post by Afterthought

 

Jetpacks have jet engines.. which are motorized. Motorcycles are also motorized.. Hence motor vehicles.

I would love for them to all be gone for a few decades. I probably won't get my wish of a few decades, but I have a strong hope that gas creeps up to like.. 15 bucks a gallon and people just simply stop driving. It would be at least a year before the Oil Lobby and the Automotive Lobby were able to untangle themselves from each other and we start to see affordable non-petrol automobiles on the market.

Can you imagine what that will be like?

Is that you Barry.....

Des

Not sure who this Barry person is that you refer to, but if he shares my passion for getting America off of petrochemicals, and onto alternative energy sources, he must be a pretty progressive chap.

Originally posted by RobinB022
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by aching_knuckles

 

All people are born with rights. It is self evident that all people have the right to life. You can reply to that with more questions asking for clarification, but what I have just stated is as self evident as the day time sun. If you were to ask me questions in reply demanding clarification, all I can say is that I see someone hiding in a cave all day long only to come out at night and read what I say, and then ask for clarification how the sun is self evident.

This entire thread revolves around the belief that everyone has common sense.
But sadly, many just don't.

Apparently one of those people is JPZ. I guess crosswalks and stop signs near playgrounds are the evil government coming to take your rights away, and not just plain old common sense.

reply to post by Furbs


Barry...Obama....

reply to post by dayve

This only applies to asians

You're so fortunate for your internet protection barrier.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by aching_knuckles

 

I gave you an answer, you couldn't accept that answer. You asked for clarification, and I explained a very simple principle of law that has existed since time immemorial. Ignorantia juris non excusat. This is Latin for ignorance of the law is no excuse. Latin is a dead language. I emphasize this to illustrate just how ancient this principle is. You want to take that as an insult. It is simply a fact of law. You seem to want to lead this into some other direction, but all I can tell you is what I know, and that is the law.

All people are born with rights. It is self evident that all people have the right to life. You can reply to that with more questions asking for clarification, but what I have just stated is as self evident as the day time sun. If you were to ask me questions in reply demanding clarification, all I can say is that I see someone hiding in a cave all day long only to come out at night and read what I say, and then ask for clarification how the sun is self evident.

People were driving automobiles before before government decided to declare that driving was a right but only a privilege. In the California State Constitution, there are Declarations of Rights. The latter part of Section 24 states:

This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.

This is a direct contradiction to California's assertion that driving is a privilege and not a right, particularly because people were driving first and by right.

Either you can understand this, or you cannot. If you cannot you can declare it is a failure in my communication, but between you and I, I seem to be the only one willing to make statements. Playing a Socratic method is obvious and in my estimation disingenuous. The law is not philosophy, and if it were, it would be useless.

What more do you want?

Disingenuous? You refuse to answer point blank questions about your ideology and then you call me disingenuous? LOL When you attack the messenger and not his message, eh JPZ?

So what if Latin is a dead language? Rape is an ancient concept too, that doesnt mean it is a good one. You may fool a lot of people around here, but not me; your argument has obvious valid flaws that you refuse to acknowledge, then just type a bunch of horse hockey up here in an attempt to sound smart with backhanded insults and insinuations.

What I am asking you, YOU, is if you believe there should be stop signs...yes or no? Why do we have to go into discussions about dead languages?

I understand you hate a "nanny state", but do you honestly think things would be better if there were no rules, a la Mad Max?

The entire point of society is to have rules and laws that allow us to be civilized, and by extension, have a civilization. You dont want this. Maybe you are just anti-social? I dont know. What I do know is that co-operation is what brought us to the point we are at today, not a bunch of group-fearing lonewolfs.

Further, you say all people are born with rights (I am assuming you mean as long as I dont hurt anyone)...does that mean I should have the right to run a still and open a bar on my property, maybe with prostitution? Should I be allowed a '___' manufacturing facility? Can I train fearsome attack animals in my apartment in the inner city? Where does it end?

Also, I know you wont actually give a straight answer, but if everyone has rights, what age do they come about? Can I buy my 10 year old a Mustang? Can I pimp out my 8 year old, as long as she agrees to it?

Sorry for the long quote, but all I wanted was a yes or no answer. I have a sneaking suspicion that you write this way because you believe that if you obfuscate it, no one can call you out on the bad advice you are giving regarding "rights:" and following the law.

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by Furbs

 

Barry...Obama....

Oh! Apologies, I wasn't away that you were on such a familiar level with President Obama that you felt comfortable referring to him with a nickname, especially to him, as you would be if I were actually the president.

I am not him. Unlike him, I actually WANT petrol to hit 15 dollars a gallon, and will go on record saying it.

reply to post by Furbs

Jetpacks have jet engines.. which are motorized. Motorcycles are also motorized.. Hence motor vehicles.

If this technology were created, it wouldn't necessarily be run on gasoline. What if the jetpacks ran on solar energy and a back up battery?
This technology could be just as green as your typical bicycle. Of course you couldn't use jetpacks to go to the grocery store, but commuting to and from work, visiting friends, and short day trips for sightseeing would be considerably better for the environment than relying on automobiles.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


A big SnF for you Jean Paul.

But I don't know if you have your priorities quite right. Allow me

I believe we should start by taking old age, cancer, diabetes, wait lets cover all this by taking death and the natural order of life from the american people. Hell they already took work away, why not everything else ?

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Furbs

 

Jetpacks have jet engines.. which are motorized. Motorcycles are also motorized.. Hence motor vehicles.

If this technology were created, it wouldn't necessarily be run on gasoline. What if the jetpacks ran on solar energy and a back up battery?
This technology could be just as green as your typical bicycle. Of course you couldn't use jetpacks to go to the grocery store, but commuting to and from work, visiting friends, and short day trips for sightseeing would be considerably better for the environment than relying on automobiles.

edit on 6-4-2012 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)

I am not interested in incredibly wild supposition. I mean, jetpacks? Are you seriously arguing the merits of a technology we are nowhere near having?

HEY EVERYONE IM GONNA GET ON MY JETPACK AND FLY TO MY JOB AS A SPACEMAN!!!

I will discuss the merits of jetpacks when it gets a little closer to the time when jetpacks become consumer products.

Also, just for funzies, read past the first line of my post.

Have not even bothered to read beyond the title of this utterly pointless argument, unless of course peope are commonly known to run people over deliberately is the US?

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

reply to post by Furbs


I'll keep my feet on the ground. I took flying lessons many years ago and was coming in for a landing with a fourty mile an hour headwind. The wind quit, it's interesting how a plane acts and sort of floats down when it looses lift. I told the instructor who was reading a book and he told me to give it full throttle and head for the ground. Then he instructed me to pull the flaps up and we got going but I couldn't land. One more try and I landed successfully. He said I was good enough to solo after a night flying flight. What a chicken, he was scared to fly with me I would have crashed if he wasn't there, I didn't know what to do I quit flying, my heart didn't slow below 180 for about three hours. A nice bout of Tachycardia is a good reason to stop flying. At least I got a chance to fly a plane, it's extremely fun to take flying lessons if your heart is strong. I'm never going to jump out of a perfectly good plane unless I have to. Here I go, telling boring life experiences again.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL


A gun is designed to inflict harm.

No.

A firearm is designed to fire a projectile.

The use of the firearm is up to the person behind the trigger.

The use of the vehicle is up to the person behind the wheel.


Both have the ability to do good and harm.


It is people, not the inanimate object.