Cars, Cars, Cars!

This is a past incident and no one died, but the video illustrates the point.

https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-lo ... t-16564569

So what is the point that is illustrated?
If you mean that people have used cars to kill others, then that's hardly new information.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:This is a past incident and no one died, but the video illustrates the point.

https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-lo ... t-16564569

Daryl wrote:So what is the point that is illustrated?
If you mean that people have used cars to kill others, then that's hardly new information.

I think the point he's making is that cars are very dangerous and that their use needs to be tightly regulated so that accidents are kept to a minimum.

(AKA the latest in a long line of TFLY accidentally making a case for gun control by analogy)

The E wrote:

Daryl wrote:So what is the point that is illustrated?
If you mean that people have used cars to kill others, then that's hardly new information.

I think the point he's making is that cars are very dangerous and that their use needs to be tightly regulated so that accidents are kept to a minimum.

(AKA the latest in a long line of TFLY accidentally making a case for gun control by analogy)

And you are stupid enough to believe that this was an an accident?

TFLYTSNBN wrote:And you are stupid enough to believe that this was an an accident?

Are you stupid enough to believe that what you're doing in any way invalidates the idea that guns are dangerous and that gun ownership should be tightly regulated to keep the fucking things out of the hands of people who cannot be relied upon to handle them safely and legally?

It seems you are operating under the impression that I or others who are arguing against gun ownership as a fundamental right are somehow unaware that people will use tools other than guns if and when they want to hurt others if guns are not available. We are perfectly aware of this. We're just also aware that removing guns from the equation will drastically reduce the amount of incidents involving them; Unless you're prepared to argue that (for example) a significant portion of car accidents are in fact attacks using cars as a weapon, you really do not have a coherent case.

But then, you not making coherent arguments is nothing new....

The E wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:And you are stupid enough to believe that this was an an accident?

Are you stupid enough to believe that what you're doing in any way invalidates the idea that guns are dangerous and that gun ownership should be tightly regulated to keep the fucking things out of the hands of people who cannot be relied upon to handle them safely and legally?

It seems you are operating under the impression that I or others who are arguing against gun ownership as a fundamental right are somehow unaware that people will use tools other than guns if and when they want to hurt others if guns are not available. We are perfectly aware of this. We're just also aware that removing guns from the equation will drastically reduce the amount of incidents involving them; Unless you're prepared to argue that (for example) a significant portion of car accidents are in fact attacks using cars as a weapon, you really do not have a coherent case.

But then, you not making coherent arguments is nothing new....

I am making the case that when guns are unavailable, other weapons can and will be substituted for equally deadly effect. The homicide rate in Europe was nearly two orders of magnitude higher before guns became reliable and capable of firing repeatedly. Most homicides were with knives. European countries succeeded in reducing their homicide rates to very low levels long before they developed the current mania for tightly regulating guns.

America is a large, diverse country where homicide rates tend to be lowest where guns are less stringently regulated and more available. Conversely, there is an extremely tight correllation between low arrest rates for violent crime and high murder rates. Unfortunately; the American people are largely unaware of this reality because their attention is fixated on guns. This fixation is encouraged by foreigners who are far more interested in boasting about how "civilized" they are than the lives of Americans.

"Current Mania"?

... Britain has had gun control legislation since 1824!

edgeworthy wrote:"Current Mania"?

... Britain has had gun control legislation since 1824!

How stringent?

BTW, the US has had gun control laws since it's founding. The Southern States had draconian laws prohibiting Blacks from owning or carrying guns.