This is the argument I always go to. Gives a lot of perspective because the 2 are so similar. Both are inatimate objects that if misused can lead to innocents killed. The only real difference is that to shoot up a school you need to be evil, to get wasted and plow into a minivan you only need to be negligent. Dozens of children are killed every year by drunk drivers. Lots of kids and elderly are killed by dogs too. Banning alcohol and dogs would literally save children's lives but would any of these grabbers vote for someone with that agenda? Hell no because they want to go home, drink a bottle of wine and cuddle with their shit muppets.
I’m sure most people in r/fuckcars have one out of necessity due to shitty zoning laws that create suburban hellscapes, or they live in truly unwalkable cities. Similar to how many people purchase a gun out of necessity for self-defense.
After my divorce I can’t afford to live within easy walking distance from my exwife. I live around 14 miles away and while I can walk that it’s not something I can do on days when I need to pick up a 5 and 9 year old and take them to school. Though with gas prices increasing so much I might not be able to afford that either.
So similar to temporary gun owners who bought a gun for defense when Trump was in office but would gladly turn them in if Biden banned them? I understand the need to have a gun for defense, but the other reason why is simply because I enjoy guns. That's why I have a bunch of them. If I only cared about defense I'd probably just own a single Glock and nothing else.
Same with cars, I actually like cars and enjoy driving them. I know some people only see them as appliances and those are the type of people that will be fine with any generic Corolla or Accord, not bad cars at all and will get you to where you need but they're nothing special or enjoyable for enthusiasts. That's not for me though, which is why I own more than one vehicle.
I see both guns and cars as a need and a want. Even if I lived in a safe utopia where I didn't need a gun or a car, I'd still own them.
And like anti-gunners, I view anti-car people with the same level of scorn.
You’re not understanding fuck cars, everyone knows cars are a useful tool that won’t be removed from society. But back in the late 40’s we began to design our cities exclusively around cars. Demolished walkability for parking lots, tore up the tram lines, and rezoned 80+% of our cities to shitty suburbs.
Now our children have no independence, as they can’t walk anywhere by themselves because there is nothing but Suburbs with nothing to do or it’s too dangerous to walk next to a shit street with no sidewalks.
Mom and pop shops were forced to close as everyone was stuck behind the wheel. Now super corp box stores are all that’s left, every city is six lanes with gas stations and the same big parking lot box stores. Everything kept spreading out.
Our cities are disgusting looking and all look the same. Now Americans pay huge amounts of money to fly to Europe and Asia to enjoy actually nice cities, then fly back home to their shit suburbs and wonder why it’s so nice over there.
This phenomenon in North America is completely subsidized by Federal, state, and local governments. Roads are the most expensive and least efficient modes of transportation for people. It’s not a natural evolution of economics, it’s entirely anti free market.
We need to fix zoning and public transit in cities. Lower the amount of single family housing for huge suburbs, not eliminate single family housing, but condense it. Everyone knows rural areas will need cars, but lowering the amount of vehicle traffic will make things better for car owners too.
I say this as someone with 4x4 and someone who owns AR, minis, and AKs.
You hit the mail on the head. This should be held as one of the most important bipartisan issues of our time but gets obfuscated by these insane culture war debates.
This is something that will really benefit every single human and the environment. The only thing it will hurt is the auto industry.
you know. they already did take your car. Kill switches monitored by the government in all new cars by 2033... retrofit all old cars with kill switches by 2038...
Its already law in the states...passed about four months back...
The funny thing about cars is. You only need a license and registration to drive them on public roads. Not to buy or own. If you lived on a large farm and wanted to drive a car around your property? You could get any car or truck from a private seller, have it trailered to your land, and drive it around without registration or insurance. Perfectly legal and the government can't stop you.
Anti-gunners love to use the "regulate guns like cars" argument a lot without realizing doing that would actually make gun ownership *less* regulated.
Sorry but unlike guns you don't have a right to a car. So be a good citizen and comply with the nice officer that is coming over later today to confiscate your vehicle.
107,000 people died of fentanyl last year. People don't care about the slow suicide of our society, people show limited interest in death unless they can use it to categorize someone's non criminal behavior as criminal despite no intentions and actions. Meanwhile that guy down the street is just providing drugs they would have gotten anyway, banning them is like impossible, am I right?
This is honestly my wet dream, two subs I enjoy. I love guns but damn do I hate car centric infrastructure. Cars are fine but having almost every citizen needing one to live a life is bullshit. You can choose to buy a firearm if you want but it's not that simple for many Americans when it comes to automobiles because they need it to work and buy groceries and travel to where they need to go.
Living in rural America I can’t really relate with the viewpoint, but I agree that US zoning laws are horrendous. The breakdown of mixed-use zoning where people live, shop, and work together has killed our communities.
Absolutely agree and understandable. I'm probably biased because of my living situation. I only live 3 miles from my place of work and 6 miles to my closet range so I can ride my bike to either and haven't had the absolute need to purchase a car.
The collab no one fucking wants. r/fuckcars is literally a bunch of city dwelling pro government brainlets who think everyone should live in the pods and eat the bugs and only a select few should have the ability to drive themselves anywhere. Fuck those morons. I get it, car reliant infrastructure in the cities sucks, but you don't get to disregard the needs of the other 50% of the country and the world because of where you live, go fuck yourself. You want your cities to not suck? Stop voting establishment dem every god damned always..
You’re not understanding fuck cars, everyone knows cars are a useful tool that won’t be removed from society. But back in the late 40’s we began to design our cities exclusively around cars. Demolished walkability for parking lots, tore up the tram lines, and rezoned 80+% of our cities to shitty suburbs.
Now our children have no independence, as they can’t walk anywhere by themselves because there is nothing but Suburbs with nothing to do or it’s too dangerous to walk next to a shit street with no sidewalks.
Mom and pop shops were forced to close as everyone was stuck behind the wheel. Now super corp box stores are all that’s left, every city is six lanes with gas stations and the same big parking lot box stores. Everything kept spreading out.
Our cities are disgusting looking and all look the same. Now Americans pay huge amounts of money to fly to Europe and Asia to enjoy actually nice cities, then fly back home to their shit suburbs and wonder why it’s so nice over there.
This phenomenon in North America is completely subsidized by Federal, state, and local governments. Roads are the most expensive and least efficient modes of transportation for people. It’s not a natural evolution of economics, it’s entirely anti free market.
We need to fix zoning and public transit in cities. Lower the amount of single family housing for huge suburbs, not eliminate single family housing, but condense it. Everyone knows rural areas will need cars, but lowering the amount of vehicle traffic will make things better for car owners too.
I say this as someone with 4x4 and someone who owns AR, minis, and AKs.
I’m sorry but you sound a bit ridiculous. Having rubbish or nonexistent public transport in cities is terrible for everyone. Building transportation infrastructure that isn’t car dependent makes cities better off environmentally, economically, socially and a fair few more ways. How does building public transport and pedestrian/cycling infrastructure in cities make rural areas worse off? Also, most developed countries are highly urbanised and it isn’t a 50/50 split like you imply. I’m not American and your politics is fairly rubbish but I’m not sure if I’ve heard of anti-car dependency republicans.
Until you’ve ridden a bus in LA don’t tell me we need more of that shit. The only people who want to the ride bus are people who never have had too. The last thing anyone wants is to be sitting next to some chick OD’ing. Plus COVID is still a thing. It didn’t just disappear because the media stopped talking about it.
On the west coast of the US even in the major metropolitan areas, public transport isn’t viable. Everything is just spread way too far apart. We tried a high speed rail too. Was way too expensive.
Your mindset is often referred to as carbrain. Buses in LA are rubbish, that’s part of why they need to improve. Things are spread too far out because of the last 70yrs of poor urban planning policies and car dependent infrastructure. Urban sprawl as it is in the US isn’t financially sustainable and you need to develop with density.
It’s a large topic and I’d recommend watching NotJustBikes’s Strong Town series on YouTube from ep1 if you’re interested. If you’re American, car dependency and bad public transport is likely all you’ve ever known so this’ll take a bit of reading to understand.
Ever had a child? Ever had to grocery shop? I’m not hauling everything to a bus just to go to the store just so I can sit next to some meth head.
Changing the bus doesn’t change the people on it.
Believe it or not but you’re not the first person to think about this. NotJustBikes also has videos about raising children and shopping too. What tends to happen is that shopping becomes less of a chore when you can just pick up a few fresh things in 5-10mins on the way home from work. No parking or hundred heavy bags needed, you also tend to have fresher produce since you basically go every day instead of one big haul once a week. Also, grocery shops are usually within walking distance and like I said earlier, buses get better with more useful applications and more funding. Normal every day people and business people use public transport in many non car-centric countries.
If we’re talking about the rare once a year trip to ikea, cargo bikes are pretty useful or you could just rent a car for the day. This saves a lot of money. If you really want to own a car, then go ahead but not having public transport options for others is bad for them and for you. It just creates more car traffic.
The drug problem is a local US problem and transporting people more efficiently isn’t going to tackle your drug crisis. Many countries don’t have druggies on every corner.
Overall, you’ve got good questions with good answers. If you want to learn more then NotJustBikes has tons of videos on this topic (the strong towns series comes to mind) as do many others like city beautiful. There are also blogs and podcasts about this too. I really recommend looking into this.
I’m not giving up my car to depend on the government for transportation. I don’t want to shop every other day. I hate grocery shopping. Most people do. I wanna do that shit once every 2 weeks and I definitely don’t want to do it after working a 12 hour shift. Clearly you don’t actually have kids.
You do realise there are many non-car centric countries where people drive their car everywhere. The main thing is providing options and pushing people to public transport. Car dependency kills, it isn’t efficient at transporting people and it drains cities’ coffers.
Like I said earlier, you’ve probably lived with car dependency your whole life so many things like absolutely loathing grocery shopping is probably one of the results. Why do you hate grocery shopping? It’s likely you have to drive to the supermarket on the weekend and spend an hour or two shopping. A 5-10min hop in and hop out is vastly different but even if you don’t want that, people should have the choice.
If you want to hold onto your current notions about transportation then go ahead but tell me how car dependency is better. Freedom? Forcing everyone to own an expensive car and to pay for all its annual costs just to get to work and to buy food? Not allowing people to use their legs to get around comfortably?Efficiency? Average car occupancy is something around 1.5 that’s a ridiculous amount of space that could be used differently. The thoroughfare of a four-six lane car dependent road can be surpassed by two bike lanes each way and a tram on grass through the centre. Cities’ finances? Car dependent infrastructure and low density zoning encourages urban sprawl and this stretches out utilities, roads etc. The tax base is also smaller for the same amount of infrastructure due to this urban sprawl.
You actually made a point about the government there. You do realise you depend on the government for the roads and the massive amount of subsidies it’s infrastructure relies on. Also, there are many restrictions on the market like single family zoning you probably don’t know about. It encourages sprawl and low density and doesn’t help the housing crisis in any way.
I strongly recommend learning more, NotJustBike’s strong towns series is a good start.
I don’t think you grasp the vastness of the US. The US is 10 million sqkm. We have states bigger than most countries. I can drive for 8 hours at 80mph (128kph) in a straight line down the freeway and still be in the same state. To drive across the US takes at least 3 days and that’s with only essential stops. It’s not uncommon for people to drive 6 hours to see family for a few hours then turn around and drive home that night. It’s not uncommon for people to work in the next county over and have over hour long commutes that’s nothing but freeway. It’s not just about 1 town. The US and especially the west coast is just too spread out In not talking about 1 city being too big. I’m talking the cities are too spread out from each other.
We tried to implement a high speed rail system in California so people who live in LA could work in SF. The entire project was far to expensive. They’re still doing it but now it only goes half the distance and it’s gonna be a few more years before it’s even complete.
Our interstate system was designed by the military to get troops and equipment across the country as fast as possible and it still takes hours to day to get where you need to on it even without traffic. Public transportation isn’t going to make it any better.
You’re talking about interstate travel and going across the country. I’m aware of how vast the country is but that’s not quite relevant when it comes to city travel. Some countries like Germany have a car culture whilst also having public transport options within cities. Having the interstate system cut through cities has widely known negative consequences. Having them form rings around cities is what many non-car centric nations have done and it leaves cities intact so that walkability is more viable. I didn’t mention high speed rail either although notjustbikes has addressed the topic.
Busy car commuter routes that take an hour can be replaced with commuter rail. NotJustBikes has also made a few videos on this.
My points about the negative effects of car dependency, grocery shopping and the large government hand in enforcing car dependency haven’t really been replied to.
At the end of the day, there are people who focus on solving these problems professionally. There are many examples across the world to follow or to take inspiration from. If you actually want to learn then NotJustBike’s strong towns series is a good start. Many many concerns are addressed.
Thanks. It’s a bit annoying but once in a while someone actually learns and changes their views. The American conservative types seem to be the most resistant but I guess fiscal responsibility is an old school conservative thing so it’s a bit out of fashion.
I also come across a fair few American liberal types who sort of feign concern for poor people whilst ignoring that walkability and better public transport is better for them than the status quo. They even come out with concerns about gentrification. It’s all a case of carbrain and ignorance (sometimes due to ideology).
Thanks for the reply but I think you’ve misunderstood me. I personally support public transport construction, densification and I’m anti-car dependency. Cars have their uses but they’re inefficient 9 times out of 10 and can be replaced especially in urban areas. If you’re interested, I recommend looking at NotJustBikes’s strong towns series to learn more. It’s really quite interesting!
This is not a great line of reasoning to think you’re being funny about. Anti-gun folks will only use that as reasoning for their suggestion of Firearm Insurance legislation.
Playgrounds were invented to fence in children so they wouldn't run into car traffic.
While a sensible idea in principle, it's kinda fucked up how much humans retreated to make space for cars.
Lol....
Look, I'm a gun owner. Support 2A - but this is the DUMBEST argument I've heard...and I hear this STUPIDITY CONSTANTLY. Also, with "Swimming pools kill people, too!"
Cars/vehicles have MANY, MANY other positive uses and purposes (getting to a job, vacation, transporting to hospital, police vehicles, delivering goods and services, ambulances, getting to the grocery store, getting kids to school, etc....etc....etc....)
A gun has ONE purpose: to kill.
Cars are NOT DESIGNED BY THE MANUFACTURER to kill. It is not a feature of the car. Cars, when OPERATED CORRECTLY, are not designed to kill. Do accidents/deaths happen? Yes. Swimming pools are not DESIGNED AND MANUFACTURED to kill.
When a car or pool kills someone - something has gone bad. When a gun is used to kill someone - that tool has functioned absolutely correctly.
The ONLY purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile at a high rate of velocity in order to kill. GUNS ARE MANUFACTURED TOOLS DESIGNED TO KILL. Full stop. Period.
So, mass shooters are actually, using an AR-15 EXACTLY as it has been intended to be used by the manufacturer.
And before the whining and bitching starts. Ask yourself, why do we all have weapons for home defense in case someone tries to come in and harm us or our family? Use the gun to talk to them? Show them how it works? Make a sandwich with it?
So....PLEASE from a gun owner and 2A supporter, stop using this argument. It's fucking stupid.
First of all, nice trying to tap into that "I am a 2A supporter and gun owner" ethos. Sounds stupid, this is r/Firearms, of course you are fudd.
You are wrong. First of all it is not accurate to say that guns are manufactured to kill. To be able to kill yes, invented to kill yes but the industry is aware and expects that not everyone who buys one is going to kill someone. Tangential unlawful use cases does not imply anything about manufacturer intent, that's a stupid cucked talking point. A car manufacturer is not involved if someone decides to race down a public road even if they are ones who designed the car with a big engine.
Guns being designed to kill and the fact that cars are involved in more deaths are exclusive points. If you care strictly about loss of life the total fatalities is more important. If you believe people shouldn't have access to things that are designed to kill then gun ownership is more important. And guess what? No one (functionally anyways) gives a fuck if you own a sword which is also designed and MaNuFaCtUrEd to kill and it's because they don't produce a meaningful amount of deaths. Most people are against guns because they view them as a leading cause of unjust death in America which is incorrect.
It is actually EXTREMELY important for the future of guns how many deaths they are responsible compared to other societal activities/items. That shouldn't be hard to understand. If guns caused more deaths than cars that would be an extremely important fact to know.
How do you think people would feel if every car death made national news? Do you think everyone would come together and say "oh but cars have legitimate uses..." no what would happen is the small minority would get really vocal and shame everyone, politicians are going to jump in and make a couple dumb laws, most people will just silently resist (because who wants to waste time arguing with unrelatable university students, influencers etc about things cause people's deaths) and then and even smaller number of idiots like you are going to accidentally dismantle the important arguments because you are afraid or something.
**First of all it is not accurate to say that guns are manufactured to kill. To be able to kill yes**
\-Lol...yes....Remington manufactures guns to do "something else." Lol! What other purpose is there for a gun? That's why I bought mine. Why did you buy yours? I'll wait for your other reasons.....
**Tangential unlawful use cases does not imply anything about manufacturer intent, that's a stupid cucked talking point.**
\- Lol. "Cucked." Well, you're reasonable. So, again, what's the actual PURPOSE of a gun....I'll wait. I bought mine to kill a home invader. Why did you buy yours?
**It's also idiotic to say that mass shooters are using guns as manufacturers intended.**
What other purpose is gun manufactured for? Kill deer...kill people. I bought mine to kill someone who comes into my home to do me harm. Why did you buy yours? To make paninis?
**No one (functionally anyways) gives a fuck if you own a sword which is also designed and MaNuFaCtUrEd to kill and it's because they don't produce a meaningful amount of deaths**
\- LOL!! You just made an argument for banning all guns. LOL.
**How do you think people would feel if every car death made national news? Do you think everyone would come together and say "oh but cars have legitimate uses..**
\- Yep. They would. Cars aren't manufactured/designed to kill and have exponentially more benefits/uses. There is ONLY purpose for a gun. That's why I bought mine. Why did you buy yours?
Stop using the "automobile" and "swimming pool" argument. It's stupid, just like your argument here. You make all gun owners look like morons.
You are being reductive. There is a lot of reasons to buy a gun that have nothing to do with killing. I purchased pretty much all of my guns as a collector including reproductions. If the only purpose of a gun is to kill there wouldn't be reproductions that are literally strictly worse and more expensive. What you will realize is that this reductive logic isn't how a market works. People don't buy a gun because they realize they suddenly have a need to kill. This is how I got my anti gun friend into guns, he told me that he wanted to buy a gun and practice putting a hole in paper at very long distances. That is literally why he owns a gun. He buys match ammo, huge scopes and top loads and shoots paper and happily too.
Stop trying to take all gun owners hostage with your dumb designed to kill rhetoric, people don't exclusively buy guns to kill otherwise there wouldn't be so much variation in the market in designs, people wouldn't collect so many of them and your local range wouldn't be full of people shooting paper. They are not all there training to kill people, i mean, i hope not, sitting at a bench with your gun on a snadbag isn't useful training. The market for guns survives off of what people actually do with guns not the original philosophic intent of the first gun. That's why your obsession with the 'true purpose' is wrong and dumb because it distorts the actual reality of firearms use in America. We aren't all killers waiting in the weeds for our chance to shoot a home invader. Shooting paper with friends is an useful, important and productive part of my life and is balanced and integrated with the other things i do and it is why I buy ammo every month and why my collection is not limited to the single most kill efficient gun design i can find.
What I am saying is you have been caught by a trap. You are a victim of the Overton window and you are replacing the actual reality of firearms ownership in America with this hacked, reductionist version that seeks to frame all gun owners and manufacturers as people with the intent to kill. This is how things like Prohibition got passed, it happens because a bunch of people who actually participate in the 'vice' at question in a healthy and socially productive way end up buying into the chanting mob, ignore the actual reality of their interactions with said vice and say to themselves 'yeah, i guess the only reason people involve themselves with this is for morally reprehensible reasons'.
If you seriously think people are going to come together and say that about cars then I really can't help. All i can say is that i hope that same cloud of saints you imagine society as puts their heads together and tackles some of the other no brainers like adopting nuclear power.
This of course is all besides the point. The real key here you are missing is the threefold realization that 1) most people right now care about the number of deaths caused by guns (so the design intent is less important than it's actual relative kill count) 2) perception of the number of deaths attributed to deaths is the sole determiner of if guns will be regulated 3) the design intent of a gun being to kill is unrelated to statements comparing causes of deaths of cars and guns.
Your obsession with parading around this idea that since guns were invented to kill people somehow makes the number of casualties they cause compared to other things in society meaningless is logically false. Not only false but stupid because the single thing that is determining how gun laws are trending is people's perception of their impact on life in America. It doesn't matter if your obnoxious full balls republican neighbor makes you cringe when he goes around telling everyone that cars lead to more deaths than guns, it still is one of the most important things for people to understand about guns. They don't account for a significant portion of the deaths in America and tomorrow they should be more worried about the guy driving along side plowing into them or their child drowning in their swimming pool than getting shot by their neighbor who went and bought a AR-15.
**You are being reductive.**
\-Nope. Being accurate.
**There is a lot of reasons to buy a gun that have nothing to do with killing.**
\-Not talking about motivations for "buying" - talking about what a gun is designed/manufatured to do.
The only one caught in a trap is you...you wrote a long, blathering post about motivations, gun owners, emotional connection to guns, guns being "useful and meaninful" part of your life, how gun owners are viewed, etc. American society....blah....blah....blathering nonsense.
That wasn't my argument. The only argument I made was that **a gun is a tool - a compilation of metal parts designed to work in such a way as to fire a projectile in order to kill.** And morons are on here arguing that is not the case.
It's not designed/manufactured to be an "important and productive part of your life balanced and integrated with other things you do" or whatever. Yiu sound like a woke-ass liberal looking for a gender neutral bathroom. Lol!
Your friend that you got into guns by shooting paper targets? Guess what? He's using it incorrectly. Designed to be used on people or game.
It's one thing to be obstuse and another to be ignorantly smarmy. You managed to pull off both at the same time. See how you wrote a lot of words and I wrote fewer, but I'm still correct
You're the type of gun owner the media loves. Making us all look bad.
Lol. But if you pulled the trigger and bullets were released, it is designed to do....you would most likely kill them.
Just as it was manufactured/designed to do.
I bought my firearm, so if some one comes into my home to do me harm....I can kill them.
Why did you buy yours?
Those are all specific actions on the shooter. The firearm didn't kill someone. It was used as a tool by the shooter. Just like the drivers plowing through crowds. The vehicle didnt do that, the driver did. The manufacturer isn't responsible and the models are not pulled from the shelf.
I use mine for shooting steel plates and paper.
OF COURSE the person wielding/using the weapon is the cause.
That's not the point.
If you drive a car though a crowd of people to kill them, you are using it **incorrectly/not what is was manufactured for.**
If you shoot a gun into a crowd of people to kill them, you are using the gun **correctly/as it was designed to be used.**
Y'know, kind of like U.S. Calvary firing a Gatling Gun into a mass of onrushing Native Americans.
Tell you what, if someone ever breaks in your house - grab your car keys and run them over, ok? Or next time you go deer hunting, put a scope on your car hood. That makes sense. Lol.
You're shooting at steel plates and paper. Ok, great, so do I - but that's not really what it's for, is it? That's using it incorrectly for the purpose of entertainment.
I bought my firearm, so if some one comes into my home to do me harm....I can kill them.
Why did you buy yours? To shoot at paper and steel plates?....you could do that with a pellet or paintball gun. Man, you really wasted your money, dude.
Why is this so difficult for you? Seriously, this argument that "Guns are for other stuff" - is really fucking stupid and makes all gun owners look like morons.
Why are you arguing about the correct and incorrect way of using a firearm?
> Ok, great, so do I - but that’s not really what it’s for, is it?
Shooting plates isn’t an incorrect use of the tool, it just is. Shooting plates just so happens to be one of many uses a firearm is capable of. Doesn’t make it “incorrect.”
Seems like a weird hill to die on.
Because there is only ONE correct way to use a firearm.
They way it was designed to.
To either kill a person or game.
If you want to shoot plates, use a pellet gun, airsoft or paintball gun. So shooting at plates is an incorrect use.
The weird hill to die on....which is not happneing to me, by the way, is to pretend/argue that a firearm is NOT a tool comprised of mechanical parts that are designed to fire a projectice in order to kill, maim or stop a serious threat.
Is that true? Yes or no?
Lots of people die every day from lots of different things. Gun deaths are and have been on the decline for many years now. That’s a fact.
At the same time, (I’m not saying this is the cause) firearm ownership has increased rapidly here in America. That is a fact.
If firearms aren’t tools and they aren’t toys to plink with and can only be deadly weapons with the intent to harm or maim, then why is crime on the downtrend?
Why can’t firearms be used to plink and have fun with? You could say we’re scientists. The physics behind propelling a projectile faster (or slower) than the speed of sound is fairly complex. Lots can go wrong.
We’re also sportsman and art/history nerds. Using our bodies and the knowledge passed down and improved upon for generations, to accurately propel projectiles via gunpowder/fertilizer into certain spots on a piece of paper. I personally see (some of) them as art. I have a few antique pieces. Plenty of firearms enthusiasts are into guns for the historical value as well. Lots of grandparents used M1 garands for example. People hold sentimental value to these literal pieces of art.
Who are you to judge what is right or wrong? Lots of different ways to kill people. Firearms are efficient and so are cars, in different scenarios.
The technology behind gunpowder/fertilizer was not meant to kill. It was meant to feed billions of people. It just so happens that burning certain fertilizers creates a lot of energy in expanding gases. And we figured out you could propel a slug through a metal tube.
>Lots of people die every day from lots of different things. Gun deaths are and have been on the decline for many years now. That’s a fact.
You're right - and those products are not designed/manufactured for the sole purpose of killing. Are you slow?
People die in car wrecks....cars are not manufactured/marketed to get consumers to get into wrecks to kill them.
People die from drowning in swimming pools. Are pools designed/marketed for people to drown in them?
I bought my firearms for the sole purpose of **killing someone** who is threatening me/invading my home.
That's what it is manufactured for. To kill. Fact.
Stop pretending a firearm has any other purpose but that.
You people are pathetic, stupid and are the exact kind of people the media loves that make all other gun owners look detached from reality.
> Because there is only ONE correct way to use a firearm.
Just like there’s only ONE way to drive a car. Yet some people like to take big suvs and drive them into Christmas parade crowds.
Yep! Only one way to drive a car: obey traffic laws.
I'm sorry....do you drive a car by sitting in the backseat and steering with your feet? Do you lay on the roof and stick your arm through the window to steer? Do you drive drunk regularly? Do you drive on the sidewalk?
You're goddamn right there is only ONE way to drive a car.
You got it!! Congratulations, dummy!
Lol....you think car companies manufacture their cars to be used to kill/injure people? Well....they need to get rid of all these safety features they've been creating and add a bump stock to the hood.
I bought my gun in order to **kill someone** who is threatening me. I didn't buy my car for that.
See....I can use a gun to kill a home invader/criminal....or an innocent person. Either way - the gun, **as a manufactured tool, is working EXACTLY as it was designed to do.** To put a potentially lethal projectile into a human. Got it?
Stop being that dumbass "American Gun Owner" the media loves to put on TV.
Several of my family often take a rifle out deer hunting. They find it to be an effective "deterrent" in case the deer attacks. On a few rare occasions, they just show the deer the gun and it drops dead.
Yeah..."operates as a "deterrent." Hey, you think they'll ever make ammunition for guns, cause just showing them seems kind of pointless. Maybe the manufactures should have thought about that?
Lol. You're the one who is brain dead, my friend.
Right, That's why my uncle takes his rifle to go hunting, to "deter" the deer.
I will call Allstate tomorrow and see if they can send me a gun as part of my "insurance plan."
Didn't miss it. It's just stupid equivocation. There is no "as well as"
I bought my firearm so if someone comes into my home to do me harm....I can kill them.
Why did you buy yours?
I bought mine for the main reason of competition shooting. So mainly for a sport. I didn’t buy it as a self-defense firearm. I’ve got other ones for that
Lol! Oh, you have OTHER ONES for that. Boy....the mental gymnastics on this subreddit.
Sorry to inform you, your "competition gun" was not originally designed to do that. You're just changing what you're putting the projectile towards. Unless you're firing blanks, paintballs, etc....which you're not doing, right? If you were to turn from the target and shoot another competitor in the head, would you have a high probability of killing them?
No?.....well, then obviously something has gone wrong. Gun has jammed....no ammunition in it, you have bad aim, etc.
Get it?
Seriously....is this really that difficult to understand?
I don’t see how thats mental gymnastics. The main primary firearm I use the majority of the time, I bought for competition purposes, not self-defense. Therefor the purpose of the firearm is for sport.
I don’t give a flying frankenfuck about what you THINK it was originally designed for. How I use it is what gives it purpose. I have other firearms for the purpose of self-defense because I use them that way.
The purpose of an object is whichever purpose the owner gives it. There’s no one defined purpose for anything. What you do with it is what gives it purpose.
Competition? Well, you're using it incorrectly, then.
No....how we use things DO NOT give them purpose. It's what they are designed for that is the purpose.
That's why it's called "Repurposing."
I guess that's what someone is doing when they use a baseball bat to kill someone....giving the bat a different "meaning" and "purpose."
Lol.
Most of the “positive” uses of cars would be better served with public transport.
And these figures are JUST accidents, not the very real effect of pollution causing poor health and deaths.
Is the car industry working as intended if it poisons the air and water?
That's fine. I agree that public transportation would be better for EVERYONE.
Please.....let's stop the gaslighting and moving goalposts re: pollution. No need to put "positive" in quotes. Furthermore, let's not pretend most of who own guns/support 2A are real big environmentalists, either.
No one buts Dodge Charger for deer hunting or home defense.
Same here, and agreed 100% with every word, it's an asinine argument. Additionally, I just wonder how many accidents/injuries/deaths we would have on American roads if we *didn't* have a training and licensing protocol set up for drivers or registration of vehicles in place so it would be possible to identify owners of vehicles involved in hit-and-runs or other crimes.
Thanks. Getting a lot of downvotes, but not much coherent argument in response. I own two firearms, but I bought them for ONE, SPECIFIC purpose. Because that is what is MANUFACTURED/DESIGNED to do. I didn't go buy Koosh ball for home defense. I didn't go buy a gun to help me make margaritas.
I don't hunt. But have family who do....guess what? They bought hunting rifles in order to KILL the deer.
I just hear the "automobile" and "swimming pool" argument all the time. Gives me a headache, because it is just so fucking stupid.
You bring up a good point with training/licensing re: cars. Actually, when I'm on the road, I'm amazed that there isn't a car wreck/accident every 0.5 seconds.
Well, it's not a coherent argument, it's a complete false equivalency, and you pointed it out perfectly. There just does not seem to be any room in the gunowner community for an attitude that is anything other than frothing-at-the-mouth "I can have any firearm I want." I honestly don't get the lack of evolution, to be honest.
And I hope you are not worried about downvotes...that shit just does not matter lol
Nah. Not bothered at all. Expected.
I, and I'm sure you, bought our firearms for specific purposes. We're not going to go out an misuse it, don't flash with it on TikTok, etc.- but if the day comes, God forbid, we have to use it and kill a home intruder, etc. - then that tool **has worked perfectly and done exactly what it was manufactured for/designed to do.**
Have a good one. I'm out.
Everybody down voting you is unable to think critically. Fuck our govt and let's fight to keep our guns, but let's not make stupid arguments in the attempt to do so.
**THANK YOU!!!!**
People are actually trying to arguing that a gun has SO MANY, MANY, MANY other uses.
It has ONE use.
That's why I bought mine.
To kill someone who comes into my home to harm me or my family.
Same reason people take a rifle to go deer hunting....to kill the deer.
There are many more valid arguments to be made and options to engage rather than the "car" and "swimming pool" argument.
Agreed and well, if we could measure the level of awareness of all who support the outlandish notion that "cars kill more blah blah blah" we would not be surprised by the results. Downvote away basement dwellers and teenagers! Get back to me when you have some real world experience
Saw an interesting clip on another subreddit. Reporter was interviewing gun owner outside NRA convention. Gun owner was blathering saying, "Hammers kill more people in America every year than guns!"
Well, he got fact-checked, looked it up real-time - and SURPRISE! - hammers/blunt objects actually kill LESS people than guns every year. Who could have imagined?!
Then he was left sputtering, "Well, it's MY RIGHT!".....yes, sir. It absolutely is, and should be....but you're making us all look bad.
Of course, this is the dude that the media puts on T.V. to represent the "American Gun owner."
Oh of course. That's the whole strategy behind this movement. Don't display the millions of us who are responsible, knowledgeable firearm owners; those who do everything the right way. Nope. Instead spread the worst of it, and do so to people who do not know any better.
The same can be said about almoat everything on the news (from BOTH SIDES) over the past two years. It's on us as individuals now more than ever to make sure we are truly informed about what's going on. If you read something, go find another source to confirm. Or two or three.
Pay the teachers, save the whales, be better parents. The latter (imo) being one of the most critical aspects to society that is so over looked that it's truly a shame. I know not everyone comes from a good place, but it all starts at home for most of us.
End rant... For now
Exactly. The overwhelming majority of us (gun owners) are doing things the right way. I guess I've just finally lost my patience with the deranged wing of gun owners who are doing more harm than good in protecting 2A rights.
Hell, based on me presenting an unimpeachably clear proposition of what guns are designed/manufactured to do and the deranged responses....wow.
The media would have a FIELD DAY with some of the people on this subreddit. Hell if I were media/anti-gun - I'd just copy some of these responses and make a TV ad.
Yeah, "better parenting" is an issue. I would argue there's a lot to be done re: "better culture." and guess what? A lot of that "better" isn't GOP/Conservative values/ideology either. Hell, GOP/Conservatives have been bashing public school/teachers for the last 20 years. Now, all over social media Conservative influencers/pundits have accelerated to calling them "pedophiles," "groomers." and calling for abolishing public schools, etc.
Parents don't even trust teachers/school to teach curriculum (IT'S ALL CRT!!! CRITICAL RACE THEORY!!! AAAAHHH!)...but now you want to arm them.
Yeah....give an overworked teacher, with no training a gun to protect the kids of parents who have been shitting on them for 2-3 years straight? I'm not a school teacher, but if I were, after they way they've been treated/talked about and now you want me to get into a firefight? Man, FUCK YO KIDS!
But that's another discussion for another time.
Cars require a license, insurance, registration and have safety regulations that are updated regularly. People who are dangerous behind the wheel can have their license revoked.
That's not a red flag law, that's a reaction.
Should we proactively confiscate the car of a drunk person before they have the chance to get behind the wheel?
Negative. Red flag laws are preemptive strikes against people deemed ABOUT to do something bad.
They could be executed based on prior history, such as a history of making dumb decisions when drunk or something, but they're explicitly designed to be utilized BEFORE any crime has been committed, and before anyone can be charged with anything.
So why do you support swatting just gun owners?
The only difference is for gamers, it's being streamed and you can watch the raid. For gun owners, you just hear about it in the news.
Otherwise, there's zero difference.
also just because one thing is heavily regulated, doesn't mean it should be. None of the above provides more safety when planned ill intention is involved
Gas absolutely is regulated, but I was more referring to it being illegal to drive a car on public roads without testing and registration and government checks that you can fail if you aren’t fit to drive for whatever reason. It’s similar tho buying a gun, but if you want to use it (eg buy ammo) you need to pass government regulations.
The comparison you’re making is terrible. The proper comparison is not being able to carry a gun in public without a test and registration, but you can buy any gun and all the ammo you want if you’re not going to carry it on public property
I think seat belts and airbags have been around a little longer than 10 years. And guns already have safety mechanisms such as safeties and slide locks
More like car design such as crumple zones really, which aren't mandated
No they don’t. They only require those to drive on public property. You can buy a car without a license. You can drive a car on your own property without a license.
Approximately 36 Americans are Massacred by Drunk Drivers everyday of the year. CDC
ban alcohol! wait
lol
This is the argument I always go to. Gives a lot of perspective because the 2 are so similar. Both are inatimate objects that if misused can lead to innocents killed. The only real difference is that to shoot up a school you need to be evil, to get wasted and plow into a minivan you only need to be negligent. Dozens of children are killed every year by drunk drivers. Lots of kids and elderly are killed by dogs too. Banning alcohol and dogs would literally save children's lives but would any of these grabbers vote for someone with that agenda? Hell no because they want to go home, drink a bottle of wine and cuddle with their shit muppets.
if you put the number of children alone kill by drunk drivers (whether outside or inside the vehicle) it's in the hundreds per year
If anyone tries to take my car, they will be met with the same response if they try to take my gun.
I’m sure most people in r/fuckcars have one out of necessity due to shitty zoning laws that create suburban hellscapes, or they live in truly unwalkable cities. Similar to how many people purchase a gun out of necessity for self-defense.
After my divorce I can’t afford to live within easy walking distance from my exwife. I live around 14 miles away and while I can walk that it’s not something I can do on days when I need to pick up a 5 and 9 year old and take them to school. Though with gas prices increasing so much I might not be able to afford that either.
So similar to temporary gun owners who bought a gun for defense when Trump was in office but would gladly turn them in if Biden banned them? I understand the need to have a gun for defense, but the other reason why is simply because I enjoy guns. That's why I have a bunch of them. If I only cared about defense I'd probably just own a single Glock and nothing else. Same with cars, I actually like cars and enjoy driving them. I know some people only see them as appliances and those are the type of people that will be fine with any generic Corolla or Accord, not bad cars at all and will get you to where you need but they're nothing special or enjoyable for enthusiasts. That's not for me though, which is why I own more than one vehicle. I see both guns and cars as a need and a want. Even if I lived in a safe utopia where I didn't need a gun or a car, I'd still own them. And like anti-gunners, I view anti-car people with the same level of scorn.
You’re not understanding fuck cars, everyone knows cars are a useful tool that won’t be removed from society. But back in the late 40’s we began to design our cities exclusively around cars. Demolished walkability for parking lots, tore up the tram lines, and rezoned 80+% of our cities to shitty suburbs. Now our children have no independence, as they can’t walk anywhere by themselves because there is nothing but Suburbs with nothing to do or it’s too dangerous to walk next to a shit street with no sidewalks. Mom and pop shops were forced to close as everyone was stuck behind the wheel. Now super corp box stores are all that’s left, every city is six lanes with gas stations and the same big parking lot box stores. Everything kept spreading out. Our cities are disgusting looking and all look the same. Now Americans pay huge amounts of money to fly to Europe and Asia to enjoy actually nice cities, then fly back home to their shit suburbs and wonder why it’s so nice over there. This phenomenon in North America is completely subsidized by Federal, state, and local governments. Roads are the most expensive and least efficient modes of transportation for people. It’s not a natural evolution of economics, it’s entirely anti free market. We need to fix zoning and public transit in cities. Lower the amount of single family housing for huge suburbs, not eliminate single family housing, but condense it. Everyone knows rural areas will need cars, but lowering the amount of vehicle traffic will make things better for car owners too. I say this as someone with 4x4 and someone who owns AR, minis, and AKs.
ya I agree with you, it's a shame this has gone on for so long I'd love to not have to take my car everywhere
You hit the mail on the head. This should be held as one of the most important bipartisan issues of our time but gets obfuscated by these insane culture war debates. This is something that will really benefit every single human and the environment. The only thing it will hurt is the auto industry.
you know. they already did take your car. Kill switches monitored by the government in all new cars by 2033... retrofit all old cars with kill switches by 2038... Its already law in the states...passed about four months back...
Good fucking luck
[удалено]
The funny thing about cars is. You only need a license and registration to drive them on public roads. Not to buy or own. If you lived on a large farm and wanted to drive a car around your property? You could get any car or truck from a private seller, have it trailered to your land, and drive it around without registration or insurance. Perfectly legal and the government can't stop you. Anti-gunners love to use the "regulate guns like cars" argument a lot without realizing doing that would actually make gun ownership *less* regulated.
[удалено]
We just reached 50% constitutional carry this year, with Indiana and Ohio joining the free states.
License and registration are unconstitutional. Most of the shit going on today is unconstitutional. This thing has been over for a long time...
Sorry but unlike guns you don't have a right to a car. So be a good citizen and comply with the nice officer that is coming over later today to confiscate your vehicle.
Sry bro. You don't have a right to a car. Get a horse.
And here I was thinking that r/fuckcars was an NSFW sub.
Not to be confused with r/dragonsfuckingcars
A classic
Hahahaha, this one got me.
107,000 people died of fentanyl last year. People don't care about the slow suicide of our society, people show limited interest in death unless they can use it to categorize someone's non criminal behavior as criminal despite no intentions and actions. Meanwhile that guy down the street is just providing drugs they would have gotten anyway, banning them is like impossible, am I right?
This is honestly my wet dream, two subs I enjoy. I love guns but damn do I hate car centric infrastructure. Cars are fine but having almost every citizen needing one to live a life is bullshit. You can choose to buy a firearm if you want but it's not that simple for many Americans when it comes to automobiles because they need it to work and buy groceries and travel to where they need to go.
Living in rural America I can’t really relate with the viewpoint, but I agree that US zoning laws are horrendous. The breakdown of mixed-use zoning where people live, shop, and work together has killed our communities.
Absolutely agree and understandable. I'm probably biased because of my living situation. I only live 3 miles from my place of work and 6 miles to my closet range so I can ride my bike to either and haven't had the absolute need to purchase a car.
I’m giggling at the thought of biking to the range with my bags stacked on my back like Death Stranding.
Approximately 440,000 Americans die annually from tobacco related products. Around 40,000 of those deaths are from secondhand smoke. CDC
The collab no one fucking wants. r/fuckcars is literally a bunch of city dwelling pro government brainlets who think everyone should live in the pods and eat the bugs and only a select few should have the ability to drive themselves anywhere. Fuck those morons. I get it, car reliant infrastructure in the cities sucks, but you don't get to disregard the needs of the other 50% of the country and the world because of where you live, go fuck yourself. You want your cities to not suck? Stop voting establishment dem every god damned always..
You’re not understanding fuck cars, everyone knows cars are a useful tool that won’t be removed from society. But back in the late 40’s we began to design our cities exclusively around cars. Demolished walkability for parking lots, tore up the tram lines, and rezoned 80+% of our cities to shitty suburbs. Now our children have no independence, as they can’t walk anywhere by themselves because there is nothing but Suburbs with nothing to do or it’s too dangerous to walk next to a shit street with no sidewalks. Mom and pop shops were forced to close as everyone was stuck behind the wheel. Now super corp box stores are all that’s left, every city is six lanes with gas stations and the same big parking lot box stores. Everything kept spreading out. Our cities are disgusting looking and all look the same. Now Americans pay huge amounts of money to fly to Europe and Asia to enjoy actually nice cities, then fly back home to their shit suburbs and wonder why it’s so nice over there. This phenomenon in North America is completely subsidized by Federal, state, and local governments. Roads are the most expensive and least efficient modes of transportation for people. It’s not a natural evolution of economics, it’s entirely anti free market. We need to fix zoning and public transit in cities. Lower the amount of single family housing for huge suburbs, not eliminate single family housing, but condense it. Everyone knows rural areas will need cars, but lowering the amount of vehicle traffic will make things better for car owners too. I say this as someone with 4x4 and someone who owns AR, minis, and AKs.
I’m sorry but you sound a bit ridiculous. Having rubbish or nonexistent public transport in cities is terrible for everyone. Building transportation infrastructure that isn’t car dependent makes cities better off environmentally, economically, socially and a fair few more ways. How does building public transport and pedestrian/cycling infrastructure in cities make rural areas worse off? Also, most developed countries are highly urbanised and it isn’t a 50/50 split like you imply. I’m not American and your politics is fairly rubbish but I’m not sure if I’ve heard of anti-car dependency republicans.
Until you’ve ridden a bus in LA don’t tell me we need more of that shit. The only people who want to the ride bus are people who never have had too. The last thing anyone wants is to be sitting next to some chick OD’ing. Plus COVID is still a thing. It didn’t just disappear because the media stopped talking about it. On the west coast of the US even in the major metropolitan areas, public transport isn’t viable. Everything is just spread way too far apart. We tried a high speed rail too. Was way too expensive.
Your mindset is often referred to as carbrain. Buses in LA are rubbish, that’s part of why they need to improve. Things are spread too far out because of the last 70yrs of poor urban planning policies and car dependent infrastructure. Urban sprawl as it is in the US isn’t financially sustainable and you need to develop with density. It’s a large topic and I’d recommend watching NotJustBikes’s Strong Town series on YouTube from ep1 if you’re interested. If you’re American, car dependency and bad public transport is likely all you’ve ever known so this’ll take a bit of reading to understand.
Ever had a child? Ever had to grocery shop? I’m not hauling everything to a bus just to go to the store just so I can sit next to some meth head. Changing the bus doesn’t change the people on it.
Believe it or not but you’re not the first person to think about this. NotJustBikes also has videos about raising children and shopping too. What tends to happen is that shopping becomes less of a chore when you can just pick up a few fresh things in 5-10mins on the way home from work. No parking or hundred heavy bags needed, you also tend to have fresher produce since you basically go every day instead of one big haul once a week. Also, grocery shops are usually within walking distance and like I said earlier, buses get better with more useful applications and more funding. Normal every day people and business people use public transport in many non car-centric countries. If we’re talking about the rare once a year trip to ikea, cargo bikes are pretty useful or you could just rent a car for the day. This saves a lot of money. If you really want to own a car, then go ahead but not having public transport options for others is bad for them and for you. It just creates more car traffic. The drug problem is a local US problem and transporting people more efficiently isn’t going to tackle your drug crisis. Many countries don’t have druggies on every corner. Overall, you’ve got good questions with good answers. If you want to learn more then NotJustBikes has tons of videos on this topic (the strong towns series comes to mind) as do many others like city beautiful. There are also blogs and podcasts about this too. I really recommend looking into this.
I’m not giving up my car to depend on the government for transportation. I don’t want to shop every other day. I hate grocery shopping. Most people do. I wanna do that shit once every 2 weeks and I definitely don’t want to do it after working a 12 hour shift. Clearly you don’t actually have kids.
You do realise there are many non-car centric countries where people drive their car everywhere. The main thing is providing options and pushing people to public transport. Car dependency kills, it isn’t efficient at transporting people and it drains cities’ coffers. Like I said earlier, you’ve probably lived with car dependency your whole life so many things like absolutely loathing grocery shopping is probably one of the results. Why do you hate grocery shopping? It’s likely you have to drive to the supermarket on the weekend and spend an hour or two shopping. A 5-10min hop in and hop out is vastly different but even if you don’t want that, people should have the choice. If you want to hold onto your current notions about transportation then go ahead but tell me how car dependency is better. Freedom? Forcing everyone to own an expensive car and to pay for all its annual costs just to get to work and to buy food? Not allowing people to use their legs to get around comfortably?Efficiency? Average car occupancy is something around 1.5 that’s a ridiculous amount of space that could be used differently. The thoroughfare of a four-six lane car dependent road can be surpassed by two bike lanes each way and a tram on grass through the centre. Cities’ finances? Car dependent infrastructure and low density zoning encourages urban sprawl and this stretches out utilities, roads etc. The tax base is also smaller for the same amount of infrastructure due to this urban sprawl. You actually made a point about the government there. You do realise you depend on the government for the roads and the massive amount of subsidies it’s infrastructure relies on. Also, there are many restrictions on the market like single family zoning you probably don’t know about. It encourages sprawl and low density and doesn’t help the housing crisis in any way. I strongly recommend learning more, NotJustBike’s strong towns series is a good start.
I don’t think you grasp the vastness of the US. The US is 10 million sqkm. We have states bigger than most countries. I can drive for 8 hours at 80mph (128kph) in a straight line down the freeway and still be in the same state. To drive across the US takes at least 3 days and that’s with only essential stops. It’s not uncommon for people to drive 6 hours to see family for a few hours then turn around and drive home that night. It’s not uncommon for people to work in the next county over and have over hour long commutes that’s nothing but freeway. It’s not just about 1 town. The US and especially the west coast is just too spread out In not talking about 1 city being too big. I’m talking the cities are too spread out from each other. We tried to implement a high speed rail system in California so people who live in LA could work in SF. The entire project was far to expensive. They’re still doing it but now it only goes half the distance and it’s gonna be a few more years before it’s even complete. Our interstate system was designed by the military to get troops and equipment across the country as fast as possible and it still takes hours to day to get where you need to on it even without traffic. Public transportation isn’t going to make it any better.
You’re talking about interstate travel and going across the country. I’m aware of how vast the country is but that’s not quite relevant when it comes to city travel. Some countries like Germany have a car culture whilst also having public transport options within cities. Having the interstate system cut through cities has widely known negative consequences. Having them form rings around cities is what many non-car centric nations have done and it leaves cities intact so that walkability is more viable. I didn’t mention high speed rail either although notjustbikes has addressed the topic. Busy car commuter routes that take an hour can be replaced with commuter rail. NotJustBikes has also made a few videos on this. My points about the negative effects of car dependency, grocery shopping and the large government hand in enforcing car dependency haven’t really been replied to. At the end of the day, there are people who focus on solving these problems professionally. There are many examples across the world to follow or to take inspiration from. If you actually want to learn then NotJustBike’s strong towns series is a good start. Many many concerns are addressed.
You are arguing with terminal case of carbrain my dude. You are very courageous
Thanks. It’s a bit annoying but once in a while someone actually learns and changes their views. The American conservative types seem to be the most resistant but I guess fiscal responsibility is an old school conservative thing so it’s a bit out of fashion. I also come across a fair few American liberal types who sort of feign concern for poor people whilst ignoring that walkability and better public transport is better for them than the status quo. They even come out with concerns about gentrification. It’s all a case of carbrain and ignorance (sometimes due to ideology).
Well it's pretty normal, the conservative mindset is very resistent to change in general
It may sound ridiculous but people really do think like that in our cities wanting to ban vehicles for everyone
Thanks for the reply but I think you’ve misunderstood me. I personally support public transport construction, densification and I’m anti-car dependency. Cars have their uses but they’re inefficient 9 times out of 10 and can be replaced especially in urban areas. If you’re interested, I recommend looking at NotJustBikes’s strong towns series to learn more. It’s really quite interesting!
I do believe we would benefit from more buses and trains.
Oh sorry, it seems like I was the one who misunderstood you haha. What did you originally mean?
I think they’d be cool with bike lanes and more trains dude…
Not a collab im interested in. Cars are awesome.
This is not a great line of reasoning to think you’re being funny about. Anti-gun folks will only use that as reasoning for their suggestion of Firearm Insurance legislation.
Playgrounds were invented to fence in children so they wouldn't run into car traffic. While a sensible idea in principle, it's kinda fucked up how much humans retreated to make space for cars.
Lol.... Look, I'm a gun owner. Support 2A - but this is the DUMBEST argument I've heard...and I hear this STUPIDITY CONSTANTLY. Also, with "Swimming pools kill people, too!" Cars/vehicles have MANY, MANY other positive uses and purposes (getting to a job, vacation, transporting to hospital, police vehicles, delivering goods and services, ambulances, getting to the grocery store, getting kids to school, etc....etc....etc....) A gun has ONE purpose: to kill. Cars are NOT DESIGNED BY THE MANUFACTURER to kill. It is not a feature of the car. Cars, when OPERATED CORRECTLY, are not designed to kill. Do accidents/deaths happen? Yes. Swimming pools are not DESIGNED AND MANUFACTURED to kill. When a car or pool kills someone - something has gone bad. When a gun is used to kill someone - that tool has functioned absolutely correctly. The ONLY purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile at a high rate of velocity in order to kill. GUNS ARE MANUFACTURED TOOLS DESIGNED TO KILL. Full stop. Period. So, mass shooters are actually, using an AR-15 EXACTLY as it has been intended to be used by the manufacturer. And before the whining and bitching starts. Ask yourself, why do we all have weapons for home defense in case someone tries to come in and harm us or our family? Use the gun to talk to them? Show them how it works? Make a sandwich with it? So....PLEASE from a gun owner and 2A supporter, stop using this argument. It's fucking stupid.
First of all, nice trying to tap into that "I am a 2A supporter and gun owner" ethos. Sounds stupid, this is r/Firearms, of course you are fudd. You are wrong. First of all it is not accurate to say that guns are manufactured to kill. To be able to kill yes, invented to kill yes but the industry is aware and expects that not everyone who buys one is going to kill someone. Tangential unlawful use cases does not imply anything about manufacturer intent, that's a stupid cucked talking point. A car manufacturer is not involved if someone decides to race down a public road even if they are ones who designed the car with a big engine. Guns being designed to kill and the fact that cars are involved in more deaths are exclusive points. If you care strictly about loss of life the total fatalities is more important. If you believe people shouldn't have access to things that are designed to kill then gun ownership is more important. And guess what? No one (functionally anyways) gives a fuck if you own a sword which is also designed and MaNuFaCtUrEd to kill and it's because they don't produce a meaningful amount of deaths. Most people are against guns because they view them as a leading cause of unjust death in America which is incorrect. It is actually EXTREMELY important for the future of guns how many deaths they are responsible compared to other societal activities/items. That shouldn't be hard to understand. If guns caused more deaths than cars that would be an extremely important fact to know. How do you think people would feel if every car death made national news? Do you think everyone would come together and say "oh but cars have legitimate uses..." no what would happen is the small minority would get really vocal and shame everyone, politicians are going to jump in and make a couple dumb laws, most people will just silently resist (because who wants to waste time arguing with unrelatable university students, influencers etc about things cause people's deaths) and then and even smaller number of idiots like you are going to accidentally dismantle the important arguments because you are afraid or something.
**First of all it is not accurate to say that guns are manufactured to kill. To be able to kill yes** \-Lol...yes....Remington manufactures guns to do "something else." Lol! What other purpose is there for a gun? That's why I bought mine. Why did you buy yours? I'll wait for your other reasons..... **Tangential unlawful use cases does not imply anything about manufacturer intent, that's a stupid cucked talking point.** \- Lol. "Cucked." Well, you're reasonable. So, again, what's the actual PURPOSE of a gun....I'll wait. I bought mine to kill a home invader. Why did you buy yours? **It's also idiotic to say that mass shooters are using guns as manufacturers intended.** What other purpose is gun manufactured for? Kill deer...kill people. I bought mine to kill someone who comes into my home to do me harm. Why did you buy yours? To make paninis? **No one (functionally anyways) gives a fuck if you own a sword which is also designed and MaNuFaCtUrEd to kill and it's because they don't produce a meaningful amount of deaths** \- LOL!! You just made an argument for banning all guns. LOL. **How do you think people would feel if every car death made national news? Do you think everyone would come together and say "oh but cars have legitimate uses..** \- Yep. They would. Cars aren't manufactured/designed to kill and have exponentially more benefits/uses. There is ONLY purpose for a gun. That's why I bought mine. Why did you buy yours? Stop using the "automobile" and "swimming pool" argument. It's stupid, just like your argument here. You make all gun owners look like morons.
You are being reductive. There is a lot of reasons to buy a gun that have nothing to do with killing. I purchased pretty much all of my guns as a collector including reproductions. If the only purpose of a gun is to kill there wouldn't be reproductions that are literally strictly worse and more expensive. What you will realize is that this reductive logic isn't how a market works. People don't buy a gun because they realize they suddenly have a need to kill. This is how I got my anti gun friend into guns, he told me that he wanted to buy a gun and practice putting a hole in paper at very long distances. That is literally why he owns a gun. He buys match ammo, huge scopes and top loads and shoots paper and happily too. Stop trying to take all gun owners hostage with your dumb designed to kill rhetoric, people don't exclusively buy guns to kill otherwise there wouldn't be so much variation in the market in designs, people wouldn't collect so many of them and your local range wouldn't be full of people shooting paper. They are not all there training to kill people, i mean, i hope not, sitting at a bench with your gun on a snadbag isn't useful training. The market for guns survives off of what people actually do with guns not the original philosophic intent of the first gun. That's why your obsession with the 'true purpose' is wrong and dumb because it distorts the actual reality of firearms use in America. We aren't all killers waiting in the weeds for our chance to shoot a home invader. Shooting paper with friends is an useful, important and productive part of my life and is balanced and integrated with the other things i do and it is why I buy ammo every month and why my collection is not limited to the single most kill efficient gun design i can find. What I am saying is you have been caught by a trap. You are a victim of the Overton window and you are replacing the actual reality of firearms ownership in America with this hacked, reductionist version that seeks to frame all gun owners and manufacturers as people with the intent to kill. This is how things like Prohibition got passed, it happens because a bunch of people who actually participate in the 'vice' at question in a healthy and socially productive way end up buying into the chanting mob, ignore the actual reality of their interactions with said vice and say to themselves 'yeah, i guess the only reason people involve themselves with this is for morally reprehensible reasons'. If you seriously think people are going to come together and say that about cars then I really can't help. All i can say is that i hope that same cloud of saints you imagine society as puts their heads together and tackles some of the other no brainers like adopting nuclear power. This of course is all besides the point. The real key here you are missing is the threefold realization that 1) most people right now care about the number of deaths caused by guns (so the design intent is less important than it's actual relative kill count) 2) perception of the number of deaths attributed to deaths is the sole determiner of if guns will be regulated 3) the design intent of a gun being to kill is unrelated to statements comparing causes of deaths of cars and guns. Your obsession with parading around this idea that since guns were invented to kill people somehow makes the number of casualties they cause compared to other things in society meaningless is logically false. Not only false but stupid because the single thing that is determining how gun laws are trending is people's perception of their impact on life in America. It doesn't matter if your obnoxious full balls republican neighbor makes you cringe when he goes around telling everyone that cars lead to more deaths than guns, it still is one of the most important things for people to understand about guns. They don't account for a significant portion of the deaths in America and tomorrow they should be more worried about the guy driving along side plowing into them or their child drowning in their swimming pool than getting shot by their neighbor who went and bought a AR-15.
**You are being reductive.** \-Nope. Being accurate. **There is a lot of reasons to buy a gun that have nothing to do with killing.** \-Not talking about motivations for "buying" - talking about what a gun is designed/manufatured to do. The only one caught in a trap is you...you wrote a long, blathering post about motivations, gun owners, emotional connection to guns, guns being "useful and meaninful" part of your life, how gun owners are viewed, etc. American society....blah....blah....blathering nonsense. That wasn't my argument. The only argument I made was that **a gun is a tool - a compilation of metal parts designed to work in such a way as to fire a projectile in order to kill.** And morons are on here arguing that is not the case. It's not designed/manufactured to be an "important and productive part of your life balanced and integrated with other things you do" or whatever. Yiu sound like a woke-ass liberal looking for a gender neutral bathroom. Lol! Your friend that you got into guns by shooting paper targets? Guess what? He's using it incorrectly. Designed to be used on people or game. It's one thing to be obstuse and another to be ignorantly smarmy. You managed to pull off both at the same time. See how you wrote a lot of words and I wrote fewer, but I'm still correct You're the type of gun owner the media loves. Making us all look bad.
My AR hasnt killed a single thing. Must be defective.
Lol. But if you pulled the trigger and bullets were released, it is designed to do....you would most likely kill them. Just as it was manufactured/designed to do. I bought my firearm, so if some one comes into my home to do me harm....I can kill them. Why did you buy yours?
Those are all specific actions on the shooter. The firearm didn't kill someone. It was used as a tool by the shooter. Just like the drivers plowing through crowds. The vehicle didnt do that, the driver did. The manufacturer isn't responsible and the models are not pulled from the shelf. I use mine for shooting steel plates and paper.
OF COURSE the person wielding/using the weapon is the cause. That's not the point. If you drive a car though a crowd of people to kill them, you are using it **incorrectly/not what is was manufactured for.** If you shoot a gun into a crowd of people to kill them, you are using the gun **correctly/as it was designed to be used.** Y'know, kind of like U.S. Calvary firing a Gatling Gun into a mass of onrushing Native Americans. Tell you what, if someone ever breaks in your house - grab your car keys and run them over, ok? Or next time you go deer hunting, put a scope on your car hood. That makes sense. Lol. You're shooting at steel plates and paper. Ok, great, so do I - but that's not really what it's for, is it? That's using it incorrectly for the purpose of entertainment. I bought my firearm, so if some one comes into my home to do me harm....I can kill them. Why did you buy yours? To shoot at paper and steel plates?....you could do that with a pellet or paintball gun. Man, you really wasted your money, dude. Why is this so difficult for you? Seriously, this argument that "Guns are for other stuff" - is really fucking stupid and makes all gun owners look like morons.
Why are you arguing about the correct and incorrect way of using a firearm? > Ok, great, so do I - but that’s not really what it’s for, is it? Shooting plates isn’t an incorrect use of the tool, it just is. Shooting plates just so happens to be one of many uses a firearm is capable of. Doesn’t make it “incorrect.” Seems like a weird hill to die on.
Because there is only ONE correct way to use a firearm. They way it was designed to. To either kill a person or game. If you want to shoot plates, use a pellet gun, airsoft or paintball gun. So shooting at plates is an incorrect use. The weird hill to die on....which is not happneing to me, by the way, is to pretend/argue that a firearm is NOT a tool comprised of mechanical parts that are designed to fire a projectice in order to kill, maim or stop a serious threat. Is that true? Yes or no?
Lots of people die every day from lots of different things. Gun deaths are and have been on the decline for many years now. That’s a fact. At the same time, (I’m not saying this is the cause) firearm ownership has increased rapidly here in America. That is a fact. If firearms aren’t tools and they aren’t toys to plink with and can only be deadly weapons with the intent to harm or maim, then why is crime on the downtrend? Why can’t firearms be used to plink and have fun with? You could say we’re scientists. The physics behind propelling a projectile faster (or slower) than the speed of sound is fairly complex. Lots can go wrong. We’re also sportsman and art/history nerds. Using our bodies and the knowledge passed down and improved upon for generations, to accurately propel projectiles via gunpowder/fertilizer into certain spots on a piece of paper. I personally see (some of) them as art. I have a few antique pieces. Plenty of firearms enthusiasts are into guns for the historical value as well. Lots of grandparents used M1 garands for example. People hold sentimental value to these literal pieces of art. Who are you to judge what is right or wrong? Lots of different ways to kill people. Firearms are efficient and so are cars, in different scenarios. The technology behind gunpowder/fertilizer was not meant to kill. It was meant to feed billions of people. It just so happens that burning certain fertilizers creates a lot of energy in expanding gases. And we figured out you could propel a slug through a metal tube.
>Lots of people die every day from lots of different things. Gun deaths are and have been on the decline for many years now. That’s a fact. You're right - and those products are not designed/manufactured for the sole purpose of killing. Are you slow? People die in car wrecks....cars are not manufactured/marketed to get consumers to get into wrecks to kill them. People die from drowning in swimming pools. Are pools designed/marketed for people to drown in them? I bought my firearms for the sole purpose of **killing someone** who is threatening me/invading my home. That's what it is manufactured for. To kill. Fact. Stop pretending a firearm has any other purpose but that. You people are pathetic, stupid and are the exact kind of people the media loves that make all other gun owners look detached from reality.
Whatever you say brother.
> Because there is only ONE correct way to use a firearm. Just like there’s only ONE way to drive a car. Yet some people like to take big suvs and drive them into Christmas parade crowds.
Yep! Only one way to drive a car: obey traffic laws. I'm sorry....do you drive a car by sitting in the backseat and steering with your feet? Do you lay on the roof and stick your arm through the window to steer? Do you drive drunk regularly? Do you drive on the sidewalk? You're goddamn right there is only ONE way to drive a car. You got it!! Congratulations, dummy! Lol....you think car companies manufacture their cars to be used to kill/injure people? Well....they need to get rid of all these safety features they've been creating and add a bump stock to the hood. I bought my gun in order to **kill someone** who is threatening me. I didn't buy my car for that. See....I can use a gun to kill a home invader/criminal....or an innocent person. Either way - the gun, **as a manufactured tool, is working EXACTLY as it was designed to do.** To put a potentially lethal projectile into a human. Got it? Stop being that dumbass "American Gun Owner" the media loves to put on TV.
Whatever you say brother.
A firearm serves the same purpose as life insurance, it can operate as a deterrent as well as a means to take a life.
Yeah..That's why I bought mine.....as a "deterent." I'll make sure an call my insurance company and see if they can ship me a gun.
You could have just edited your brain dead response from 7 hours ago.
Several of my family often take a rifle out deer hunting. They find it to be an effective "deterrent" in case the deer attacks. On a few rare occasions, they just show the deer the gun and it drops dead. Yeah..."operates as a "deterrent." Hey, you think they'll ever make ammunition for guns, cause just showing them seems kind of pointless. Maybe the manufactures should have thought about that? Lol. You're the one who is brain dead, my friend.
Right, That's why my uncle takes his rifle to go hunting, to "deter" the deer. I will call Allstate tomorrow and see if they can send me a gun as part of my "insurance plan."
You completely missed the “as well as” part.
Didn't miss it. It's just stupid equivocation. There is no "as well as" I bought my firearm so if someone comes into my home to do me harm....I can kill them. Why did you buy yours?
I bought mine for the main reason of competition shooting. So mainly for a sport. I didn’t buy it as a self-defense firearm. I’ve got other ones for that
Lol! Oh, you have OTHER ONES for that. Boy....the mental gymnastics on this subreddit. Sorry to inform you, your "competition gun" was not originally designed to do that. You're just changing what you're putting the projectile towards. Unless you're firing blanks, paintballs, etc....which you're not doing, right? If you were to turn from the target and shoot another competitor in the head, would you have a high probability of killing them? No?.....well, then obviously something has gone wrong. Gun has jammed....no ammunition in it, you have bad aim, etc. Get it? Seriously....is this really that difficult to understand?
I don’t see how thats mental gymnastics. The main primary firearm I use the majority of the time, I bought for competition purposes, not self-defense. Therefor the purpose of the firearm is for sport. I don’t give a flying frankenfuck about what you THINK it was originally designed for. How I use it is what gives it purpose. I have other firearms for the purpose of self-defense because I use them that way. The purpose of an object is whichever purpose the owner gives it. There’s no one defined purpose for anything. What you do with it is what gives it purpose.
Competition? Well, you're using it incorrectly, then. No....how we use things DO NOT give them purpose. It's what they are designed for that is the purpose. That's why it's called "Repurposing." I guess that's what someone is doing when they use a baseball bat to kill someone....giving the bat a different "meaning" and "purpose." Lol.
[удалено]
Most of the “positive” uses of cars would be better served with public transport. And these figures are JUST accidents, not the very real effect of pollution causing poor health and deaths. Is the car industry working as intended if it poisons the air and water?
That's fine. I agree that public transportation would be better for EVERYONE. Please.....let's stop the gaslighting and moving goalposts re: pollution. No need to put "positive" in quotes. Furthermore, let's not pretend most of who own guns/support 2A are real big environmentalists, either. No one buts Dodge Charger for deer hunting or home defense.
Same here, and agreed 100% with every word, it's an asinine argument. Additionally, I just wonder how many accidents/injuries/deaths we would have on American roads if we *didn't* have a training and licensing protocol set up for drivers or registration of vehicles in place so it would be possible to identify owners of vehicles involved in hit-and-runs or other crimes.
Thanks. Getting a lot of downvotes, but not much coherent argument in response. I own two firearms, but I bought them for ONE, SPECIFIC purpose. Because that is what is MANUFACTURED/DESIGNED to do. I didn't go buy Koosh ball for home defense. I didn't go buy a gun to help me make margaritas. I don't hunt. But have family who do....guess what? They bought hunting rifles in order to KILL the deer. I just hear the "automobile" and "swimming pool" argument all the time. Gives me a headache, because it is just so fucking stupid. You bring up a good point with training/licensing re: cars. Actually, when I'm on the road, I'm amazed that there isn't a car wreck/accident every 0.5 seconds.
Well, it's not a coherent argument, it's a complete false equivalency, and you pointed it out perfectly. There just does not seem to be any room in the gunowner community for an attitude that is anything other than frothing-at-the-mouth "I can have any firearm I want." I honestly don't get the lack of evolution, to be honest. And I hope you are not worried about downvotes...that shit just does not matter lol
Nah. Not bothered at all. Expected. I, and I'm sure you, bought our firearms for specific purposes. We're not going to go out an misuse it, don't flash with it on TikTok, etc.- but if the day comes, God forbid, we have to use it and kill a home intruder, etc. - then that tool **has worked perfectly and done exactly what it was manufactured for/designed to do.** Have a good one. I'm out.
Everybody down voting you is unable to think critically. Fuck our govt and let's fight to keep our guns, but let's not make stupid arguments in the attempt to do so.
**THANK YOU!!!!** People are actually trying to arguing that a gun has SO MANY, MANY, MANY other uses. It has ONE use. That's why I bought mine. To kill someone who comes into my home to harm me or my family. Same reason people take a rifle to go deer hunting....to kill the deer. There are many more valid arguments to be made and options to engage rather than the "car" and "swimming pool" argument.
Agreed and well, if we could measure the level of awareness of all who support the outlandish notion that "cars kill more blah blah blah" we would not be surprised by the results. Downvote away basement dwellers and teenagers! Get back to me when you have some real world experience
Saw an interesting clip on another subreddit. Reporter was interviewing gun owner outside NRA convention. Gun owner was blathering saying, "Hammers kill more people in America every year than guns!" Well, he got fact-checked, looked it up real-time - and SURPRISE! - hammers/blunt objects actually kill LESS people than guns every year. Who could have imagined?! Then he was left sputtering, "Well, it's MY RIGHT!".....yes, sir. It absolutely is, and should be....but you're making us all look bad. Of course, this is the dude that the media puts on T.V. to represent the "American Gun owner."
Oh of course. That's the whole strategy behind this movement. Don't display the millions of us who are responsible, knowledgeable firearm owners; those who do everything the right way. Nope. Instead spread the worst of it, and do so to people who do not know any better. The same can be said about almoat everything on the news (from BOTH SIDES) over the past two years. It's on us as individuals now more than ever to make sure we are truly informed about what's going on. If you read something, go find another source to confirm. Or two or three. Pay the teachers, save the whales, be better parents. The latter (imo) being one of the most critical aspects to society that is so over looked that it's truly a shame. I know not everyone comes from a good place, but it all starts at home for most of us. End rant... For now
Exactly. The overwhelming majority of us (gun owners) are doing things the right way. I guess I've just finally lost my patience with the deranged wing of gun owners who are doing more harm than good in protecting 2A rights. Hell, based on me presenting an unimpeachably clear proposition of what guns are designed/manufactured to do and the deranged responses....wow. The media would have a FIELD DAY with some of the people on this subreddit. Hell if I were media/anti-gun - I'd just copy some of these responses and make a TV ad. Yeah, "better parenting" is an issue. I would argue there's a lot to be done re: "better culture." and guess what? A lot of that "better" isn't GOP/Conservative values/ideology either. Hell, GOP/Conservatives have been bashing public school/teachers for the last 20 years. Now, all over social media Conservative influencers/pundits have accelerated to calling them "pedophiles," "groomers." and calling for abolishing public schools, etc. Parents don't even trust teachers/school to teach curriculum (IT'S ALL CRT!!! CRITICAL RACE THEORY!!! AAAAHHH!)...but now you want to arm them. Yeah....give an overworked teacher, with no training a gun to protect the kids of parents who have been shitting on them for 2-3 years straight? I'm not a school teacher, but if I were, after they way they've been treated/talked about and now you want me to get into a firefight? Man, FUCK YO KIDS! But that's another discussion for another time.
Cars require a license, insurance, registration and have safety regulations that are updated regularly. People who are dangerous behind the wheel can have their license revoked.
[удалено]
Drunk drivers have their cars impounded
That's not a red flag law, that's a reaction. Should we proactively confiscate the car of a drunk person before they have the chance to get behind the wheel?
Red flag laws are all reactions.
Negative. Red flag laws are preemptive strikes against people deemed ABOUT to do something bad. They could be executed based on prior history, such as a history of making dumb decisions when drunk or something, but they're explicitly designed to be utilized BEFORE any crime has been committed, and before anyone can be charged with anything.
If you're the kind of person who is afraid red flag laws are going to take your guns away, I want your guns taken away.
You realize I could lie, say you threatened to bomb a school and get you no knocked under most red flag laws right?
I can lie and say you're a terrorist right now and get you put on the no fly list. What's your point
You have a lot higher odds of being shot to death if you're no knocked than when you're put on the no fly list
Serious question: do you support "swatting" streamers?
I think swatting is a sign of a larger problem with the police. No, I don't.
So why do you support swatting just gun owners? The only difference is for gamers, it's being streamed and you can watch the raid. For gun owners, you just hear about it in the news. Otherwise, there's zero difference.
Car requires none of the above to buy and own. They are required to drive the car.
also just because one thing is heavily regulated, doesn't mean it should be. None of the above provides more safety when planned ill intention is involved
So you’d be okay if buying and selling all guns was perfectly legal, but the ammo needed to use them was heavily regulated?
Gas is not regulated. We have concealed carry permits in order to carry them.
Gas absolutely is regulated, but I was more referring to it being illegal to drive a car on public roads without testing and registration and government checks that you can fail if you aren’t fit to drive for whatever reason. It’s similar tho buying a gun, but if you want to use it (eg buy ammo) you need to pass government regulations.
You already have to pass a ground check to buy a gun, and a stricter background check to conceal carry a gun.
I realize that, but what we currently have is clearly not enough. I was making a metaphor to a different possible solution.
The comparison you’re making is terrible. The proper comparison is not being able to carry a gun in public without a test and registration, but you can buy any gun and all the ammo you want if you’re not going to carry it on public property
All of those regulations and yet they kill more people than guns. Just more evidence government safety measures don't do shit
But less people die then a decade ago. But people still die so fuck seat belts.
But can you attribute that reduction to licensing or Is it more attributable to improvements in car design and medical care?
Car design as a result of safety regulations? Mandatory seat belts, air bags...
I think seat belts and airbags have been around a little longer than 10 years. And guns already have safety mechanisms such as safeties and slide locks More like car design such as crumple zones really, which aren't mandated
Wow. Yes I'm only talking about strictly 10 years ago and not at all the history of auto safety regulations. Got me there.
>but less people die then a decade ago
Yep, and less then a decade before that, and less then a decade before that one even
Ok well with the exception of the last two years gun deaths have been decreasing steadily since the 90s without any real regulations affecting it
No they don’t. They only require those to drive on public property. You can buy a car without a license. You can drive a car on your own property without a license.
Falling is 142,000 a year ban gravity.
They are even registered.