jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (14 posts)

Cars kill people, should we ban them too?

  1. LoliHey profile image56
    LoliHeyposted 20 months ago

    Cars kill people, should we ban them too?

    Forget that the driver may have been drunk, playing with his cell phone, not paying attention, or suffering from road rage.  The car killed the person!  So...we should just ban these killing machines, right?  Keep in mind that although we are all not bad drivers, one bad apple spoils the bunch!

  2. Old-Empresario profile image82
    Old-Empresarioposted 20 months ago

    Owning a car requires a registration. It also requires a license to drive. It also must have annual inspections. It's primary function is not to kill something. Cars are also bigger than a breadbox and we can see them; so they can't be concealed.

    1. bradmasterOCcal profile image31
      bradmasterOCcalposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      We have 11 million illegals here and many of them drive cars, and trucks. They didn't have licenses. Passenger Vehicles while not designed to kill, are responsible 3,613,732 motor vehicle fatalities in the United States from 1899 to 2013.

  3. iggy7117 profile image80
    iggy7117posted 20 months ago

    Guns are just objects, Its how and by whom they are used that is the issue.

    Terrorists are already able to use bombs, If you stop them from getting guns they will set off more bombs. They will not stop until every American is dead, handle the real problem and stop using these attacks to push gun control.

    1. Express10 profile image88
      Express10posted 20 months agoin reply to this

      I agree.

  4. Aime F profile image84
    Aime Fposted 20 months ago

    Cars serve a main function that is not to kill things. 

    You also have to pass a knowledge and abilities test to drive one, as well as renew a license every few years.

    But ignoring all of that, I'd rather be in a building that a person with a car tries to drive into than a building where a person walks in with an assault rifle.  A car trying to run you over in the middle of a movie theatre or a church or a school or a club is going to be a heck of a lot easier to see and get away from.

    And I don't think anyone wants to ban guns outright, do they?  Just make it harder to get them and limit what kinds you can easily get your hands on.  Canada has strict gun laws but approximately 1/4 Canadians own guns.  People who really want them and are fit to have them can still do so with stricter gun laws.

    1. wingedcentaur profile image84
      wingedcentaurposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      Nice job, Aime! I sometimes wonder if people are serious about the questions they ask. It's good to see your articulate, determined liberal voice standing up to the oftentimes petulant conservatism.

  5. Johnny James A profile image77
    Johnny James Aposted 20 months ago

    I am sorry to be slightly off topic off this, however, this did remind me of a "slight" car ban initiative which switched from a ban to a change in the manufacturing of a car. I also want to say this comment is in no way making light of any disabilities. In the 1990s when electric cars were becoming more popular, one of the selling points of the car was the smooth "quiet" ride. Heck, I remember the first time I rode in one I could not believe the engine was on as I was so used to the noise of a gas combustion engine.  Anyway, there was a group who wanted to ban the electric car because it posed a hazard to blind pedestrians who relied on hearing to help them cross the street.  I could not believe someone would even try to bring this ban up.  However, I spoke to a blind person who agreed and asked if I ever tried walking blind.  I told him "no."  He then challenged me to walk blind in my neighborhood, which I though I knew so well. I blindfolded myself, and he and two other friends walked with me while I used a stick to help navigate. Needless to say I was a utter fool during this experiment.  It was actually comical as my friends roasted me senseless. However, I got to see how things I so easily dismiss as so senseless like banning "quiet vehicles" have a rational basis to someone else.  I still did not support a ban on "quieter vehicles" however, I learned to pause before dismissing as senseless another person's thoughts. Different experiences and perceptions shape the way we see, or in my case not see the world. I am assuming this discussion is in regards to a possible ban on assault rifle and assault rifle style weaponry.  I admit I am an avid 2nd amendment right supporter.  However, I also know that when the Assault Weapons bill from 1994-2004 was in effect, homicides dropped dramatically, and then shot up when the law was allowed to sunset. I am not for an outright ban on everything, however, anything which can reduce the number of gun related casualties I am for. I remember when people fought "gun trigger locks" when children were shooting themselves with guns which were lying around the house. Heck, this still happens today.  However, for even one child who got a hold of a gun and could not shoot it due to the trigger lock law which took so long to pass, then I am happy if I have to spend money for each gun I own and to lock it up.

    1. bradmasterOCcal profile image31
      bradmasterOCcalposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      We are talking about Terrorist Mass Shootings, not homicides. Have of the gun deaths in the US are suicides. With over 300 million people in the US, the deaths from Terrorists a small fraction less than 1%. But the idea of Terrorist attacks is big

    2. Johnny James A profile image77
      Johnny James Aposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      The original poster's statement never said anything about whether this is pertaining to "only" terrorist mass  shootings, shootings in general, homicides, etc. .

  6. tamarawilhite profile image91
    tamarawilhiteposted 20 months ago

    Banning guns in France didn't stop a Muslim from stabbing a French police officer the day of the Orlando attacks.
    Banning guns hasn't stopped Muslim mobs from lynching Christians in Egypt and using machetes to kill atheists in Pakistan and Bangladesh.
    Muslim suicide bombers in Madrid, Brussels, Paris, Moscow didn't need guns to kill a lot of people. Ditto the Boston bombers.
    Banning guns doesn't stop Mexico's cartels from killing at least 50,000 people in the past 15 years.
    The problem isn't guns - it is the ideology that drives people to murder, and in most cases, it is fundamentalist Islam.

    1. lovemychris profile image57
      lovemychrisposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      The gvt of Israel took all Palestinian peoples guns.How come you support that?Isn't it a hypocritical stance to say don't take my guns, but it's ok to take theirs? &Everything you mentioned was a false flags event done by the Right Wing Zionazi c

    2. tamarawilhite profile image91
      tamarawilhiteposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      The Palestinian conflict with Israel ends when Muslims recognize the right of Israel to exist. They don't, so the Israel, the only secular democracy in the Middle East, continues to fight for its right to life.

    3. lovemychris profile image57
      lovemychrisposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      You believe that hogwash? I'm surprised with the internet, anyone still feels that way. Israel steals their land, took away their self defense and allows Palestinians to be murdered Scott free.Google Price Tag terror.For real terrorism ignored by all

 
working