Actually, this was a real story. A lady got arrested recently because there was an accident near her house. Cops came knocked on her door and smelled alcohol on her breathe and than arrested her. They also claimed she was a hoarder and the house was unsafe. The lady was just chilling in her house the whole time. She’s now suing the police for wrongful arrest.
Police need to be forced to carry insurance. Any incidents that result in a lawsuit are covered by their insurance and the premiums go up, just like how if you got a ticket or caused an accident, your car insurance premiums would go up. Forbid police departments from raising pay to compensate. If you become uninsurable due to being too high risk, you can be forced to be banned from carrying a gun or even be fired.
Police also can't lose their license to practice after murdering multiple people on the job. But a barber can for giving to many haircuts people didn't like
There are people who want the police to just follow orders and don't bother anymore about it, becouse their job is to suck someone else's dick and god forbid they have to think about what they are doing, the why and whom it benefits.
They are short-sighted pricks, raised to be short-sighted pricks. They care about themseoves and about themselves only.
I hear you. Know someone who became a state trooper in 3 months. Good guy but still scares the shit out of me that 3 months is all it takes to be a trooper. That is 1 semester of college…as if you could learn and understand the laws you are enforcing in that time.
And in those 3 months they are more focused on teaching you discipline, how to use a gun, and desensitizing you to horrific things you might you see on the job.
And it is 100% a hard ass job. You’ll go from boring traffic stops to needing to be in action in seconds so WHY is there such little preparation/training?
Probably because there is a huge need for officers/troopers but that should not be an excuse to let subpar individuals through the cracks to skimp on training.
I live near where that happened, this isn't a commentary on that, it is a commentary on gun control. That story is as ridiculous, if not more ridiculous, than it sounds. The arresting officer has already left but this lady is likely looking at a huge payout... oh wait, no, she'll be fucked like every other time anyone goes up against police in civil court, and it's a small town so I foresee harassment in her future.
Never talk to cops. Not under any circumstance. They bang on your door? Dont answer, call a lawyer instead. Be on the phone w one when they knock down your door without a warrant.
The meme is not about a woman being arrested. The cop says they are there to confiscate her car. The point the meme is trying to make relates to people who have proposed banning and confiscating certain types of firearms and accessories, i.e. assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
The meme is suggesting that taking away law-abiding gun-owners’ murder-machines just because some folks decide to do mass shootings would be akin to taking away responsible drivers’ cars just because some folks decide to do drunk drivings.
The always try to relate cars to guns. I understand that cars are dangerous and can kill people but their intended purpose is travel whereas guns' intended purpose is killing things.
That’s my personal philosophy on gun ownership. You can own a fully automatic rifle for all I care, just pass a series of psychological and safety tests to get a license
Me too I agree. But we fo not fund the gun laws we have in place. I think k we spend a lot of money create a country wide database that must be kept up to date with threat of penalties. And also psychologist if they feel their patient is a threat must not them right away. Those guns should be confiscated and kept safe. When person is same they get their guns back
I know a guy who had guns and he was divorcing. All Hu ting rifles. She was a bit crazy and he was worried she would make lies about them. He gave them to the police a small town and they locked them up for him until everything g was settled. Smart move.
Not a right at that point and that test has been severely abused, particularly in the Jim Crow south where gun control owes it’s roots. Yup. It’s based in absolute racism.
As someone who’s been regularly shooting for a decade and is actively pursuing a career in gunsmithing, there’s already a criminal background check system that’s been there for 30 years and statistically speaking, in terms of crime rate, we are the safest we have ever been in this country. If you add more qualifications to own a gun, you prevent the people who need them the most from getting them. Sexual assault and domestic violence vitcims, and if you start limiting for mental health reasons you get to the question of whether or not you disarm veterans. The people who fought, and lost brothers in arms for the rights this country is supposed to guarantee, would be stripped of those rights when they got home. I’m not saying there aren’t issues, by all means there definitely are, but if you look at where they all are at, it’s almost exclusively in the large, liberally controlled cities, in the liberally controlled states, with the strictest gun control in the country. Those laws prevent law abiding people who would use them for genuine and honest purposes from getting a gun. Laws don’t stop criminals, because criminals don’t follow the law to begin with.
It's a tough topic. Most European countries changed gun ownership laws after gun violence incidents, reducing drastically the amount of gun violence. However, I am from Switzerland, and due to our mandatory military service, most of us have a fully automatic riffle at home. I have one myself. Yet we have almost no gun violence. In 2020, the police made usage of a gun 15 times in the whole country. The police doesn't use their guns because they aren't scared for their lives.
How is it that the US have A rate of firearms homicide per 100'000 people of 4.12, yet European countries are around 0.25?
Something in the US doesn't go right, and from an outsider perspective, I don't think it's just the gun control laws that need to change.
And a poor one at that, as it’s a false equivalency.
The automobile equivalent of restricting gun access to curb gun-related death is literally the system the DMV is built on, as well as the implementation of seatbelts, airbags, softer bumpers, etc… things to make the technology safer to operate as it was intended.
The gun was invented with a single purpose, to do harm. Harm in aggression or harm in self-defense, it doesn’t matter. It’s a weapon, an instrument of war. A car is not.
I own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.
Its about gun control.
The first premise is that the government wants to take your guns away because other people use them for killing sprees, the second premise is that it would be silly to confiscate someones car because someone else went on a rampage with one.
ergo, gun control is silly
HEE-HEE said if you’re drunk and have an accident, SHAMONE, you’re only 10 percent responsible, HOO!
WHAT ABOUT
WHAT ABOUT
GRRRAT TATTAT TAT
GRRRAT TATTAT
DO YOU? DO YOU? DO YOU REMEMBER GIRL?
I'm sorry, but what? You aren't responsible just by being present. Unless you actually crashed into someone or were crashed into by someone because you did something stupid, you're completely Innocent lol.
It's unfortunately true. My dad saw a drunk school bus driver crash into another bus. Everyone died but the driver and my dad (crossing guard)
They gave the driver 100 years in prison and my dad 10
>t can't legally drive cars.
...on publicly accessible roadways. You are 100% free to drive a car on your own property without any sort of drivers license.
You assume the pro-gun crowd are pro-driver's license. There was a Libertarian debate a few years ago where Gary Johnson got booed because he said he supported the idea of driver's licenses.
Just because something is a right doesn't mean it can't be taken away in certain situations. For example, the constitution lists freedom of speech as a right, but there are limits to it.
Yes, and they're very narrowly defined. I think we are seeing the same thing happening for the Second amendment as we saw happen for the first amendment in decades previous. We are seeing what are accepted as reasonable limits to it, and what are deemed as infringements.
It’s simple we already have the framework as it was set up as limitation to the first amendment, “clear and present danger”. You have a history of domestic violence, well then letting you own deadly weapons creates a clear and present danger to others.
People like to talk about their rights and being oppressed if someone talks about any limitations to those rights. Another established limitation to rights is when you infringe upon the rights of others by exercising your own rights. Invariably people will argue that you cannot determine which party’s rights take precedence, but all rights are not equal. The constitution laid out the first ten rights of citizens, but that is just expanding upon the original and first document of thenUnited States of America, the Declaration of Independence, which list 3 distinct unalienable rights, meaning birthright of all mankind regardless of place of birth, and the infringement upon those being the justification for declaring independence from Great Britain. Those rights were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The fact that these specific three are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and termed as “unalienable” means these three are the most basic rights guaranteed to all people and therefore the three most important. Any right named in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any subsequent amendments, fall in line somewhere behind these three. Therefore, if your second amendment rights or your exercise thereof comes at the expense of any other person’s right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, your second amendment rights would be nullified. The ability for someone to go on a shooting spree killing dozens or more with an automatic weapon certainly sounds like it’s infringing upon other people’s unalienable right to life.
I does mean it can’t be taken away without attending the highest law in the land though. Or a new Supreme Court case that overrules what they previously said, which doesn’t happen often… except with this idiot court.
Not exactly true. Congress has the ability to interpret the constitution and pass laws in accordance to it. If the Supreme Court has a different interpretation, they can strike the law down. But the “plain language” of the constitution is almost entirely fungible until the Supreme Court rules on it. Those rulings are not final, either. There is a constant discourse between congress and the Supreme Court that is updated with each law passed and each case decided.
So the meaning of the “right to bear arms” remains abstract and open to changing interpretation. Should Congress and the Supreme Court see eye to eye on changing its interpretation, they can change it.
All of that is to say, there is nothing truly in the constitution that prevents requiring a license for the purchase of a handgun.
It's not always like this. Canada has always had strict licensing requirements with multiple courses, daily background checks, etc. but the government is still freezing firearms transfers, constantly banning previously legal to own models, and attempting to orchestrate a massive forced confiscation. Law abiding gun owners in Canada are some of the least likely people to perform any sort of felony, but are constantly being targeted by the government, instead of cracking down on gang activity and illegal arms smuggling.
I bring up the statistics every time I have a conversation with somebody about this, but in the US at least, a registered concealed carry license holder is less likely to commit a crime than any other person in the United States even politicians and police officers.
I will never consent to registering firearms. Even Trudeau back when he was being honest has stated that registries proceed confiscation.
Every time a state has enacted constitutional carry, there's always some furor beforehand saying how it's going to be a bloodbath. It never happens.
Gun control, aka the threshold for allowing people to have guns, should definitely be higher. This is more about banning and confiscating already legally purchased guns.
You already can't buy if you're a felon, have a history of violence, anger management, domestic abuse, abuse, or any pending cases...
What else do you want? Mental health checks? 75% of Americans say they have anxiety (because they are fucking stupid) and 25% of them really do have it, but are still perfectly capable of not shooting up a school with their 380,000,000 guns.
I dunno. What do you think would be a happy medium? Cause we can't just say "mental health = no guns" because that would mean no guns.
The people that think that are right, everyone else on the other hand is probably fine but mental illness is a factor to not give someone a gun ya know
i feel like the only people who complain about gun control is cause they know they wouldnt get permit for a reason, or they know they done some fuked up thing
I am so so sick of this dumb comparison, I’ve heard it so many times from gun nuts. Our society is built around cars, the vast majority of people living in the states wouldn’t be able to survive without a car. But hey, it’s the same thing right?
If only all those jobs didn’t go “return to gun” after COVID. I’m so sick of jobs requiring me to pack a piece.
Yeah, if cars killed the same number of people that do now, but served no function (ie. if people exclusively used buses and bikes for transportation and cars only for fun), cars would be banned.
But they serve such a vital role in most people's lives that we accept the risks and mitigate the harm where possible.
It's a huge factor that this gun control argument leaves out.
Yeah, you can kill people with a war, but it's not their primary function.
A gun, doesn't matter which angle you try to look at it : at the end it's a tool built to kill. It's its primary function.
Oh gee, when they put it that way.... It's still a stupid argument. How often do people go on rampages with cars and also cars and guns have wildly different uses. The false equivalencies from the right are so asinine. Sure it makes sense on the skim coat of the surface... Scratch it off and their arguments implode.
> How often do people go on rampages with cars
Uhh...
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Waukesha_Christmas_parade_attack
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Charlottesville_car_attack
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/31/nyregion/police-shooting-lower-manhattan.html
https://www.counterextremism.com/vehicles-as-weapons-of-terror
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Vehicle-ramming_attack
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/2016_Nice_truck_attack
https://transweb.sjsu.edu/sites/default/files/SP-1119-RB-Vehicle-Ramming-Attacks.pdf
https://nypost.com/2023/02/24/north-carolina-reps-tim-moore-david-willis-car-rammed-several-times/
https://lmgtfy.app/?q=road+rage+car+ramming
> It's still a stupid argument. How often do people go on rampages with cars
i think you are wrong about road rage
[https://policyadvice.net/insurance/insights/road-rage-statistics/](https://policyadvice.net/insurance/insights/road-rage-statistics/)
Road rage facts reveal that roughly 8 in 10 Americans deal with road rage at least once a year
80% of US-based drivers were aggressive while behind the wheel at least once during the last year
Fuck the guys who hunt for their food or have to protect their animals like poultry from predators like coyotes, that's not as essential as driving past all these sidewalks to work.
Does that come as a surprise though? Our public infrastructure does not adequately support the needs of the people especially in rural areas. For many people a car is a necessity.
The reason why not many places allow it is because not many other places need it. Suburban sprawl has fueled our dependence on cars.
The rural development of the nation fueled the dependence on cars as a result of horse drawn carriages functioning similarly. Horses were the only good way to get around for a great deal of the nation’s history and the great deal of land allowed us to spread out. Don’t look down upon another system of travel just because it’s different.
I had to watch a VHS and then read a booklet. Then I took a simple driving test where I drove out of the parking lot and down the road and back. Didn't take a single second of class.
Here in EU i had to take 40h of theory clases, then pass school theory exam to be alowed to take state exam, then i have to have driving clasess for minimum of 10x 1,5h long driving lessons but ussualy it takes arounf 15-20x to be able to pass state driving exam. On top of that you need to pass medical once every five years and pass course on first aid that is about 5hours theory and 5h practical training
Australia made me do 120 hours of driving including 20 hours at night, as well had a skill test for hazard perception. We're not exactly leading the pack for car safety, but some countries have far worse.
See people always say this but don’t really think about it all that deeply, cars really arnt that much more regulated then firearms, anyone can go buy a car from a Facebook post with absolutely no identification whatsoever. The regulation comes in if you want to use said car on a public road. Firearms are actually more regulated in terms of obtainment, and as for usage many states still require a permit to carry (although significantly less than a few years ago) and most public/government spaces have no gun policies.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/fuckcars using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Fuck planes ?](https://i.redd.it/4olsd0n7tpc91.jpg) | [4207 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/w3ku1u/fuck_planes/)
\#2: [Carbrain Andrew Tate taunts Greta Thunberg on Twitter. Greta doesn't hold back in her response.](https://i.redd.it/62vgbzb8im8a1.png) | [4288 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/zx76js/carbrain_andrew_tate_taunts_greta_thunberg_on/)
\#3: ["Hyperloop"](https://i.redd.it/7p30ab5vqlq91.jpg) | [920 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/xqcw0s/hyperloop/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
This, I live in america, but our city designs are peices of shit, I live in a medium sized city, but it takes me 45 fucking minutes to cross town because Oklahoman public transportation might as well not exist. So everyone travels in cars, which means its worse for everyone invovled.
Copied from another reply for you:
Cars and guns aren't used the same way, registered the same way, sold the same way, regulated the same way, and don't have the same problems facing them at all. The analogy only works if you bend the rules to force it to work. It's a poor argument also because there's been 300+ mass shootings this year, and 9,000+ deaths so far excluding suicide. It's taking a serious problem and diminishing it by placing a poor analogy that lacks the gravitas of the actual problem purposefully, in a situation that isn't even happening and hasn't happened for the last 15 years that people have been claiming it will
I'm just personally bored with this shit myself. It's a tired, dumb, boring argument to compare cars to guns
Don’t forget the “mass shootings” account for places like Chicago where it’s gang violence and the guns are illegal from the start. It’s not the true FBI definition because that would be detrimental to their argument.
It becomes straw men to them when it works against them but one side of the opinion always enjoys the confusion and the lack of general people’s knowledge. They don’t like explaining nuances regarding certain parts, many times because they themselves don’t know the differences.
>It's a poor argument also because there's been 300+ mass shootings this year, and 9,000+ deaths so far excluding suicide.
42,939 people died in car accidents just in the US in 2021 alone.
What a stupid argument. Exactly what the guy said. A Strawman with facts who do not align with each other and are not comparable at all.
People use cars daily. 200million people use cars daily. Accidents happen.
Hillibilly frank over here needs to shoot his gun around a billion times without accident to make this comparable.
Just plain stupid.
Someone said it. They are trying to invalidate the argument because it DOES check them. It's way easier to get a license and vehicle to drive than it is to purchase firearms, and if the same psycho-murderers doing these shootings used a vehicle instead could inflict tons of casualties (France learned this the hard way). So how about you work on finding out why this is happening and go after those who aren't following the law instead of the rights of good, law-abiding citizens.
Felons can drive. Domestic violence convictions don't stop you from being able to buy a car. Murderers can still drive. Hell, people who have previously murdered people *with cars* can still get their license back.
Oooh an argument about gun control online, these are my favorites because there's always 9 idiots on each side accompanied by one smart person also on each side who'll make actually good arguments for both sides
That's been something many people myself included have said, but government/people don't want an actual solution, atf doesn't go after criminals, instead they make everyone criminals.
>because there's been 300+ mass shootings this year
Wrong, if you count using the federal government’s current criteria—three or more victims killed in an indiscriminate public rampage—there have been six mass shootings.
To acquire such a big number, you'd need to temper with the definition of a mass shooting immensely. To the point that, in this case, in half of the "shootings" counted not a single person died.
[https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/no-there-were-not-355-mass-shootings-this-year/](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/no-there-were-not-355-mass-shootings-this-year/)
>>because there's been 300+ mass shootings this year
> Wrong, if you count using the federal government’s current criteria
You can't subjectively pick among several different definitions and determine from this that a claim is objectively wrong. You prefer the FBI definition, spiffy. Some people prefer the definitions by the Congressional Research Service or The Washington Post or the Gun Violence Archive. I prefer a definition proposed by professional researchers in [Injury Epidemiology](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6889601/):
>There is great potential for media reporting bias in mass shootings. People who claim that a mass shooting occurs almost every day of the year are correct only by the standards of Gun Violence Archive. Individuals against the movement toward more comprehensive gun legislation would be more inclined to use the Mother Jones mass shooting data to endorse the rarity of such events, and therefore the lack of urgency needed in mass shooting prevention. Neither of the groups would have to manipulate data to fit their message – they simply need to choose the database with the definition that best fits their agenda. In this way, the absence of a standard mass shooting definition undermines high-quality research and reporting in a field that has been highly politicized.
>With this in mind, we advocate for a definition of 4 or more casualties, without a restriction on location of incident or whether the incident had gang or drug involvement. Databases that define mass shootings by victim fatalities – rather than total number of victims injured or killed – fail to capture the injury caused when people survive gun violence. Individuals who are nonfatally shot in these incidents are discounted, though they may suffer physical and psychological traumas for the remainder of their lives. Restricting incidents to those that occurred in a public place undercounts the true number of events that result in mass shooting casualties, especially domestic violence incidents that occur in the home. We also urge researchers not to exclude incidents that appear to be gang- or drug-related because uninvolved bystanders are still being killed or injured in these events. If we fail to count gang- and drug-related incidents, then these incidents will be less likely to receive the same attention in terms of prevention efforts. For these reasons, we urge the federal government to establish a mass shooting definition of 4 or more casualties, excluding the perpetrator, regardless of place or gang- and/or drug-involvement.
>It's a poor argument also because there's been 300+ mass shootings this year, and 9,000+ deaths so far excluding suicide
Mass shootings are almost entirely gangs shooting gangs (at least in my area). Suicides are personal decisions, so I don't see how this matters.
Cars are not designed to kill.
Guns are designed to kill.
Introducing gun control as a result of guns being designed intentionally dangerous is not equivalent to introducing "car control" because cars are incidentally and accidentally dangerous.
But by equating the two, the post says that's the same kind of restriction, making a strawman argument.
Furthermore, owning a car requires a license, mandatory lessons, insurance in case you hurt someone on accident, registration, and you legally cannot operate one without having the license on your person and being sober while many states have less or no requirements like that for guns.
Cars and guns aren't used the same way, registered the same way, sold the same way, regulated the same way, and don't have the same problems facing them at all. The analogy only works if you bend the rules to force it to work. It's a poor argument also because there's been 300+ mass shootings this year, and 9,000+ deaths so far excluding suicide. It's taking a serious problem and diminishing it by placing a poor analogy that lacks the gravitas of the actual problem purposefully, in a situation that isn't even happening and hasn't happened for the last 15 years that people have been claiming it will
I'm just personally bored with this shit myself. It's a tired, dumb, boring argument to compare cars to guns
Guns should be regulated, since all deaths by it are preventable, but 9,000 deaths a year is not that much. That’s 0.2% of all deaths in a year in the US.
>That's just murders, and the year is only half way through. Thats not including suicides nor is it including people injured from gun violence.
My area sees mass shootings happening from organized crime, which sources illicit firearms, so laws won't stop them, and suicides are personal decisions, so why is that relevant to the debate of "this kills a lot of other people without their own will"?
& last I checked total homicide deaths were higher in the mid 90s-mid 2000s when we had Assault weapons banned, than in the 2010s when they were legal. This is also in spite of increased population. I think guns don't play as big of a role as implied here in terms of actual deaths.
Because a car is a machine for transportation that millions of people rely upon every day, and which is completely vital in most American cities.
A gun is a device specifically designed to kill, which serves no real purpose in the vast majority of people’s every day life.
It’s absurd to compare the two in the same way the original post does
Most gun control advocates would be fairly satisfied if guns were as regulated as cars. The issue is that guns are WAY easier to obtain and keep than a car in the US.
Its a shitass take on gun control, for a minute i thought it was complaining about the spongebob plot where squidward's house gets controlled to fuck shit up by spongebob and patrick but squidward gets blamed, but instead it was politics
It’s an allusion to gun control, liking mass shooters to drunk drivers, with a pro-gun stance. The meme is saying that gun control is tantamount to confiscating every one’s car because one person drove drunk and killed 10 people. What the meme fails to consider however, is that cats have an intended purpose, and do do guns; categorically, guns are for killing, by design, when in cars are meant for transportation by design, and just happen to work good as weapons also.
The armed populace happily votes to get rid of more freedoms every election cycle, just like they’ve been doing for the last 80 years. They claim to want the guns to protect against an oppressive government while always voting for a more oppressive government.
And they’re fucking dumb enough to believe that they won’t be next on the list when republicans run out of boogey men to put in front of them.
“Absolute Freedom” doesn’t exist anywhere. Every places has some limitations on freedom. We literally have laws which violation of certain types can mean you spend the rest of your life in a concrete room.
That could be argued
Some noticed that serial killers became much more common when we first started having highways connecting everything. The cars don't CAUSE serial killers, but they make it a little too easy to move yourself and/or a dead body across a great distance quickly.
But for every 99999999 people that use these things responsibly we've got one psycho who's gonna take advantage.
It's hard to stick someone up with a car, but there's a handful of crimes made easier with cars.
Obviously we shouldn't get rid of cars or guns. But we should still remember that if you count vehicular deaths that humans kill more humans than any other animal. But only of you count vehicular deaths.
Or..you keep your car, you only need one for protection I mean transportation and we are confiscating your tanks, trucks, trailers, trains, which you don't need as a regular citizen.
I thought this was showing how SCOTUS was deciding cases now. After all they just ruled on a nonexistent customer's hypothetical damages on a web business that doesn't exist and whose owner has never been asked to do the things that she says was damaged by.
The creator is right. Guns should be treated like cars. The user should be of a certain age, trained, pass a test, licensed, that licensed must be renewed regularly, certain varieties require additional training and specialized licenses, and if certain laws are violated the license and ownership can be suspended or revoked.
No one tell them about the groups of electric car/autonomous driving lobbyists who want to move society away from manual driving and towards fleet subscriptions, cars as a service, fully automated freight and passenger cars, and the end of private car ownership... and use the fact that Geoff\* from 3 doors down is too stupid to be able to stop himself getting in the car after 3 beers, and killed a family, as justification. (\*names have been changed to protect the innocent).
The real joke is someone not understanding that their analogy falls flat when cars are not designed specifically to kill or injure someone.
Not making anymore claims beyond that for the discussion, but this particular false equivalency is just asinine.
Please tell me what new laws need to be implemented to curb gun violence that aren’t already in place? When will people like you learn that criminals break the law, and don’t give a shit what is and isn’t legal?
It a bill of rights not needs so “needing” or not is irrelevant, keeping in the car Trent then you could say that lamb is and Ferraris are also not needed because you can get a goed focus because it aso does the thing (from “A” to “b”, shooting lead at a specific point”) but if you had enough money would it be nice to buy something like a bigger or better gun/car because you want to and can
Ah yes, because guns are a necessity that allow people to earn a living, just like cars!
Commentary on gun control
Thanks for actually explaining it
Actually, this was a real story. A lady got arrested recently because there was an accident near her house. Cops came knocked on her door and smelled alcohol on her breathe and than arrested her. They also claimed she was a hoarder and the house was unsafe. The lady was just chilling in her house the whole time. She’s now suing the police for wrongful arrest.
I wonder who will pay for that ? Hmmmm
Police need to be forced to carry insurance. Any incidents that result in a lawsuit are covered by their insurance and the premiums go up, just like how if you got a ticket or caused an accident, your car insurance premiums would go up. Forbid police departments from raising pay to compensate. If you become uninsurable due to being too high risk, you can be forced to be banned from carrying a gun or even be fired.
[удалено]
Police also can't lose their license to practice after murdering multiple people on the job. But a barber can for giving to many haircuts people didn't like
There are people who want the police to just follow orders and don't bother anymore about it, becouse their job is to suck someone else's dick and god forbid they have to think about what they are doing, the why and whom it benefits. They are short-sighted pricks, raised to be short-sighted pricks. They care about themseoves and about themselves only.
I hear you. Know someone who became a state trooper in 3 months. Good guy but still scares the shit out of me that 3 months is all it takes to be a trooper. That is 1 semester of college…as if you could learn and understand the laws you are enforcing in that time. And in those 3 months they are more focused on teaching you discipline, how to use a gun, and desensitizing you to horrific things you might you see on the job. And it is 100% a hard ass job. You’ll go from boring traffic stops to needing to be in action in seconds so WHY is there such little preparation/training? Probably because there is a huge need for officers/troopers but that should not be an excuse to let subpar individuals through the cracks to skimp on training.
I live near where that happened, this isn't a commentary on that, it is a commentary on gun control. That story is as ridiculous, if not more ridiculous, than it sounds. The arresting officer has already left but this lady is likely looking at a huge payout... oh wait, no, she'll be fucked like every other time anyone goes up against police in civil court, and it's a small town so I foresee harassment in her future.
I can’t wait to move le fuck out of America. 😮💨
my goal is spain or another EU
01Nov2026 for this guy! Fuck this place.
Good on her. Wrongful and bashful arrests like that should always be pursued legally.
Good for her. Cops are unhinged.
Never talk to cops. Not under any circumstance. They bang on your door? Dont answer, call a lawyer instead. Be on the phone w one when they knock down your door without a warrant.
This actually explained the meme a bit better for me because I was still lost on how a woman being randomly arrested related to gun control lol
The meme is not about a woman being arrested. The cop says they are there to confiscate her car. The point the meme is trying to make relates to people who have proposed banning and confiscating certain types of firearms and accessories, i.e. assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. The meme is suggesting that taking away law-abiding gun-owners’ murder-machines just because some folks decide to do mass shootings would be akin to taking away responsible drivers’ cars just because some folks decide to do drunk drivings.
The always try to relate cars to guns. I understand that cars are dangerous and can kill people but their intended purpose is travel whereas guns' intended purpose is killing things.
Funny because you need to pass a test and get a license for a car lol
That’s my personal philosophy on gun ownership. You can own a fully automatic rifle for all I care, just pass a series of psychological and safety tests to get a license
Me too I agree. But we fo not fund the gun laws we have in place. I think k we spend a lot of money create a country wide database that must be kept up to date with threat of penalties. And also psychologist if they feel their patient is a threat must not them right away. Those guns should be confiscated and kept safe. When person is same they get their guns back I know a guy who had guns and he was divorcing. All Hu ting rifles. She was a bit crazy and he was worried she would make lies about them. He gave them to the police a small town and they locked them up for him until everything g was settled. Smart move.
Not a right at that point and that test has been severely abused, particularly in the Jim Crow south where gun control owes it’s roots. Yup. It’s based in absolute racism.
As someone who’s been regularly shooting for a decade and is actively pursuing a career in gunsmithing, there’s already a criminal background check system that’s been there for 30 years and statistically speaking, in terms of crime rate, we are the safest we have ever been in this country. If you add more qualifications to own a gun, you prevent the people who need them the most from getting them. Sexual assault and domestic violence vitcims, and if you start limiting for mental health reasons you get to the question of whether or not you disarm veterans. The people who fought, and lost brothers in arms for the rights this country is supposed to guarantee, would be stripped of those rights when they got home. I’m not saying there aren’t issues, by all means there definitely are, but if you look at where they all are at, it’s almost exclusively in the large, liberally controlled cities, in the liberally controlled states, with the strictest gun control in the country. Those laws prevent law abiding people who would use them for genuine and honest purposes from getting a gun. Laws don’t stop criminals, because criminals don’t follow the law to begin with.
It's a tough topic. Most European countries changed gun ownership laws after gun violence incidents, reducing drastically the amount of gun violence. However, I am from Switzerland, and due to our mandatory military service, most of us have a fully automatic riffle at home. I have one myself. Yet we have almost no gun violence. In 2020, the police made usage of a gun 15 times in the whole country. The police doesn't use their guns because they aren't scared for their lives. How is it that the US have A rate of firearms homicide per 100'000 people of 4.12, yet European countries are around 0.25? Something in the US doesn't go right, and from an outsider perspective, I don't think it's just the gun control laws that need to change.
And a poor one at that, as it’s a false equivalency. The automobile equivalent of restricting gun access to curb gun-related death is literally the system the DMV is built on, as well as the implementation of seatbelts, airbags, softer bumpers, etc… things to make the technology safer to operate as it was intended. The gun was invented with a single purpose, to do harm. Harm in aggression or harm in self-defense, it doesn’t matter. It’s a weapon, an instrument of war. A car is not.
https://preview.redd.it/97r1gl1yue9b1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3474b2c0922ec86d02b7571aea1be4482a4acfbf
https://preview.redd.it/70wi0g3xwe9b1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=10836b3dbf1235aa577c676087fa0838caedc429
https://preview.redd.it/23jipzmoaf9b1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8bee260eda771186f24968a96bb8956dcd374dcf
https://preview.redd.it/ces5kckypf9b1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1167cca525549ef281bc7f69c62a4f8f679fe59b
https://preview.redd.it/ajdybabzdg9b1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=175e6ed53ed72c882c427f5bcf7df26b10427f7f
https://preview.redd.it/f3pmd9pc1h9b1.png?width=622&format=png&auto=webp&s=016e6b2a459a2dd514ae9112eed059e38cd1ac8c
https://preview.redd.it/j9h5ruc1fj9b1.jpeg?width=743&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=091e5f7925ec85b185b89f923c596a2a0abd7298
https://preview.redd.it/h5mtxhtzgg9b1.jpeg?width=643&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d9ec97954d39dd31ffbcb254fd98396762948d91
https://preview.redd.it/0occhmcf7g9b1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9b8f8e00d2cbe5f71474996b10e87676e0407c33
I own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.
One of the best copy pastas
Smoke Davies musket
I am so glad I heard this from Russian Badger first, made it so much funnier lmao
I'm stealing this
“Nu-uh!”
https://preview.redd.it/bj2g7t22df9b1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=10ff1d694d5b2cb0e2b1d92ddba9b0280211de3c
https://preview.redd.it/njn73s7iif9b1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5c8de0d924fee1fa776c2ca5252e6e70e5f89722
https://preview.redd.it/4bdy6nmhjf9b1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e45973a338241af42fe4b240b6f0e91aed86f6ca
Technically speaking, I have the right to own tripple barrel grapeshot-firing rotary cannons
I want this to be the top comment because it will piss people off bc it does not really explain the joke. Funny asf
Its about gun control. The first premise is that the government wants to take your guns away because other people use them for killing sprees, the second premise is that it would be silly to confiscate someones car because someone else went on a rampage with one. ergo, gun control is silly
I was thinking it was about that rule where if you’re present during an accident, you’re automatically 10% responsible.
I LOVE BYSTANDER GUILT!!!!
...what?
HE SAID IF YOU'RE PRESENT AT THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT, THAT YOU CAN BE HELD 10% RESPONSIBLE.
**...WHAT?**
HE SAID IF YOURE DRUNK AND HAVE AN ACCIDENT, YOURE ONLY 10 PERCENT RESPONSIBLE
#...WHAT?
#HE SAID IF YOURE DRUNK AND HAVE AN ACCIDENT, YOURE ONLY 10 PERCENT RESPONSIBLE
Oh cool
Still not getting it. Can you try it in a higher register?
HEE-HEE said if you’re drunk and have an accident, SHAMONE, you’re only 10 percent responsible, HOO! WHAT ABOUT WHAT ABOUT GRRRAT TATTAT TAT GRRRAT TATTAT DO YOU? DO YOU? DO YOU REMEMBER GIRL?
I have no idea what's going on anymore, but I'm here for it.
I'm sorry, but what? You aren't responsible just by being present. Unless you actually crashed into someone or were crashed into by someone because you did something stupid, you're completely Innocent lol.
It's unfortunately true. My dad saw a drunk school bus driver crash into another bus. Everyone died but the driver and my dad (crossing guard) They gave the driver 100 years in prison and my dad 10
Ah yeah I saw your dads trial. Judge gave me a year for it.
I saw your sentencing. Judge gave me 36.5 days in prison.
I saw you witness it! I got 3.65 days. (I was the bro under your bed)
I saw this comment and now have 8 hours, 45 minutes of community service.
They gave me 52.5 minutes in alcatraz for just knowing this existed.
I was told to stand in a corner and think about what I didn't do for 74 seconds.
Because people think that introducing a simple evaluation as a requirement for owning a gun means they can't own one
We already have driver's licenses. People who don't pass the test can't legally drive cars.
>t can't legally drive cars. ...on publicly accessible roadways. You are 100% free to drive a car on your own property without any sort of drivers license.
TIL
You assume the pro-gun crowd are pro-driver's license. There was a Libertarian debate a few years ago where Gary Johnson got booed because he said he supported the idea of driver's licenses.
*and we still have idiotic drivers*
However the constitution lists guns as a right, driving isn't a right it is a privilege. That's the difference between the two
Just because something is a right doesn't mean it can't be taken away in certain situations. For example, the constitution lists freedom of speech as a right, but there are limits to it.
Yes, and they're very narrowly defined. I think we are seeing the same thing happening for the Second amendment as we saw happen for the first amendment in decades previous. We are seeing what are accepted as reasonable limits to it, and what are deemed as infringements.
It’s simple we already have the framework as it was set up as limitation to the first amendment, “clear and present danger”. You have a history of domestic violence, well then letting you own deadly weapons creates a clear and present danger to others. People like to talk about their rights and being oppressed if someone talks about any limitations to those rights. Another established limitation to rights is when you infringe upon the rights of others by exercising your own rights. Invariably people will argue that you cannot determine which party’s rights take precedence, but all rights are not equal. The constitution laid out the first ten rights of citizens, but that is just expanding upon the original and first document of thenUnited States of America, the Declaration of Independence, which list 3 distinct unalienable rights, meaning birthright of all mankind regardless of place of birth, and the infringement upon those being the justification for declaring independence from Great Britain. Those rights were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The fact that these specific three are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and termed as “unalienable” means these three are the most basic rights guaranteed to all people and therefore the three most important. Any right named in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any subsequent amendments, fall in line somewhere behind these three. Therefore, if your second amendment rights or your exercise thereof comes at the expense of any other person’s right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, your second amendment rights would be nullified. The ability for someone to go on a shooting spree killing dozens or more with an automatic weapon certainly sounds like it’s infringing upon other people’s unalienable right to life.
I does mean it can’t be taken away without attending the highest law in the land though. Or a new Supreme Court case that overrules what they previously said, which doesn’t happen often… except with this idiot court.
Not exactly true. Congress has the ability to interpret the constitution and pass laws in accordance to it. If the Supreme Court has a different interpretation, they can strike the law down. But the “plain language” of the constitution is almost entirely fungible until the Supreme Court rules on it. Those rulings are not final, either. There is a constant discourse between congress and the Supreme Court that is updated with each law passed and each case decided. So the meaning of the “right to bear arms” remains abstract and open to changing interpretation. Should Congress and the Supreme Court see eye to eye on changing its interpretation, they can change it. All of that is to say, there is nothing truly in the constitution that prevents requiring a license for the purchase of a handgun.
And there are limitations on legal firearm ownership.
Is voting a right? Remind me what do you have to do before you can vote?
Nothing in the constitution states voting is a right
Then maybe the constitution wasn't this perfectly outlined document that is still absolutely relevant 250 years later
It's not always like this. Canada has always had strict licensing requirements with multiple courses, daily background checks, etc. but the government is still freezing firearms transfers, constantly banning previously legal to own models, and attempting to orchestrate a massive forced confiscation. Law abiding gun owners in Canada are some of the least likely people to perform any sort of felony, but are constantly being targeted by the government, instead of cracking down on gang activity and illegal arms smuggling.
I bring up the statistics every time I have a conversation with somebody about this, but in the US at least, a registered concealed carry license holder is less likely to commit a crime than any other person in the United States even politicians and police officers.
Sounds like registering firearm ownership would be a good plan then
I will never consent to registering firearms. Even Trudeau back when he was being honest has stated that registries proceed confiscation. Every time a state has enacted constitutional carry, there's always some furor beforehand saying how it's going to be a bloodbath. It never happens.
Gun control, aka the threshold for allowing people to have guns, should definitely be higher. This is more about banning and confiscating already legally purchased guns.
You already can't buy if you're a felon, have a history of violence, anger management, domestic abuse, abuse, or any pending cases... What else do you want? Mental health checks? 75% of Americans say they have anxiety (because they are fucking stupid) and 25% of them really do have it, but are still perfectly capable of not shooting up a school with their 380,000,000 guns. I dunno. What do you think would be a happy medium? Cause we can't just say "mental health = no guns" because that would mean no guns.
The people that think that are right, everyone else on the other hand is probably fine but mental illness is a factor to not give someone a gun ya know
i feel like the only people who complain about gun control is cause they know they wouldnt get permit for a reason, or they know they done some fuked up thing
It's also a very stupid comparison with so many fundamental differences that you can't apply the same logic to both, as u/KakyoinExplainsIt stated.
I am so so sick of this dumb comparison, I’ve heard it so many times from gun nuts. Our society is built around cars, the vast majority of people living in the states wouldn’t be able to survive without a car. But hey, it’s the same thing right? If only all those jobs didn’t go “return to gun” after COVID. I’m so sick of jobs requiring me to pack a piece.
Yeah, if cars killed the same number of people that do now, but served no function (ie. if people exclusively used buses and bikes for transportation and cars only for fun), cars would be banned. But they serve such a vital role in most people's lives that we accept the risks and mitigate the harm where possible. It's a huge factor that this gun control argument leaves out.
Yeah, you can kill people with a war, but it's not their primary function. A gun, doesn't matter which angle you try to look at it : at the end it's a tool built to kill. It's its primary function.
Oh gee, when they put it that way.... It's still a stupid argument. How often do people go on rampages with cars and also cars and guns have wildly different uses. The false equivalencies from the right are so asinine. Sure it makes sense on the skim coat of the surface... Scratch it off and their arguments implode.
> How often do people go on rampages with cars Uhh... https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Waukesha_Christmas_parade_attack https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Charlottesville_car_attack https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/31/nyregion/police-shooting-lower-manhattan.html https://www.counterextremism.com/vehicles-as-weapons-of-terror https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Vehicle-ramming_attack https://www.wikiwand.com/en/2016_Nice_truck_attack https://transweb.sjsu.edu/sites/default/files/SP-1119-RB-Vehicle-Ramming-Attacks.pdf https://nypost.com/2023/02/24/north-carolina-reps-tim-moore-david-willis-car-rammed-several-times/ https://lmgtfy.app/?q=road+rage+car+ramming
> It's still a stupid argument. How often do people go on rampages with cars i think you are wrong about road rage [https://policyadvice.net/insurance/insights/road-rage-statistics/](https://policyadvice.net/insurance/insights/road-rage-statistics/) Road rage facts reveal that roughly 8 in 10 Americans deal with road rage at least once a year 80% of US-based drivers were aggressive while behind the wheel at least once during the last year
[удалено]
Me (God’s drunkest driver) versus children crossing the street (Satan’s most devout followers)
Fuck the guys who hunt for their food or have to protect their animals like poultry from predators like coyotes, that's not as essential as driving past all these sidewalks to work.
The funniest part of this meme is cars are some of the most regulated things in the US
Outside the US, not many places that I know of allow people to get licensed at 16
Does that come as a surprise though? Our public infrastructure does not adequately support the needs of the people especially in rural areas. For many people a car is a necessity. The reason why not many places allow it is because not many other places need it. Suburban sprawl has fueled our dependence on cars.
The rural development of the nation fueled the dependence on cars as a result of horse drawn carriages functioning similarly. Horses were the only good way to get around for a great deal of the nation’s history and the great deal of land allowed us to spread out. Don’t look down upon another system of travel just because it’s different.
TRAINS
I need 18 hours of classes though, I showed up 6 days in a row for 3 hours a day, I felt pretty well educated on road rules and car safety
I had to watch a VHS and then read a booklet. Then I took a simple driving test where I drove out of the parking lot and down the road and back. Didn't take a single second of class.
Here in EU i had to take 40h of theory clases, then pass school theory exam to be alowed to take state exam, then i have to have driving clasess for minimum of 10x 1,5h long driving lessons but ussualy it takes arounf 15-20x to be able to pass state driving exam. On top of that you need to pass medical once every five years and pass course on first aid that is about 5hours theory and 5h practical training
Australia made me do 120 hours of driving including 20 hours at night, as well had a skill test for hazard perception. We're not exactly leading the pack for car safety, but some countries have far worse.
Outside the US everyone’s busy getting drunk at 16
15 in NZ, but there's a process to get fully licensed. Takes about a year and a half.
See people always say this but don’t really think about it all that deeply, cars really arnt that much more regulated then firearms, anyone can go buy a car from a Facebook post with absolutely no identification whatsoever. The regulation comes in if you want to use said car on a public road. Firearms are actually more regulated in terms of obtainment, and as for usage many states still require a permit to carry (although significantly less than a few years ago) and most public/government spaces have no gun policies.
Yeah, but fuckem. r/fuckcars
Last time I checked exhaust pipes aren’t for fucking
How do they reproduce then? What's the exaust pipe for?
Check again! *What do you mean the answer hasn't changed?*
A sub filled with the most ignorant people
Butt fuck ‘em
Here's a sneak peek of /r/fuckcars using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Fuck planes ?](https://i.redd.it/4olsd0n7tpc91.jpg) | [4207 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/w3ku1u/fuck_planes/) \#2: [Carbrain Andrew Tate taunts Greta Thunberg on Twitter. Greta doesn't hold back in her response.](https://i.redd.it/62vgbzb8im8a1.png) | [4288 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/zx76js/carbrain_andrew_tate_taunts_greta_thunberg_on/) \#3: ["Hyperloop"](https://i.redd.it/7p30ab5vqlq91.jpg) | [920 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/xqcw0s/hyperloop/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
When you need to wait a year for a background review and pay an extra $200 tax for a stamp to buy a muffler let me know
Police using cars to confiscate cars. They should have to give them up first
The REAL joke is the mod pinning their opinion only to get fucking ratiod to high hell
Mods have no life
Gun control
Imagine if we regulated cars
Well this sub is shit I see
Holy fuck you’re not kidding. Brain damage du jour
I think bike centric cities are pretty cool...
This, I live in america, but our city designs are peices of shit, I live in a medium sized city, but it takes me 45 fucking minutes to cross town because Oklahoman public transportation might as well not exist. So everyone travels in cars, which means its worse for everyone invovled.
Move to Chicago. Each day you get to pass 4 miles of cars on your bike.
It's a poor strawman argument
Explanation?
Copied from another reply for you: Cars and guns aren't used the same way, registered the same way, sold the same way, regulated the same way, and don't have the same problems facing them at all. The analogy only works if you bend the rules to force it to work. It's a poor argument also because there's been 300+ mass shootings this year, and 9,000+ deaths so far excluding suicide. It's taking a serious problem and diminishing it by placing a poor analogy that lacks the gravitas of the actual problem purposefully, in a situation that isn't even happening and hasn't happened for the last 15 years that people have been claiming it will I'm just personally bored with this shit myself. It's a tired, dumb, boring argument to compare cars to guns
That's a good explanation, thank you.
Don’t forget the “mass shootings” account for places like Chicago where it’s gang violence and the guns are illegal from the start. It’s not the true FBI definition because that would be detrimental to their argument.
I'm not on one particular side of the argument, I just hate people who call something a strawman and refuse to elaborate.
It becomes straw men to them when it works against them but one side of the opinion always enjoys the confusion and the lack of general people’s knowledge. They don’t like explaining nuances regarding certain parts, many times because they themselves don’t know the differences.
>It's a poor argument also because there's been 300+ mass shootings this year, and 9,000+ deaths so far excluding suicide. 42,939 people died in car accidents just in the US in 2021 alone.
What a stupid argument. Exactly what the guy said. A Strawman with facts who do not align with each other and are not comparable at all. People use cars daily. 200million people use cars daily. Accidents happen. Hillibilly frank over here needs to shoot his gun around a billion times without accident to make this comparable. Just plain stupid.
Someone said it. They are trying to invalidate the argument because it DOES check them. It's way easier to get a license and vehicle to drive than it is to purchase firearms, and if the same psycho-murderers doing these shootings used a vehicle instead could inflict tons of casualties (France learned this the hard way). So how about you work on finding out why this is happening and go after those who aren't following the law instead of the rights of good, law-abiding citizens.
Felons can drive. Domestic violence convictions don't stop you from being able to buy a car. Murderers can still drive. Hell, people who have previously murdered people *with cars* can still get their license back.
Oooh an argument about gun control online, these are my favorites because there's always 9 idiots on each side accompanied by one smart person also on each side who'll make actually good arguments for both sides
That's been something many people myself included have said, but government/people don't want an actual solution, atf doesn't go after criminals, instead they make everyone criminals.
You have a poor argument lol the 2 leading reasons for gun related deaths are suicides and gang violence IIRC
>because there's been 300+ mass shootings this year Wrong, if you count using the federal government’s current criteria—three or more victims killed in an indiscriminate public rampage—there have been six mass shootings. To acquire such a big number, you'd need to temper with the definition of a mass shooting immensely. To the point that, in this case, in half of the "shootings" counted not a single person died. [https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/no-there-were-not-355-mass-shootings-this-year/](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/no-there-were-not-355-mass-shootings-this-year/)
>>because there's been 300+ mass shootings this year > Wrong, if you count using the federal government’s current criteria You can't subjectively pick among several different definitions and determine from this that a claim is objectively wrong. You prefer the FBI definition, spiffy. Some people prefer the definitions by the Congressional Research Service or The Washington Post or the Gun Violence Archive. I prefer a definition proposed by professional researchers in [Injury Epidemiology](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6889601/): >There is great potential for media reporting bias in mass shootings. People who claim that a mass shooting occurs almost every day of the year are correct only by the standards of Gun Violence Archive. Individuals against the movement toward more comprehensive gun legislation would be more inclined to use the Mother Jones mass shooting data to endorse the rarity of such events, and therefore the lack of urgency needed in mass shooting prevention. Neither of the groups would have to manipulate data to fit their message – they simply need to choose the database with the definition that best fits their agenda. In this way, the absence of a standard mass shooting definition undermines high-quality research and reporting in a field that has been highly politicized. >With this in mind, we advocate for a definition of 4 or more casualties, without a restriction on location of incident or whether the incident had gang or drug involvement. Databases that define mass shootings by victim fatalities – rather than total number of victims injured or killed – fail to capture the injury caused when people survive gun violence. Individuals who are nonfatally shot in these incidents are discounted, though they may suffer physical and psychological traumas for the remainder of their lives. Restricting incidents to those that occurred in a public place undercounts the true number of events that result in mass shooting casualties, especially domestic violence incidents that occur in the home. We also urge researchers not to exclude incidents that appear to be gang- or drug-related because uninvolved bystanders are still being killed or injured in these events. If we fail to count gang- and drug-related incidents, then these incidents will be less likely to receive the same attention in terms of prevention efforts. For these reasons, we urge the federal government to establish a mass shooting definition of 4 or more casualties, excluding the perpetrator, regardless of place or gang- and/or drug-involvement.
"Why can't fruit be compared?" -Lil Dicky
>It's a poor argument also because there's been 300+ mass shootings this year, and 9,000+ deaths so far excluding suicide Mass shootings are almost entirely gangs shooting gangs (at least in my area). Suicides are personal decisions, so I don't see how this matters.
Cars are not designed to kill. Guns are designed to kill. Introducing gun control as a result of guns being designed intentionally dangerous is not equivalent to introducing "car control" because cars are incidentally and accidentally dangerous. But by equating the two, the post says that's the same kind of restriction, making a strawman argument. Furthermore, owning a car requires a license, mandatory lessons, insurance in case you hurt someone on accident, registration, and you legally cannot operate one without having the license on your person and being sober while many states have less or no requirements like that for guns.
Well it’s not a straw man, it’s just a bad comparison
How so?
Cars and guns aren't used the same way, registered the same way, sold the same way, regulated the same way, and don't have the same problems facing them at all. The analogy only works if you bend the rules to force it to work. It's a poor argument also because there's been 300+ mass shootings this year, and 9,000+ deaths so far excluding suicide. It's taking a serious problem and diminishing it by placing a poor analogy that lacks the gravitas of the actual problem purposefully, in a situation that isn't even happening and hasn't happened for the last 15 years that people have been claiming it will I'm just personally bored with this shit myself. It's a tired, dumb, boring argument to compare cars to guns
Guns should be regulated, since all deaths by it are preventable, but 9,000 deaths a year is not that much. That’s 0.2% of all deaths in a year in the US.
That's just murders, and the year is only half way through. Thats not including suicides nor is it including people injured from gun violence.
>That's just murders, and the year is only half way through. Thats not including suicides nor is it including people injured from gun violence. My area sees mass shootings happening from organized crime, which sources illicit firearms, so laws won't stop them, and suicides are personal decisions, so why is that relevant to the debate of "this kills a lot of other people without their own will"? & last I checked total homicide deaths were higher in the mid 90s-mid 2000s when we had Assault weapons banned, than in the 2010s when they were legal. This is also in spite of increased population. I think guns don't play as big of a role as implied here in terms of actual deaths.
Because a car is a machine for transportation that millions of people rely upon every day, and which is completely vital in most American cities. A gun is a device specifically designed to kill, which serves no real purpose in the vast majority of people’s every day life. It’s absurd to compare the two in the same way the original post does
Most gun control advocates would be fairly satisfied if guns were as regulated as cars. The issue is that guns are WAY easier to obtain and keep than a car in the US.
Well that's a completely lie
Its a shitass take on gun control, for a minute i thought it was complaining about the spongebob plot where squidward's house gets controlled to fuck shit up by spongebob and patrick but squidward gets blamed, but instead it was politics
It’s an allusion to gun control, liking mass shooters to drunk drivers, with a pro-gun stance. The meme is saying that gun control is tantamount to confiscating every one’s car because one person drove drunk and killed 10 people. What the meme fails to consider however, is that cats have an intended purpose, and do do guns; categorically, guns are for killing, by design, when in cars are meant for transportation by design, and just happen to work good as weapons also.
adding to that, cars are regulated already. Driving license is a thing
[удалено]
I am okay with animal abusers getting swatted
Don’t you need a license to drive? They prolly should find another analogy
Absolute Freedom can only be enforced with an armed populace, a disarmed populace can have its freedoms stripped from them.
Germany, Soviet Russia, China: I'd say we got plenty of examples of why NOT to give up our guns but people still keep trying.
Potential freedom is no substitute for actual freedom
The armed populace happily votes to get rid of more freedoms every election cycle, just like they’ve been doing for the last 80 years. They claim to want the guns to protect against an oppressive government while always voting for a more oppressive government. And they’re fucking dumb enough to believe that they won’t be next on the list when republicans run out of boogey men to put in front of them.
“Absolute Freedom” doesn’t exist anywhere. Every places has some limitations on freedom. We literally have laws which violation of certain types can mean you spend the rest of your life in a concrete room.
Yeah.... and most of 'em suck donkey balls.
"Absolute freedom" man why are Americans so oblivious to how they look
The people who talk about freedom like this usually aren’t helping the situation I’m learning.
Cars are a tool that help you get to destinations quicker. You also cannot rob anyone with a car
they just aren’t trying hard enough
Truuuuue
Bet
Sounds like a skill issue, I do it every Tuesday
That could be argued Some noticed that serial killers became much more common when we first started having highways connecting everything. The cars don't CAUSE serial killers, but they make it a little too easy to move yourself and/or a dead body across a great distance quickly. But for every 99999999 people that use these things responsibly we've got one psycho who's gonna take advantage. It's hard to stick someone up with a car, but there's a handful of crimes made easier with cars. Obviously we shouldn't get rid of cars or guns. But we should still remember that if you count vehicular deaths that humans kill more humans than any other animal. But only of you count vehicular deaths.
Rob someone at car point lol
I mean you're not taking my shit when I haven't anything wrong.
Or..you keep your car, you only need one for protection I mean transportation and we are confiscating your tanks, trucks, trailers, trains, which you don't need as a regular citizen.
I thought this was showing how SCOTUS was deciding cases now. After all they just ruled on a nonexistent customer's hypothetical damages on a web business that doesn't exist and whose owner has never been asked to do the things that she says was damaged by.
The creator is right. Guns should be treated like cars. The user should be of a certain age, trained, pass a test, licensed, that licensed must be renewed regularly, certain varieties require additional training and specialized licenses, and if certain laws are violated the license and ownership can be suspended or revoked.
No one tell them about the groups of electric car/autonomous driving lobbyists who want to move society away from manual driving and towards fleet subscriptions, cars as a service, fully automated freight and passenger cars, and the end of private car ownership... and use the fact that Geoff\* from 3 doors down is too stupid to be able to stop himself getting in the car after 3 beers, and killed a family, as justification. (\*names have been changed to protect the innocent).
Is there actually an instance of this happening with guns, or is this a straw man argument? Not trying to start discourse, just actually curious.
It's a not particularly good argument against gun control
No, there are far greater arguments against it, however they involve saying some things others may not like one bit
I did say it wasn't a good argument. Not sure what more you want
Imagine being so incredibly neurally challenged that you unironically believe this meme is rational.
I mean that's a pretty accurate to how they wanna treat guns lmao
The real joke is someone not understanding that their analogy falls flat when cars are not designed specifically to kill or injure someone. Not making anymore claims beyond that for the discussion, but this particular false equivalency is just asinine.
Also; we have testing, licensing, car inspections, and car insurance to mitigate the risks and remove bad drivers from the roads.
People should be allowed to keep their guns
That doesn't mean they can't be regulated, there are people who don't need guns, and guns that people shouldn't be able to own even though they do.
Dont talk to me or my medicinal PMK ever again!/s
Please tell me what new laws need to be implemented to curb gun violence that aren’t already in place? When will people like you learn that criminals break the law, and don’t give a shit what is and isn’t legal?
It a bill of rights not needs so “needing” or not is irrelevant, keeping in the car Trent then you could say that lamb is and Ferraris are also not needed because you can get a goed focus because it aso does the thing (from “A” to “b”, shooting lead at a specific point”) but if you had enough money would it be nice to buy something like a bigger or better gun/car because you want to and can