let's ban all cars! no. but we SHOULD do SOMEthing.

Great Debates
41

  1. Providing myself with food.

  2. Driving myself somewhere to purchase food.

You’re right. Cars are for folks too cowardly to kill their own meet. :stuck_out_tongue:
Actually, I can see/accept a world without either or with very strict controls on both. Cars have become as ingrained in America as “Guns, Guts and God”. Go back to living near your work rather than commute and all that. But I think the odds of you pulling it off soon are really slim. You do have some efforts at education through the schools and incentives from employers. But the entire movement is still in its infancy. Say right about where the smoking/air pollution movement was back in the late 50s

42

Are you kidding me? When you sell a gun, do you have to file paperwork with the state? Do you have to pass a state test to fire one? Are you forced to carry insurance when you own one?
BTW, the kids in Connecticut didn’t die from being frightened to death. A ban on assault weapons is not do to their looking scary, it would be because of their capabilities.

Which makes me think of a solution to the problem. Don’t ban guns - just register them and require that all guns be insured. Guns which can do a lot of damage would cost more to insure than smaller ones. Having your gun stolen would not release you from liability. Insurance companies would be allowed to offer discounts for interlocks, gun safes, and the like. People feeling they need arsenals can have them - but they’d have to pay a lot for the privilege. And every year also.
That would be free enterprise at work.

43

[QUOTE=Voyager]
A ban on assault weapons is not do to their looking scary, it would be because of their capabilities.
[/QUOTE]

Which gun that was used would have been part of the old AWB law?

You do have to file paperwork to buy a gun from a dealer…I know, because I’ve seen my dad have to fill out such paperwork and wait for authorization before he could buy a handgun before. There is a loophole for gun shows that I don’t have a problem with closing, personally. Regulation of cars isn’t trivial, but MY point was that no one is trying to ban them based on cosmetics…which is why car manufacturers don’t respond in similar ways to the NRA, who has had a lot of experience with anti-gun folks actively trying to ban everything and anything they can with the obvious intent of making it near impossible for ordinary citizens to keep or own firearms.

44

I can, can you?

45

… because … Freedom!

Realistically, an actual ban on cars is not going to happen, but seriously, we do need to look at the issues and impacts related to pervasive car use.

There are the obvious concerns about safety, pollution and profligacy, these can be addressed more effectively by someone else because, as far as safety goes, I believe cars have become too safe – I would favor banning seatbelts, airbags and windshields just to make driving a less desirable option.

One major issue related to cars that always gets overlooked is their de-socializing effect. We get into little closed cages that separate us from everything around us, and driving becomes a martial art where everyone else is the enemy, an impediment to our rightful progress or a potential collision. And between where we are and where we want to be, there is this sort of cinematic interlude going by. This is in fact related to the gun issue inasmuch as we have become a macro-cube-city where interacting with others tends toward being a hostile act.

And because everyone is acquainted with this behavior pattern, the roads have become the sole property of the car. People fear riding a bicycle on the road because cars are large, stupid, painful and the airbags are for some strange reason on the inside. So alternative ways of getting there are gradually consumed by the automobile. Practical public transit does not exist (except in cities) not because it is inefficient (quite the opposite) but because fuel is terrifically underpriced.

So there is your first answer to addressing the problem with cars. You cannot ban them, but you can make them nearly beyond practical reach by raising gas taxes. The revenue from the tripling of gas prices would go in part to improving the alternative transportation infrastructure: more buses and real enforcement of crimes against bicycles and pedestrians.

If we can get out of our cars, we would almost certainly be a healthier people, actually using our muscles to walk or ride places (I could realistically walk two miles to the grocery store, but the car traffic makes that walk rather unpleasant) and more likely to feel like we are moving in the world instead of through it AFAP.

Oh, and one other thing: there was the guy who abducted an 8 y/o girl from a playground by shoving her into the back of his car. Not having a car to do that with sure would have made it a whole lot more difficult for him to do that.

46

But you don’t have congressmen, in response to the drunk driving problem, proposing to ban or limit the types of cars people can buy. By regulating drunk driving, you are regulating the use of cars.

The gun rights proponents have no problems with penalties for murder with a gun or discharge within the city limits.

This is why I like the car analogy: People concentrate on what people do while in the cars, not the cars themselves.

And it doesn’t apply to anything else for that matter. During and after the OJ Simpson case, I never heard anyone mention once that it was a shame that OJ ever bought a knife or that they were too easy to buy. The focus was on what was done with the knife.

47

For drunk driving, maybe, and even here, there are calls from a minority of voices to install ignition locks on all cars to prevent drunken driving.

Beyond that, we’re constantly tinkering with the cars themselves. Fuel economy, emissions standards, seat belts, simulated noise for too quiet hybrids, and air bags are all things that are regulated due to concerns about health or safety. Next up, it’s just a matter of time before rearview cameras are mandated on all new vehicles.

We’re definitely not just concentrating on what people do while in vehicles but on the vehicles themselves to make them safer for the occupants and for the general public.

There’s not a whole lot of regulation on firearm features by contrast.

48

I believe we should ban all cars that are designed and manufactured for the sole purpose of running people over.

49

I would expand that to include designs for running animals over, and even designs for running down paper/cardboard cutouts of people. It’s a slippery slope, you know.

50

Yes there are. As one example IIRC, guns don’t go off when you drop them. That’s because there are requirements that specify drop tests.

The car regulations you referenced have more to do with commercial production/distribution and then use on public roads. If I wanted to build my own car I wouldn’t have to put air bags in it or even breaks. I would not, however, be allowed to drive it on public roads.

Unless of course I got it registered as some sort of special car like an antique, in which case I’ve found a nice little loop hole…

That’s the problem with comparing guns and cars, people confuse ownership with public use. As far as I’m aware, no one in the US is allowed to “use” a gun in public, that would be unlawful discharge.

The second amendment is about ownership, not use. Likewise, nearly all of the regulations we have concerning motor vehicles relate to their use, not their ownership.

51

Precisely. The world as we see it today isn’t the only possible one. It’s conceivable that back at the turn of the 20th century people could have said “These newfangled horseless carriages are just too damned dangerous for ordinary people to own!” And then we’d be living in a world with motorized delivery trucks, ambulances, fire engines, etc., but where average people got around on foot or by public transportation. (Like most Third World cities today, in fact, or Amsterdam.)

We don’t actually “need” cars as much as the average person thinks we do. But most of us like to have them, and no one’s out there actually lobbying to ban sports cars, or red cars, or to slowly but steadily restrict the rights of average people to own cars in the hope of eventually achieving a carless Nirvana. That IS going on with guns, and I think that alone explains the difference in the lobbying activity between AAA and the NRA.

52

Good points. Also, firearms are very, very simple machines compared to cars. That makes it harder to build in more safety features. Most of the problem with guns don’t involve a defective design, they involve defective usage. The gun involved is working precisely as it’s supposed to - it’s going off when the trigger is pulled.

53

There are still not a lot, by contrast, but granted firearms are simpler machines.

As for use of firearms, certainly public use of firearms is legal in several states. I’m surprised you claim otherwise, or else that Texas public hunting permit I bought is a real funny bit of paper.

And certainly, there are plenty of rules and regulations concerning the actual use of firearms in public. Granted, most of them have to do with hunting, but that’s still regulation on the use of firearms in public.

If you limit “use” even further to simply carrying it around, public display of long arms is perfectly legal in Texas, though people might get a bit curious or antsy if you choose to exercise that right in the middle of Houston.

54

The AAA and NRA are both lobbying organizations - but one is also a protection racket specializing in politicians.

Can anyone figure out which one?

55

Of course, if we wanted to continue the analogy, we could always require people in public to wear bullet proof vests.

Your post highlights the way people tend to confuse the terms “use” with “possession.” Use of a firearm isn’t the act of carrying it around, anymore than use of a car involves having on the back of a truck. If you look closer at your hunting permit, it says nothing about walking through the woods looking at deer. It is concerned with the use of a firearm to destroy the object it is pointing at. I believe you will find that Texas has plenty of laws/regulations concerning the actual use of a hunting rifle in public (ie discharge of a bullet) . Florida on the other hand is a whole 'nother story.

56

i live and work in pittsburgh, and my daily commute is around 6 miles round trip. this fact is largely the result of choices on my part, though i do consider myself lucky to have so many job choices within the city.

what you describe, though, is part of what i consider the problem. the only reasonable solution for you is to spend hours getting angry at other cars (or even their occupants) while presumably crawling your way to and from work each day. there is clearly a design flaw here, and one that is difficult to fix due to any number of reasons. people have tried to contrast AAA with the NRA, but AAA is a powerful organization that does lobby against things that might reduce automobile ownership, such as mass transit or bicycling infrastructure.

57

is this meant for me? i didn’t claim that anyone seriously believed that.

i think 30,000 IS a large number, and while i agree that the social utility of personal automobile use outweighs that, it doesn’t have to be that high. it has always surprised me that we haven’t done more to mitigate the risks. when things get too out of hand, we reign them in (e.g. drunk driving), but the death toll seems to hover right around 30-40 thousand. that’s the amount we consider tolerable. perhaps we think that many people are bound to die, that it’s inevitable, but i contend that it is very much evitable!

58

deaths for people inside cars have been decreasing. this is not true for pedestrians and bicyclists, especially as they have increased in share. while that means there are more of them to die, it also means they deserve more consideration.

there’s a lot that i would propose changing. some of it is practically impossible (e.g. the pennsylvania constitution prohibits fuel tax money from being spent on public transit). i mentioned changing age and training requirements for obtaining initial licenses. i would also propose raising fuel taxes significantly, and finding ways to close loopholes for ultra-efficient but still damaging vehicles, like hybrids. i would make it a priority to build and maintain roads in a manner that makes them safe for all users, not just those inside automobiles (this is decidedly not the way the DOT works here, or at the national level before ray lahood [and even still]). i would find a way to destigmatize public transit, and find incentives for people to use it. and i would make parking prices more representative of their true costs and limit surface lots (as well as highways) in urban areas.

oh, and i would also have everyone read traffic: why we drive the way we do (and what it says about us) by tom vanderbilt.

these things mean increased (near term) costs for car users, and are therefore not terribly politically viable. i wish for that to change, but first we must admit we have a problem (and one that goes beyond mere death statistics).

59

one point jokingly brought up in the book i mentioned above is that the way to make cars safest for everyone is to install a knife in the steering wheel, pointed at the driver’s chest. see how much distracted and reckless driving we have then!

i wonder if you too are a bearded bike-riding hippie (which, incidentally, are the only two things about me that make me hippie-esque). i pretty much agree with all of this. so how do we convince everyone else that hasn’t already moved to amsterdam?

60

If this wasn’t clear, I was responding to this:

No matter your definition of “use”, my use of firearms in hunting is included and well regulated.

So now, I’m confused. At first, you were arguing that the public use of firearms is only regulated to the extent that it is not allowed vs rules dealing with possession. But then you turn around and lecture about public “use” as it relates to hunting.

If your point is that people like to regulate motor vehicles by use and firearms by possession, fine, but it’s still wrong.

The extent of that regulation is different, of course. Taking this back to motor vehicles, if you are licensed by the state and your vehicle properly licensed and registered, you are allowed greater latitude in operating your vehicle in public than operating your firearm in public. But that’s a difference in degree, not in basis.