ADVERTISEMENT

We need car control!!!

Hmmm...
There are extra taxes for cars.
There are extra taxes for fuel.
You need to register all cars, yearly, with a large fee.
You must obtain insurance for your car, also at a high fee.
Many states require cars to be inspected yearly, at a fee.
You need a license to use a car.
You need to regularly demonstrate you are able to drive a car to keep that license.
You must be a certain age to obtain that license.
There are ridiculous safety regulations for cars.
There are ridiculous other regulations for cars.

oh, and cars have a primary purpose other than killing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFhonors and Knight_Classes_begin_7pm
until they are hacked.
BTW, heavy pedestrian places and/or tourist places like that should have bollards installed next to the sidewalk. The amount of people that can get injured is huge even if it is a drunk driver.
 
chemmie said:
Hmmm...
There are extra taxes for cars.
There are extra taxes for fuel.
You need to register all cars, yearly, with a large fee.
You must obtain insurance for your car, also at a high fee.
Many states require cars to be inspected yearly, at a fee.
You need a license to use a car.
You need to regularly demonstrate you are able to drive a car to keep that license.
You must be a certain age to obtain that license.
There are ridiculous safety regulations for cars.
There are ridiculous other regulations for cars.

oh, and cars have a primary purpose other than killing.
Click to expand...

Jesus, you're an idiot.

All of that exists because a car, by definition, is ONLY used is 100% public spaces. If you have a car that car is going onto a road with other people, period. Unless you're drag racing by yourself, there's no way around this.

A firearm that is bought and goes into someone's safe in their house will never enter the public space. It's bought for the most protected and long standing right- the right to protect your property and your family. There should be no ridiculous list of requirements for a person to own a firearm for that person.

If a person wishes to carry that firearm in a public space, you need a license and there is a laundry list of laws that apply to your method and ability to carry that firearm.

I know it sucks hearing this, since you'd prefer to mindlessly push this idea that owning a car and a firearm need identical regulation, but you're wrong and so are the dolts who push this line.
 
I actually do think there should be more testing to prove you aren't a hazard behind the wheel. Yesterday Dingy and I saw a lady who must be a hoarder because her car was full of bags and newspapers (on the dashboard obstructing her view) nearly cause a wreck because she was driving in between two lanes on University. I see constant stupidity on the 408 or the 417 on my commute, and I've heard of many families who hesitate to tell Granny or Gramps that they can't drive anymore to avoid hurting their feelings. Cars are stupidly dangerous if you're a bad driver. Hell, it's dangerous out there for a good driver. Anyway, so the whole car argument to prove gun control doesn't work is silly because I, and many people I've talked to, also think there should be mandatory re-testing to keep your drivers license.I mean, isn't that logical?
 
UCFKnight85 said:
Jesus, you're an idiot.

All of that exists because a car, by definition, is ONLY used is 100% public spaces. If you have a car that car is going onto a road with other people, period. Unless you're drag racing by yourself, there's no way around this.

A firearm that is bought and goes into someone's safe in their house will never enter the public space. It's bought for the most protected and long standing right- the right to protect your property and your family. There should be no ridiculous list of requirements for a person to own a firearm for that person.

If a person wishes to carry that firearm in a public space, you need a license and there is a laundry list of laws that apply to your method and ability to carry that firearm.

I know it sucks hearing this, since you'd prefer to mindlessly push this idea that owning a car and a firearm need identical regulation, but you're wrong and so are the dolts who push this line.
Click to expand...
That's going to leave a mark . His only response will be to berate you for unfriending him on Facebook
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1ofTheseKnights
Liberals will one day claim that firearms produce CO2 and go for the outright ban.
 
She was not drunk..
Sadly this is a horrific accident..
And yes cars are not dangerous, the humans who are too busy texting, Tweeting, updating their facebook status, or doing anything they do on the phone, is quite a danger and perhaps we should prevent drivers from killing by taking away all cars! Honestly, we can have a more futurama style system, of people hopping on and off at massive train like sections, and get everyone to walk again..
 
LittleMissKnight said:
I actually do think there should be more testing to prove you aren't a hazard behind the wheel. Yesterday Dingy and I saw a lady who must be a hoarder because her car was full of bags and newspapers (on the dashboard obstructing her view) nearly cause a wreck because she was driving in between two lanes on University. I see constant stupidity on the 408 or the 417 on my commute, and I've heard of many families who hesitate to tell Granny or Gramps that they can't drive anymore to avoid hurting their feelings. Cars are stupidly dangerous if you're a bad driver. Hell, it's dangerous out there for a good driver. Anyway, so the whole car argument to prove gun control doesn't work is silly because I, and many people I've talked to, also think there should be mandatory re-testing to keep your drivers license.I mean, isn't that logical?
Click to expand...

Seems like that's discriminatory. Ageist?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1ofTheseKnights
Bob the Knight said:
Seems like that's discriminatory. Ageist?
Click to expand...
I mean, sure it can be ageist, but then you can say it's also discriminatory to those who don't have good motor function control, etc. But in the end, you should have to be physically and mentally able to drive a car WELL to be able to get behind the wheel of something that can so easily kill people. But again, that's just my opinion and frankly it matters, or doesn't, as much as the next person's opinion.
 
chemmie said:
Hmmm...
There are extra taxes for cars.
There are extra taxes for fuel.
You need to register all cars, yearly, with a large fee.
You must obtain insurance for your car, also at a high fee.
Many states require cars to be inspected yearly, at a fee.
You need a license to use a car.
You need to regularly demonstrate you are able to drive a car to keep that license.
You must be a certain age to obtain that license.
There are ridiculous safety regulations for cars.
There are ridiculous other regulations for cars.

oh, and cars have a primary purpose other than killing.
Click to expand...


Learn the law before you start to argue bullshit. You don't need to have a license to drive a car. You don't need insurance to drive a car. You only need a license or insurance to drive on public roads. I'm tired of hearing that "you need a license to drive a car" BS. You can drive a car as much as you want on your private property, another's private property or on private roads or sovereign reservations/communes or other similar organizations recognized by the federal government. Farm vehicles? Service vehicles? They require no license. What about a big diesel tractor? I hear those can be brutal if they hit you...

just like a gun concealed permit license, you need a license to drive IN PUBLIC.


Please, also find out how many crimes are committed with drivers on SUSPENDED or Expired licenses. Licensing does nothing.

I'm done caring what people do with their own lives. If I'm stupid enough to hang around an idiot with a death-wish, regardless of what they are doing...so be it, I've accepted my risk. The problem with pseudo-liberalism these days is that they all think they can categorize and define "risk" for everyone else...completely ignoring the concept of chaos, the one element in every equation that tips the scales and why statistics cannot be used to determine certainty.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1ofTheseKnights
LittleMissKnight said:
I mean, sure it can be ageist, but then you can say it's also discriminatory to those who don't have good motor function control, etc. But in the end, you should have to be physically and mentally able to drive a car WELL to be able to get behind the wheel of something that can so easily kill people. But again, that's just my opinion and frankly it matters, or doesn't, as much as the next person's opinion.
Click to expand...


I agree that once you hit the age of 65, or 70, when it is socially acceptable that you can relax and retire, it makes sense that also reaction time, memory and judgment can be impaired with age. This is proven, it has little to do with opinion. I do not think it is outside the realm of possibility to have seniors over 65 get tested every 3-5 years to determine competency, just like any other form of machinery potentially in a work-place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
Bob the Knight said:
So it's institutional discrimination. You need to check your age privilege.
Click to expand...


Ok. How about a challenge. Find ANY person that is 70 years old and put them into a simple Hyundai and put them against a 25-year-old in the same simple car. Test their reaction times, decision making and eye-sight and compare/contrast and then tell me there is no change. Age IS a very limiting factor when dealing with heavy machinery. There's loads of science to prove it.

Besides, when I get that age, I'll just have my grandkids drive me around.
 
Mr. Knightman said:
Ok. How about a challenge. Find ANY person that is 70 years old and put them into a simple Hyundai and put them against a 25-year-old in the same simple car. Test their reaction times, decision making and eye-sight and compare/contrast and then tell me there is no change. Age IS a very limiting factor when dealing with heavy machinery. There's loads of science to prove it.

Besides, when I get that age, I'll just have my grandkids drive me around.
Click to expand...
The old person will do better because the 25-year old will be f$&@ng around with the cell phone and make up (if female)
 
CommuterBob said:
View embedded media


Gun deaths per 100,000 people have now matched vehicle deaths per 100,000 people. The car argument is becoming moot.
Click to expand...

That's a fine argument pushed by left wing zealots who bend facts to make a point.

In 2013, the last year of unrevised figures we have, there were 32,719 deaths caused by automobiles. During that same year, 11,208 deaths were caused by guns in homicides or manslaughter.

Simple math shows that's 10.5 per 100K for cars, 3.5 per 100K for guns.

Of course, the thing that left wingers ALWAYS include but never contextualize is the number of suicides, which happen to be far and away the largest % of "gun deaths" per year. However, this is a total fallacy and illogical. The status of mental health and suicide rate in this country is the issue there, not the means of suicide.

The fact remains: if you're not suicidal and want to know which is most likely to result in your death, operating an automobile wins hands down.
 
UCFKnight85 said:
That's a fine argument pushed by left wing zealots who bend facts to make a point.

In 2013, the last year of unrevised figures we have, there were 32,719 deaths caused by automobiles. During that same year, 11,208 deaths were caused by guns in homicides or manslaughter.

Simple math shows that's 10.5 per 100K for cars, 3.5 per 100K for guns.

Of course, the thing that left wingers ALWAYS include but never contextualize is the number of suicides, which happen to be far and away the largest % of "gun deaths" per year. However, this is a total fallacy and illogical. The status of mental health and suicide rate in this country is the issue there, not the means of suicide.

The fact remains: if you're not suicidal and want to know which is most likely to result in your death, operating an automobile wins hands down.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but wouldn't a suicide attempt by gun be one of, if not the most, effective ways to result in death? It's still a gun-related death. There are folks who try to kill themselves by driving into a bridge abutment too.
 
About the only thing that graph shows is that cars are becoming a lot safer and gun related deaths have been relatively flat for the last 60 years.

With the way people have been reacting you'd think that gun related deaths are up 100s of percentage points.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CommuterBob
CommuterBob said:
Maybe, but wouldn't a suicide attempt by gun be one of, if not the most, effective ways to result in death? It's still a gun-related death. There are folks who try to kill themselves by driving into a bridge abutment too.
Click to expand...

Another fallacy pushed by the left.

They want you to believe that no guns would = less people effectively killing themselves if they want to die. The problem with this is twofold: 1.) There are literally hundreds of ways to assure you die, the most notable being using drugs to overdose. 2.) Stats (below) show that suicide rates in countries wehre guns are ILLEGAL far outpace our suicide rates.

525px-Suicide-deaths-per-100000-trend.jpg


All of the countries in that list are "examples" of gun control success pushed by the left, yet all of their have higher suicide rates than us, despite having limited or no access to firearms.

Suicide is a societal problem that should be addressed, but it shouldn't be used in a gun control debate since it's fundamentally outside the parameters of assessing "gun violence" as it applies to people who don't want to die.
 
UCFKnight85 said:
Another fallacy pushed by the left.

They want you to believe that no guns would = less people effectively killing themselves if they want to die. The problem with this is twofold: 1.) There are literally hundreds of ways to assure you die, the most notable being using drugs to overdose. 2.) Stats (below) show that suicide rates in countries wehre guns are ILLEGAL far outpace our suicide rates.

525px-Suicide-deaths-per-100000-trend.jpg


All of the countries in that list are "examples" of gun control success pushed by the left, yet all of their have higher suicide rates than us, despite having limited or no access to firearms.

Suicide is a societal problem that should be addressed, but it shouldn't be used in a gun control debate since it's fundamentally outside the parameters of assessing "gun violence" as it applies to people who don't want to die.
Click to expand...
I just find it ironic that you're complaining about people cherry picking statistics to suit their own end, yet here you are cherry-picking statistics to suit your own end. Beautiful.

The point remains, a gun death is still a death, intentionally self-inflicted, or not. Suicide is a selfish and desperate act that is often a result of a mental health issue, but then again, so often is homicide.

However, gun control at this point is like trying to ban weed. Further regulation only pushes them further underground and their proliferation is not something that can realistically be controlled.
 
CommuterBob said:
I just find it ironic that you're complaining about people cherry picking statistics to suit their own end, yet here you are cherry-picking statistics to suit your own end. Beautiful.

The point remains, a gun death is still a death, intentionally self-inflicted, or not. Suicide is a selfish and desperate act that is often a result of a mental health issue, but then again, so often is homicide.

However, gun control at this point is like trying to ban weed. Further regulation only pushes them further underground and their proliferation is not something that can realistically be controlled.
Click to expand...

How in the hell am I cherry picking stats? That is actual data showing that our suicide rates are far below many countries where gun ownership is illegal.

This is relevant since you, and others, want everyone to believe that easier access to guns will assuredly lead to higher suicide rates. Yet this has been shown to be not true- clearly there are societal issues that far outweigh access to firearms when looking at suicide rates.

A gun death is not a gun death. If a person drives himself off a cliff on purpose, should that be factored into the more broader issue of car safety on roads and highways, and public policy? No, of course that. To suggest that would be absurd and dangerous. Why then do suicides with a firearm get lumped in with the broader issue of homicide via firearms?

The left wing trying to impose gun control on legal self defense based upon figures that willfully include suicide, a societal and mental health issue, is both dangerous and unconstitutional.
 
UCFKnight85 said:
How in the hell am I cherry picking stats? That is actual data showing that our suicide rates are far below many countries where gun ownership is illegal.

This is relevant since you, and others, want everyone to believe that easier access to guns will assuredly lead to higher suicide rates. Yet this has been shown to be not true- clearly there are societal issues that far outweigh access to firearms when looking at suicide rates.

A gun death is not a gun death. If a person drives himself off a cliff on purpose, should that be factored into the more broader issue of car safety on roads and highways, and public policy? No, of course that. To suggest that would be absurd and dangerous. Why then do suicides with a firearm get lumped in with the broader issue of homicide via firearms?

The left wing trying to impose gun control on legal self defense based upon figures that willfully include suicide, a societal and mental health issue, is both dangerous and unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Ummm...you are cherry-picking by saying suicides shouldn't count in the gun death totals. Guardrails and barrier walls get put up to keep people from driving off cliffs. Fences and railings get put up to keep people from jumping off buildings. So yes, such things are considered in the greater good and public policy.

If your argument is to stave off homicide, and only homicide, then yeah. But there are other forms of preventable death (such as suicide and accidents) that could be accomplished by reducing the amount of guns in our society. The goal is to prevent deaths, not just homicides.
 
CommuterBob said:
Ummm...you are cherry-picking by saying suicides shouldn't count in the gun death totals. Guardrails and barrier walls get put up to keep people from driving off cliffs. Fences and railings get put up to keep people from jumping off buildings. So yes, such things are considered in the greater good and public policy.

If your argument is to stave off homicide, and only homicide, then yeah. But there are other forms of preventable death (such as suicide and accidents) that could be accomplished by reducing the amount of guns in our society. The goal is to prevent deaths, not just homicides.
Click to expand...

smh

Guardrails on bridges are to prevent people from accidentally driving off the bridge and dying. They will do absolutely nothing against someone who is intent on killing themselves.

And you just repeated your thesis that I've already shown to be inaccurate and based on false assumptions. You are again assuming that reducing guns will = fewer suicides, yet the statistical evidence I've already put forth shows that accessibility to firearms has very little to do with overall suicide statistics in a country. You are wrongly assuming that a suicidal person would lack access to a firearm and suddenly not feel the urge to kill themselves.

If you want to stop the 2/3 of all deaths by firearms, then go advocate for better mental health care, a recommitment to a family structure, and for friends/families to get involved when someone is clearly distributed or suicidal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFRogerz
UCFKnight85 said:
smh

Guardrails on bridges are to prevent people from accidentally driving off the bridge and dying. They will do absolutely nothing against someone who is intent on killing themselves..
Click to expand...

Agreed. A guardrail on a bridge is like a safety on a gun. If one is intent on committing suicide, it's gonna happen regardless of guard rails or safeties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

UCFChargeOn

Is Georgia the next Baylor?

Replies
24
Views
2K
The Dungeon - Knights Only
litehedded
L
Brandon

***Gus Malzahn Pre-Spring Practice Press Conference 🏈***

Replies
19
Views
2K
The Dungeon - Knights Only
lazysunday
L
Brandon

***Chip Lindsey loves UCF's 'energy,' excited about transfer class***

Replies
34
Views
2K
The Dungeon - Knights Only
firm_bizzle
firm_bizzle
gapman333

UCF Fast & Slow – Cincy Bearcats Edition

Replies
42
Views
2K
The Dungeon - Knights Only
Endeavor.
Endeavor.
T

Heather Cox Richardson February 22,2020 (History lesson)

Replies
2
Views
347
The Water Cooler
Sir Galahad
Sir Galahad
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back