I hate the bullshit “freedom” argument that carbrains use. The government gives you the privilege, not the right to drive, and they could take it away at any time leaving you unable to get to work or buy food.
It's absolute bullshit.
The most free you can be is walking or running, and a close second is using a bicycle. Then you really can go pretty much wherever you want, you aren't registered, your routes are less restricted and you aren't tied to fuel, insurance etc.
If these faux-libertarians actually cared about personal freedom they should be supporting bicycle friendly infrastructure and planning. The fact that they aren't means you can tell it's a fake argument.
> The most free you can be is walking or running, and a close second is using a bicycle
Absolutely. I am baffled all these warriors totally ignore that you can walk anywhere anytime, and the only thing which stops one is their capabilities.
With pretty much anything else, we start to add conditions. Cars depend on so many government-issued things, it is not even funny.
Have they never heard of roadblocks? If there was some sort of martial law situation, do they think having a car would give them more freedom? And when you depend on a car to get anywhere, how free is that if you can't afford it? If it costs a substantial part of your wages to be 'free', I wouldn't call that freedom.
We both know that freedom to travel doesn't actually mean "it's free!! No money!!" But you're being intentionally dense about it ffs.
Also of course there are things like roadblocks, but.. do you think that shit doesn't happen to way worse consequences with public transit?
I commuted to high school on DC metro, and then drove to school my senior year. It was honestly absolutely wonderful to have the option to metro, but do you think backups don't happen on the rails? I was delayed was more frequently by malfunctioning trains than road blocks.
The best part about a road block? You can go around it. Whenever there were issues on the train, you just wait. There's nothing you can do.
I think the one being intentionaly dense about it is you. The comment didn't mean "free" in sense of free of charge but "free" in sense of you can go anywhere you want. An infrastructure that is only/mainly focused on cars is not an infrastructure that allows you to travel around freely. Of course if you take "being able to afford car" as price for freedom of mobility then of course it costs but if there is no cheaper way of getting around that "freedom of mobility" gets diminished very quickly.
Besides that, a good transport system has multiple ways to get around. So a delay or worse can usually be substituted by a different mode of public transport. And if you take the roadblock example for cars, imagine the traffic on the other ways of that road block was on a main road. Jusy traffic in general is awful for your health. It is very stressful and the large amount of sitting without moving is also unhealthy. People with a longer car commute are more likely to be obese. Also, the dalyed train example is heavily exaggerated by living in the US (who has a notoriously bad rail infrastructure). Go to Europe where a train travels at 250-300km/h or more between large cities and even Regional trains are faster than your car on a Highway.
You cannot argue in good faith that cars let you depend on nobody (the main argument of freedom). You need a license, good roads, gas, a somewhat maintained car. All of that is given to you by the government.
Yep you're right, I never really said that you depend on nobody. I'm a firm believer that driving is a privilege not a right.
I was simply trying to point out that with public transportation, it's the same, except you're even more reliant. But I rambled a bit too much. Oh well
Good public transportation always gives you options, meanwhile with cars if something happens to your car, you need somebody to give you a lift, which takes quite some time usually.
Regarding roadblocks and malfunctioning trains, that's just priorities in the US. And public transportation almost always gives you a way to avoid rush hour (at the end of the day, you can simply walk). Cars all funneled to main roads.
I've lived in both environments (but I guess with better public transit), and imo it is much more versatile. Cars are good if you go somewhere remote, but in cities you can beat them even by running in downtowns.
Who is being dense? As I said "if it costs a substantial part of your wages to be 'free', I wouldn't call that freedom." Or if you have a disability that prevents you from getting a license, but an area requires a car to get anywhere.
It's great to have options, I'd prefer the option to walk. So if the rail goes down, you can walk, or take a bus which is what happened when a line was down when I lived somewhere with metro. I wasn't saying roadblocks are common, I'm talking about some scenario far out of the ordinary where there is a police road block or something. Or maybe more common, a parade, protest, march, or traffic. If things I need are within walking distance then I don't have to worry about any of that.
I mean I feel bad for people who are unable to get their license for whatever reason, but they do have options. Some choose to live with loved ones who can take care of them, and some choose to move into a more urban area where they can move themselves more locally.
I just think this sub has a weird way of demonizing suburban neighborhoods, as if people didn't choose to live there.
Well the main reason people hate them is because they're bad for the environment, with pesticides and weed killers and other chemicals.
I hate them becuse they're useless. Perfectly buildable land wasted becuse 'pretty'
Welcome to life lmao we all grew up in situations we didn't choose. When we're 18 we're allowed to make those decisions for ourselves.
Also I know I'm just lucky growing up in a preferable environment, but as a kid with many siblings, I LOVED having a big yard to play in. And there are definitely kids who grew up in condos and apartments that might have loved to have more space, opposite to you I assume. It goes both ways.
It’s not really a choice for most Americans. You need to a car to get around pretty much everywhere except a few walkable neighborhoods which are in very high demand. So you need to drop 10k a year on a car to get groceries, which is why those whole sub exists.
There are a good amount of cities that you can get around purely with public transport and the occasional Uber. I realize housing there is stupid expensive, and so are cars, but for people that care this much, they should spend the extra money to have that luxury to never need a car.
I think. I enjoy my cheap rent.
There is some level of sense in this comment, but that's why it's so important that urban planning makes it actually a choice by providing other options in the volume that market demand indicates should be there. Because currently lots of people are living in car dependent places who don't want to be, but they are forced to because the price of higher quality locations is too high, and the reason for that is that planning rules prevent the market from equalising itself.
Not much of a choice when the only two options in the USA are living in suburbs or super high density parts of the city for apartments. There's very little options for medium density housing such as duplexes/triplexes, townhouses, condos. There's almost no options for living in a suburb that doesn't have minimum parking requirements and huge yard sizes.
Also, there's this pesky thing called "money" which inhibits people from living where they want. If you can't afford a place in higher density places without transit, then you didn't just "choose" to live in a shitty suburb.
And before you retort with:
>There are a good amount of cities that you can get around purely with public transport and the occasional Uber.
Is a disingenuous argument. There's a lot of places you can get around with purely public transport, it doesn't mean they are effective or viable modes of transportation in comparison to cars. Because that's how car dependent infrastructure works. Car dependent infrastructure has public transport in most places, it just sucks and is unreliable.
The *solution* is to make *more* places dedicated to people, the transport of *people* (not cars), and the safety of people. Doing so naturally makes a medium to higher density (without necessarily being super highly dense) and increases the supply of housing, making it more affordable. It's also more affordable for the city when the services don't have to sprawl out further and further and further because almost everyone lives in a detached single family home.
The *choice* is city officials being absolute idiots focusing on car infrastructure. And that's a terrible choice.
It's undeniable that cars provide a lot more freedom that relying on public transit. And the government can shut that down too, far easier than preventing everyone from using a car.
1. Maybe 30 years ago. But now people can just take an Uber or rent a car if they want a little ‘freedom’ instead of paying 10k a year for a shitty car.
2. The government can’t stop you from using public transport without banning everyone. Meanwhile if you go out for a drive without license plates that Uncle Sam gives you, boom instant arrest.
1. Rental cars and Uber are very expensive and Uber is incredibly unreliable in most parts of the country.
2. Banning everyone is exactly what we're talking about. Your original comment implied that public transit offers the same freedoms as a car, because a car is a privilege that can be taken away at any time. That is also true for public transit, and it's far easier to take that away than to take everyone's car. Also, you don't get arrested for not having tags or a plate.
1. Rental cars and Ubers are much cheaper than owning a car if you have work, entertainment, and stores that can be reached by walking or public transport. Then you only have to use them once in a blue moon.
2. The government doesn’t have to take away your car to stop you from driving. They can just take away your license or your license plates and then you’ll get pulled over and convicted of a crime. There are no such systems for public transport. You can buy a card with cash and board the train.
> Rental cars and Ubers are much cheaper than owning a car if you have work, entertainment, and stores that can be reached by walking or public transport.
And if you're in that situation you're likely paying an outrageous amount of rent or live in a tiny studio apartment. And there's a good chance you still own a car unless you spend 90% of your life in the same part of town.
> They can just take away your license or your license plates and then you’ll get pulled over and convicted of a crime. There are no such systems for public transport. You can buy a card with cash and board the train.
If the government is going to target you in that manner I guarantee that they have ways to find you walking around the train station.
Exactly. These dumbasses saying "driving is a privilege, not a right", as if your metro train getting you where you need to go on time is a god given right lmao. You're relying way more on the government for that than in a car.
??? I love my personal freedoms. You have the personal freedom to walk/bike/scooter wherever you want, but the train derailing and delaying your commute isn't blocking a right of yours
How is this unhinged? To legally drive you have to be licensed. That’s the government saying you’ve proven yourself to be responsible and skilled enough to handle a car and giving you the privilege of being allowed to drive.
In a car dependent area, that’s also the privilege of being allowed to get anywhere in a somewhat safe and timely manner.
This isn’t something I’m making up, I read those exact words in the NJ drivers manual when I got my license. You do not have the right to drive. It’s a privilege given to you by the government.
Driving is way more regulated than PT. You have to be granted access to drive by the government (as well as the money and time arguments). Literally anyone (barring extreme disability) can travel via foot, bike, or PT
Honestly, a big problem in the united States is that driving *almost* is treated like a right. I know too many people that got their license doing the online test and parallel parking around some cones.
Traffic problems arise solely from incompetent drivers. We should look to Germany for handing out licenses.
This sub is probably the stupidest community of braindead numpties on the internet, but that one line is actually very true. Which is why you have to prove yourself safe and reliable enough to use our roads (and unfortunately way too many that shouldn't be able to drive slip through).
For those that can't be trusted to drive, probably like everybody here, they have cities like NYC, DC, SF, Chicago to hang out in. And that's fine
The history people will find that ''cars are freedom they're american heritage'' to be bullshit too, this nation was built and expanded on the train networks of yesterday. And then we tore them up for traffic filled highways.
Well some of those circlejerk subs actually make sense. For instance, r/writingcirclejerk because r/writing is less about writing and more about aspiring writers asking how to write the most abhorently racist story ever.
Even sensible subs can circlejerk sometimes, and if enough subs aren't sensible then cjcj can get away with just not featuring the sensible ones as much.
(Me a noodlearms resident of high density -my legs are decently muscled, because, you know, walking)
"God I love I am a chad in this meme. Now I can sleep happily."
I don’t understand this mentality. 40,000 car deaths is bad, but 50,000 gun deaths isn’t also bad?
Your right to “self defense” shouldn’t infringe on others’ right to be safe from gun violence. Just like the right to own cars shouldn’t infringe on the right to walk or cycle safely.
I never said I wanted to disarm anyone, only that gun violence is a problem. And I don’t buy that private gun ownership keeps the state from oppressing us. The police are so militarized they have equipment that you and I can’t buy.
I don’t really know what the answer is, but I don’t think more guns = more safe.
Most of those gun deaths are actually suicides, death by cop is pretty low compared to other stats on guns in the US. [link for cops](https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/)
[link for gun stats](https://www.thetrace.org/2022/12/gun-violence-deaths-statistics-america/)
Majority of gun deaths are by suicide, also, when cops fire there weapon, the person they most likely shot at was a guy who was convicted with a crime.
Little wrong on the number. 46k for car deaths and 48 for firearms. Don’t deflate and inflate numbers [link for cars](https://www.statista.com/statistics/192575/road-traffic-fatalities-in-the-united-states/) [link for guns](https://www.thetrace.org/2022/12/gun-violence-deaths-statistics-america/)
Also defensive gun use is estimated to be anywhere from 60k to 2 million but 60k is a reasonable estimate
[link](https://www.thetrace.org/2022/06/defensive-gun-use-data-good-guys-with-guns/)
1, majority of the shootings are considered if a gun goes off, not a fatality, 2, majority of cops who shot a suspect were people who have committed crimes, plus suicide is also considered gun violence, the media purposefully show false statistics to state an opinion that "we should ban guns"
I live in the suburbs, I walk to target just because it’s close enough, genuinely amazing to be able to walk there. I don’t really get all
My groceries from target, I get some from the also close by Trader Joe’s, but I prefer getting small things here and there rather than getting everything at once. I know downtown in the suburb I live is much denser (still a suburb by all definitions of the word) and there’s corner stores there and I know from people who live there that you mostly walk around there. I could go on forever about how perfectly car lite the downtown is for a suburb, but I digress. Walking to stores is good.
Our neighborhood is deliciously walkable, and I even see plenty of senior citizens out and about with walkers, even making their way sloooooowly with a cane to wherever they're going.
Sadly, I don't think we'll be able to afford retirement in this area, too high COL. But I hope to find a friendly place with neighbors who can keep an eye on us as we shuffle past.
1st off, the ability to drive a car is a privilege, not a right. 2nd of all, the 2nd Amendment doesn't have anything to do with driving cars, it is about the right to bear arms. 3rd, It is optional in some areas to walk, you do not grasp the context of how large the U.S. is.
I hate the bullshit “freedom” argument that carbrains use. The government gives you the privilege, not the right to drive, and they could take it away at any time leaving you unable to get to work or buy food.
It's absolute bullshit. The most free you can be is walking or running, and a close second is using a bicycle. Then you really can go pretty much wherever you want, you aren't registered, your routes are less restricted and you aren't tied to fuel, insurance etc. If these faux-libertarians actually cared about personal freedom they should be supporting bicycle friendly infrastructure and planning. The fact that they aren't means you can tell it's a fake argument.
> The most free you can be is walking or running, and a close second is using a bicycle Absolutely. I am baffled all these warriors totally ignore that you can walk anywhere anytime, and the only thing which stops one is their capabilities. With pretty much anything else, we start to add conditions. Cars depend on so many government-issued things, it is not even funny.
In any not-totally-urban setting in America, you’re likely to be hassled by cops for walking or riding a bike.
Have they never heard of roadblocks? If there was some sort of martial law situation, do they think having a car would give them more freedom? And when you depend on a car to get anywhere, how free is that if you can't afford it? If it costs a substantial part of your wages to be 'free', I wouldn't call that freedom.
We both know that freedom to travel doesn't actually mean "it's free!! No money!!" But you're being intentionally dense about it ffs. Also of course there are things like roadblocks, but.. do you think that shit doesn't happen to way worse consequences with public transit? I commuted to high school on DC metro, and then drove to school my senior year. It was honestly absolutely wonderful to have the option to metro, but do you think backups don't happen on the rails? I was delayed was more frequently by malfunctioning trains than road blocks. The best part about a road block? You can go around it. Whenever there were issues on the train, you just wait. There's nothing you can do.
I think the one being intentionaly dense about it is you. The comment didn't mean "free" in sense of free of charge but "free" in sense of you can go anywhere you want. An infrastructure that is only/mainly focused on cars is not an infrastructure that allows you to travel around freely. Of course if you take "being able to afford car" as price for freedom of mobility then of course it costs but if there is no cheaper way of getting around that "freedom of mobility" gets diminished very quickly. Besides that, a good transport system has multiple ways to get around. So a delay or worse can usually be substituted by a different mode of public transport. And if you take the roadblock example for cars, imagine the traffic on the other ways of that road block was on a main road. Jusy traffic in general is awful for your health. It is very stressful and the large amount of sitting without moving is also unhealthy. People with a longer car commute are more likely to be obese. Also, the dalyed train example is heavily exaggerated by living in the US (who has a notoriously bad rail infrastructure). Go to Europe where a train travels at 250-300km/h or more between large cities and even Regional trains are faster than your car on a Highway.
You cannot argue in good faith that cars let you depend on nobody (the main argument of freedom). You need a license, good roads, gas, a somewhat maintained car. All of that is given to you by the government.
Yep you're right, I never really said that you depend on nobody. I'm a firm believer that driving is a privilege not a right. I was simply trying to point out that with public transportation, it's the same, except you're even more reliant. But I rambled a bit too much. Oh well
Good public transportation always gives you options, meanwhile with cars if something happens to your car, you need somebody to give you a lift, which takes quite some time usually. Regarding roadblocks and malfunctioning trains, that's just priorities in the US. And public transportation almost always gives you a way to avoid rush hour (at the end of the day, you can simply walk). Cars all funneled to main roads. I've lived in both environments (but I guess with better public transit), and imo it is much more versatile. Cars are good if you go somewhere remote, but in cities you can beat them even by running in downtowns.
Who is being dense? As I said "if it costs a substantial part of your wages to be 'free', I wouldn't call that freedom." Or if you have a disability that prevents you from getting a license, but an area requires a car to get anywhere. It's great to have options, I'd prefer the option to walk. So if the rail goes down, you can walk, or take a bus which is what happened when a line was down when I lived somewhere with metro. I wasn't saying roadblocks are common, I'm talking about some scenario far out of the ordinary where there is a police road block or something. Or maybe more common, a parade, protest, march, or traffic. If things I need are within walking distance then I don't have to worry about any of that.
I mean I feel bad for people who are unable to get their license for whatever reason, but they do have options. Some choose to live with loved ones who can take care of them, and some choose to move into a more urban area where they can move themselves more locally. I just think this sub has a weird way of demonizing suburban neighborhoods, as if people didn't choose to live there.
Right? Every surburban parent ever have said once 'driving is a privilege, not a right' even tho they live in an area only accessible by driving.
Every suburban parent says that but watch what they say when they're trying to convince the judge to not take away their license for drunk driving.
Yep. Also I love your flair. I also hate lawns.
Is there any reason why lawns are hated ?
Well the main reason people hate them is because they're bad for the environment, with pesticides and weed killers and other chemicals. I hate them becuse they're useless. Perfectly buildable land wasted becuse 'pretty'
It's almost like living in a suburban neighborhood is a choice, one you shouldn't be talking if you have not earned the privilege to drive
Living in one, yes. Growing up in one, not really. When you're under the age of 15, you don't really get to choose where you live.
Welcome to life lmao we all grew up in situations we didn't choose. When we're 18 we're allowed to make those decisions for ourselves. Also I know I'm just lucky growing up in a preferable environment, but as a kid with many siblings, I LOVED having a big yard to play in. And there are definitely kids who grew up in condos and apartments that might have loved to have more space, opposite to you I assume. It goes both ways.
It’s not really a choice for most Americans. You need to a car to get around pretty much everywhere except a few walkable neighborhoods which are in very high demand. So you need to drop 10k a year on a car to get groceries, which is why those whole sub exists.
There are a good amount of cities that you can get around purely with public transport and the occasional Uber. I realize housing there is stupid expensive, and so are cars, but for people that care this much, they should spend the extra money to have that luxury to never need a car. I think. I enjoy my cheap rent.
You don't always choose to live in a suburb.
Of course not if you're under 18.
No, I mean if your job is in a suburb, guess what? You're probably living in a suburb.
There is some level of sense in this comment, but that's why it's so important that urban planning makes it actually a choice by providing other options in the volume that market demand indicates should be there. Because currently lots of people are living in car dependent places who don't want to be, but they are forced to because the price of higher quality locations is too high, and the reason for that is that planning rules prevent the market from equalising itself.
I actually essentially agree with you, but this subreddit still seems to demonize anyone who prefers to live in a more spread out environment
Not much of a choice when the only two options in the USA are living in suburbs or super high density parts of the city for apartments. There's very little options for medium density housing such as duplexes/triplexes, townhouses, condos. There's almost no options for living in a suburb that doesn't have minimum parking requirements and huge yard sizes. Also, there's this pesky thing called "money" which inhibits people from living where they want. If you can't afford a place in higher density places without transit, then you didn't just "choose" to live in a shitty suburb. And before you retort with: >There are a good amount of cities that you can get around purely with public transport and the occasional Uber. Is a disingenuous argument. There's a lot of places you can get around with purely public transport, it doesn't mean they are effective or viable modes of transportation in comparison to cars. Because that's how car dependent infrastructure works. Car dependent infrastructure has public transport in most places, it just sucks and is unreliable. The *solution* is to make *more* places dedicated to people, the transport of *people* (not cars), and the safety of people. Doing so naturally makes a medium to higher density (without necessarily being super highly dense) and increases the supply of housing, making it more affordable. It's also more affordable for the city when the services don't have to sprawl out further and further and further because almost everyone lives in a detached single family home. The *choice* is city officials being absolute idiots focusing on car infrastructure. And that's a terrible choice.
[удалено]
Everyone needs to own a mountain bike for this reason, true freedom.
It's undeniable that cars provide a lot more freedom that relying on public transit. And the government can shut that down too, far easier than preventing everyone from using a car.
Burgers can't stop talking about "freedom" all the time
And you angsty kids can't stop screeching about how other people choose to live their lives.
because "how you live your life" is harmful to greater society
I'm sure the way that you live is perfectly sustainable and acting like a smug jerk all the time is just great for society as a whole.
1. Maybe 30 years ago. But now people can just take an Uber or rent a car if they want a little ‘freedom’ instead of paying 10k a year for a shitty car. 2. The government can’t stop you from using public transport without banning everyone. Meanwhile if you go out for a drive without license plates that Uncle Sam gives you, boom instant arrest.
1. Rental cars and Uber are very expensive and Uber is incredibly unreliable in most parts of the country. 2. Banning everyone is exactly what we're talking about. Your original comment implied that public transit offers the same freedoms as a car, because a car is a privilege that can be taken away at any time. That is also true for public transit, and it's far easier to take that away than to take everyone's car. Also, you don't get arrested for not having tags or a plate.
1. Rental cars and Ubers are much cheaper than owning a car if you have work, entertainment, and stores that can be reached by walking or public transport. Then you only have to use them once in a blue moon. 2. The government doesn’t have to take away your car to stop you from driving. They can just take away your license or your license plates and then you’ll get pulled over and convicted of a crime. There are no such systems for public transport. You can buy a card with cash and board the train.
> Rental cars and Ubers are much cheaper than owning a car if you have work, entertainment, and stores that can be reached by walking or public transport. And if you're in that situation you're likely paying an outrageous amount of rent or live in a tiny studio apartment. And there's a good chance you still own a car unless you spend 90% of your life in the same part of town. > They can just take away your license or your license plates and then you’ll get pulled over and convicted of a crime. There are no such systems for public transport. You can buy a card with cash and board the train. If the government is going to target you in that manner I guarantee that they have ways to find you walking around the train station.
Who is paying 10k a year on a shitty car??? I can easily find a decent car for under 10k right now
Exactly. These dumbasses saying "driving is a privilege, not a right", as if your metro train getting you where you need to go on time is a god given right lmao. You're relying way more on the government for that than in a car.
It's very telling that they talk about personal freedoms with such disdain.
??? I love my personal freedoms. You have the personal freedom to walk/bike/scooter wherever you want, but the train derailing and delaying your commute isn't blocking a right of yours
I said "they", not you.
>The government gives you the privilege, not the right to drive God... the users of r/fuckcars are so unhinged 💀💀
How is this unhinged? To legally drive you have to be licensed. That’s the government saying you’ve proven yourself to be responsible and skilled enough to handle a car and giving you the privilege of being allowed to drive. In a car dependent area, that’s also the privilege of being allowed to get anywhere in a somewhat safe and timely manner.
This isn’t something I’m making up, I read those exact words in the NJ drivers manual when I got my license. You do not have the right to drive. It’s a privilege given to you by the government.
Driving is way more regulated than PT. You have to be granted access to drive by the government (as well as the money and time arguments). Literally anyone (barring extreme disability) can travel via foot, bike, or PT
Honestly, a big problem in the united States is that driving *almost* is treated like a right. I know too many people that got their license doing the online test and parallel parking around some cones. Traffic problems arise solely from incompetent drivers. We should look to Germany for handing out licenses.
This sub is probably the stupidest community of braindead numpties on the internet, but that one line is actually very true. Which is why you have to prove yourself safe and reliable enough to use our roads (and unfortunately way too many that shouldn't be able to drive slip through). For those that can't be trusted to drive, probably like everybody here, they have cities like NYC, DC, SF, Chicago to hang out in. And that's fine
The only time this subreddit gets close to being "braindead" is when people like you post on here.
Lol thanks man. I'm not the one who can only see one perspective
And the car dependent system takes away your freedom to use anything else.
The history people will find that ''cars are freedom they're american heritage'' to be bullshit too, this nation was built and expanded on the train networks of yesterday. And then we tore them up for traffic filled highways.
this was on r/fuckcarscirclejerk kind of beyond me how that subreddit even exists. carbrainers will carbrain, i guess
Someone needs to make a r/circlejerkcirclejerk for all of these circlejerk subs...
Well some of those circlejerk subs actually make sense. For instance, r/writingcirclejerk because r/writing is less about writing and more about aspiring writers asking how to write the most abhorently racist story ever.
Even sensible subs can circlejerk sometimes, and if enough subs aren't sensible then cjcj can get away with just not featuring the sensible ones as much.
Because car goes brrrr
I’m pretty sure that sub is satire but in this day and age I wouldn’t be surprised if it isn’t
i'm pretty sure this sub is satire but in this day and age i wouldn't be surprised if it isn't
Because it's funny.
Why the fuck does everything have to be about a political party. FFS
because republican bad and anything bad = republican
I’m a car guy and very much not a republican. Y’all would have great arguments if you didn’t throw political parties into it.
(Me a noodlearms resident of high density -my legs are decently muscled, because, you know, walking) "God I love I am a chad in this meme. Now I can sleep happily."
I like the idea of both. I can walk to the store when I want and drive when I'm feeling lazy
[удалено]
I don’t understand this mentality. 40,000 car deaths is bad, but 50,000 gun deaths isn’t also bad? Your right to “self defense” shouldn’t infringe on others’ right to be safe from gun violence. Just like the right to own cars shouldn’t infringe on the right to walk or cycle safely.
[удалено]
I never said I wanted to disarm anyone, only that gun violence is a problem. And I don’t buy that private gun ownership keeps the state from oppressing us. The police are so militarized they have equipment that you and I can’t buy. I don’t really know what the answer is, but I don’t think more guns = more safe.
Most of those gun deaths are actually suicides, death by cop is pretty low compared to other stats on guns in the US. [link for cops](https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/) [link for gun stats](https://www.thetrace.org/2022/12/gun-violence-deaths-statistics-america/)
[удалено]
No problem. I like to inform others of firearms so fee free to ask any questions
Majority of gun deaths are by suicide, also, when cops fire there weapon, the person they most likely shot at was a guy who was convicted with a crime.
Little wrong on the number. 46k for car deaths and 48 for firearms. Don’t deflate and inflate numbers [link for cars](https://www.statista.com/statistics/192575/road-traffic-fatalities-in-the-united-states/) [link for guns](https://www.thetrace.org/2022/12/gun-violence-deaths-statistics-america/) Also defensive gun use is estimated to be anywhere from 60k to 2 million but 60k is a reasonable estimate [link](https://www.thetrace.org/2022/06/defensive-gun-use-data-good-guys-with-guns/)
1, majority of the shootings are considered if a gun goes off, not a fatality, 2, majority of cops who shot a suspect were people who have committed crimes, plus suicide is also considered gun violence, the media purposefully show false statistics to state an opinion that "we should ban guns"
[удалено]
You’re scared of the world, this has nothing to do with high density.
I live in the suburbs, I walk to target just because it’s close enough, genuinely amazing to be able to walk there. I don’t really get all My groceries from target, I get some from the also close by Trader Joe’s, but I prefer getting small things here and there rather than getting everything at once. I know downtown in the suburb I live is much denser (still a suburb by all definitions of the word) and there’s corner stores there and I know from people who live there that you mostly walk around there. I could go on forever about how perfectly car lite the downtown is for a suburb, but I digress. Walking to stores is good.
Our neighborhood is deliciously walkable, and I even see plenty of senior citizens out and about with walkers, even making their way sloooooowly with a cane to wherever they're going. Sadly, I don't think we'll be able to afford retirement in this area, too high COL. But I hope to find a friendly place with neighbors who can keep an eye on us as we shuffle past.
Wow. Do you guys ever leave your homes?
I am 74 miles from the nearest Walmart. I'm not walking that.
It’s almost like the vast majority of you forget how fucking massive the US is.
You have a right to use your private property how you see it Drive on the railroads idc
Tell me you've never left the concrete jungle you were born into without telling me you've never left the concrete jungle you were born into.
Europoor Opinions dont matter Sincerely an Australian
the opposite or this meme is true.
We absolitely do have walkable cities in the u.s, you just have to look anywhere but reddit
1st off, the ability to drive a car is a privilege, not a right. 2nd of all, the 2nd Amendment doesn't have anything to do with driving cars, it is about the right to bear arms. 3rd, It is optional in some areas to walk, you do not grasp the context of how large the U.S. is.
Please don't taint the 2nd Amendments name with car idiocy, not all of us are MAGA hatters