There are more than 30,000 automobile accidents every day in the US. Cars must be banned – for the children.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- arn on HUD Climate Advisor
- spren on HUD Climate Advisor
- conrad ziefle on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Tel on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Petit_Barde on Ellen Flees To The UK
- dm on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Gamecock on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on The End Of Polar Bears
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
could you imagine 30,000 incidents with guns a day omfg armageddon out of here
There is little comparison with vehicles and guns other than they can be lethal. Probably the closest you can come is the excuse some people come up with – that they need a huge SUV and bull bars for protection of their property and family, regardless of the safety of others, especially cyclists and pedestrians. The cars keep getting bigger so that they can compete with other big cars in an accident. Get them before they get you. Gee, does that sound familiar?
Cars are an essential part of most adult’s daily routine. In addition, every man, woman and child uses a vehicle every second of the day because everything they use involves a vehicle in one way or another. That’s why that fossil fuel that sceptics argue so vehemently for is so important. The bulk of fatal accidents involve trucks, which I presume you would consider justified being on the road? Not only are vehicles very common, we insist on pointing them at each other by funnelling them down these things we call roads. We let people and even children wander into the scope of drivers and nearly always blame the driver if something bad happens. We distract and confuse drivers by putting up bill boards and other street furniture. No safe driving range for cars or lone drivers lurking for a few hours in the woods. Aim your car off target just once and you will have an accident, potentially a fatal one. We let drivers ‘shoot’ backwards with only a mirror to guide them. We let them perform in the dark and don’t insist on night vision goggles. We have come to recognise that one large source of accidents comes from young men showing off to their peers and are only now considering ensuring that young drivers only take their ‘weapon’ out when they are alone or with an older adult. Despite growing accidents we haven’t yet defined when a person is too old to operate a car and pensioners can be very difficult when the time comes to stop driving because they consider it their right to bear keys.
I don’t know about the US rules, but here you should be licensed and tested to be allowed to drive a car. There are even greater restrictions on who can drive a truck. You will be excluded from driving if you fail physically or mentally to meet certain standards. The vehicle itself is also tested yearly, insured and taxed. There are strict rules about drinking and using a vehicle. If you sell you vehicle you are obliged to inform the authorities to whom you’ve sold it. Of course there are always people prepared to flout those rules and if caught they can be extremely aggressive but that isn’t a good reason for making it a free for all, where anyone can drive anything they can afford.
All those measures and still there are accidents and fatalities so perhaps environmentalists are right and we should ban cars?
Fair enough, you can object to gun control all you like, but at least make your arguments touch base with something that resembles convincing. I can’t direct people to your excellent AGW sceptic site any more because some of your posts on guns can be so random and illogical.
The violent crime rate in the US is one eighth of that in the UK. In most red counties, the crime rate is close to zero. Guns are an essential part of life in the US.and they keep our families safe.
Hopefully you just learned some logic, and how to construct shorter posts.
And yet I’d rather be a victim of violent crime than dead. Murder rate is about 4 times higher in the US than the UK. Not that either statistic means anything because each country has different problems and issues. Making out something is simple when it is not does you no credit for the same reason it devalues the warmist message when they only use the facts that suit them.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The murder rate in red counties (85% of US land area) is close to zero. Obama supporters commit almost all the murders in a few inner cities using illegal guns.
The US is much safer than the UK.. I have lived in both places.
And murder and crime in my location is essentially zero, however you don’t have to travel very far to hit some nasty places. All that means is the UK us much more crowded, and much more urban. The UK has a major drink problem, followed by a very poor criminal system, followed by almost unlimited immigration, these are the cause of much of our crime.
You’ve been here, you should know that.
I’m not arguing whether you should have guns or not, you just percieve it that way. Why is that?
I do know that.
30% of the people where I live are immigrants from Mexico, but we still have very low crime rates. Criminals know that they can not attack, rob or rape, because they will probably be killed in the process. No one would dare pull out a weapon, because they would probably be killed in the process.
That doesn’t prove anything other than the law abiding outweigh the law breaking of all ethnic groups in your area. Crime doesn’t start or end with a gun. It involves family stability, social structure, prosperity, work and yes, knowing that crime has consequences. Unfortunately some people overcome the fear of consequences and decide that they can have what they want regardless. A gun makes that easy. A point proved by the recent shooting of one vet by another.
The only question about gun control that I would ask is ‘how much gun is enough gun to protect yourself?’ Like the huge SUV with bull bars owner, it’s not enough to have a lethal weapon, they want one that will win in any conflict with another lethal weapon, leaving the innocent pedestrian or cyclist completely defenceless.
We have Mexican gangs all over Colorado.
I don’t know if you have ever handled a 12 gauge shotgun, but if you had you would understand that no one is going to break into a house knowing that they may face one on the other side of a door.
Why are you determined to be irrational about this?
No, I’ve never had the need and shot guns are legal here. I’m sure if things got very dangerous I’d apply for a licence and get trained. However I’m aware that a person who isn’t expecting trouble will always lose to someone who is looking for it. I doesn’t matter how good you are with a gun or how good the gun.
The gun culture in the UK is almost completely concentrated in the inner cities. It proliferates because of the concentrated mass of violent people, not because their neighbours don’t have guns. Political correctness has tied up the police to such an extent that crime is allowed to flourish. We need a dose of zero tolerance and the prison structure to support the result.
Violence is growing in the nicest places because kids are out of control. What should I do, shoot a few of them to prevent then from turning to crime in a few years? Tempting.
In a violent country you need a gun, but why have you got a violent country in the first place? Ours is a lack of societal control, I suppose yours might be because teachers, grannies and blind people don’t carry a gun.
The US is not a violent country, unless you live in an area heavily populated by Democrats.
What part of the UK’s crime rate is eight times higher isn’t clear? That means that the UK is a much more violent country.
Well the Uk doesn’t have a problem either, if you exclude all the violent bits. LOL.
Don’t forget machete control in Rwanda. They didn’t need guns to hack 2,000,000+ people to death. Violent people will be violent, and will use Sarin gas, planes, guns, machetes, sticks, stones or another implement of pain to bring harm to others.
Senseless argument.
There are more registered personal firearms in the US than there are privately owned vehicles.
“Data recently released by the National Center for Health Statistics shows that in 2008, the number and per capita rate of firearm accident deaths fell to an all-time low. There were 592 firearm accident deaths (0.19 such accidents per 100,000 population) in 2008, as compared to 613 accidents (.20 per 100,000) in 2007. In 2008, the chance of a child dying in a firearm accident was roughly one in a million.”
Over 40,000 people are killed by car accidents in the US every year.
And what woud those figures look like if a gun was fired down every street and highway every time a vehicle went passed? The two issues are unconnected. But ok, if you had to choose, would you have a car or a gun?
And what would car stats look like if we drove them through playgrounds?
What would your posts look like if you had started thinking before posting? 😆
Your straw man argument is pointless. Everyone around here has a gun in their car and the scenario you fear just doesn’t happen.
To compare guns with vehicles you have to operate the two in comparable circumstances. Cars are at risk of an accident all the time you are using them. To use a gun you have to press the trigger. If guns were used for a comparable amount of time in comparable locations, there would be a lot more gun injuries and deaths. A gun in a glove compartment is not being used, it is like a parked car.
Your whole comparison of guns and cars is the straw man.
Guns are not a threat to the vast majority of the people in the US. Hysteria and overbearing government are. You are arguing about nothing.
“To compare guns with vehicles you have to operate the two in comparable circumstances.”
Wrong, that is what you do if you want to support an agenda. A fair assessment is comparing rates of accidents when these items are being used legally.
Please do not ever own a gun, we already have one Dorner too many.
So what you are trying to say is that your gun is in use all the time because it makes you feel safe from your scary government? Well I suppose I could give you that. You win, you can compare gun and car accidents and guns come out the winner.
ROTFLMAO.
What I am trying to say is that you have lost the argument and are becoming extremely irrational.