Because, thematically, if just doesn't fot the tone of the series. 1 and 3 are both feel good, inspirational racing movies. 2? Its an action adventure spy movie starring a racecar and a tow truck. Idk man, its just weird.
My takeaway from it was that the fossil fuel industry/lobby will do everything in their power to avoid losing profit, including faking alternative fuels and making them look dangerous so as discourage funding and research into them.
Haha that's fair. And yeah that's an apt description of what it boils down to. I also think some of the UK government in the film was also involved in it, if I remember correctly, so it's also a "can't trust all the government" as well.
Lol, I have maybe two opinions about the Cars franchise. One is that it's a pretty fun series, but dont think about the fact that Car Jesus exists. The other is this one, about the very weird tone shift of the second movie.
So… you know the movie Cars, right? And you know how there’s baby cars? Yeah, they have baby cars in the movie Cars. Like a small car that grows bigger. Now when a- when a boy car loves a girl car, they make a baby car. To do that …(they’re all looking at me)… they need a- they need a CUSSY. You need a- …the cussy is where the car comes from. C- it’s a c- it’s a car pussy. It’s a car pussy.
Oh god, if I could ban cars from our city centre, I would in a heartbeat. Just let delivery trucks in at night, the rest of the day would be so peaceful and quiet.
When I visited Japan and would every once in a while see little kei trucks slowly ambling, just faster than the peds who had no trouble making room, to make their deliveries throughout the day; that shit just made so much more sense.
rhetorically i think its interesting why people defending gun ownership will talk about banning cars. they are saying that because to north americans, banning cars is unthinkable as cars are simply that entrenched in daily life here, vis a vis, they also think banning guns is unthinkable as guns are so entrenched in daily life here
It's more than just cars and guns being so entrenched that they can't imagine a nation without them.
They're declaring that the death and damage they cause don't matter, that it's just a basic and necessary fact of life and they're going to resist any change to the status quo.
I think part of it is that cars also represent ultimate freedom. Say what you want, but the fact that with a car you can decide to make a trip to a very specific place at a very specific time means in theory you can move around without constraints. I'm pretty sure that's how cars were sold to people overall too.
Thing is, with proper urban planning and transit setups, you sacrifice a sliver of that "freedom" and are still able to get around pretty easily. For the places you can't get to via transit, you could always rent a car or better yet use a car share program.
True to some extent, but a lot of that is only because of the effort we've put in to make our world accessible by car. You can't drive through a forest, or mountains, or a river (at least without a car or truck specialized for those environments). People only feel free in cars because our roads are designed to free people in *cars*.
For the places you can't get to via transit you can just walk because if you don't build a sprawling city, everything is a lot closer together.
There is no "sliver of freedom" being sacrificed because you're taking public transport that actually works, because you still get to where you want to go in a cheap way, and I'd argue there's more freedom there because you aren't tied to car-related worries after you get there, like finding a good, practical and safe parking space.
> I'd argue there's more freedom there because you aren't tied to car-related worries after you get there, like finding a good, practical and safe parking space.
This is it. It's like when people say our healthcare system gives you freedom, when in reality it's the freedom to pick between expensive insurance plans while every other developed country has the freedom to go to a doctor whenever you want for no cost.
This is also why I like bikeshare better than riding my own bike, at least for getting-around purposes. Yes, I have to take the bike to a prescribed station, but then I don’t have to worry about locking it up somewhere safe, and I also don’t have to bike back home if I don’t want to. If it starts raining or something, I can take the subway or even a cab instead.
> For the places you can't get to via transit you can just walk because if you don't build a sprawling city, everything is a lot closer together.
i was thinking more like rural areas or even just state parks/hiking trails. again, I think a world without cars so to speak will still have them but you have like 4% of the current number of cars. With that many less vehicles on the roads, you have more space for people to live and the specialized use cases that do need a car/truck get better too.
As someone who lives in a rural area, this. It really irks me that a lot of this sub seems to completely disregard those of us stuck in rural areas that are literally hours away from stuff if we had to cycle or walk.
So unless people are willing to put up the money to relocate everyone from rural areas to more urban areas, and then find some solution regarding farms and stuff, then us people in rural areas are pretty much fucked without cars, regardless of what they run off of.
There is also a solution to getting public transit in rural areas. RMTransit has a recent video about it. It doesn't mean you eliminate cars altogether but overall you want to make cars a specific use case vs the default way for individual people to move around too.
I don't think anybody has a problem with cars and rural areas or even in the suburbs, where it's obviously necessary.
I will point out that even rural areas used to have more rail service. My grandfather used to drive to the train station park his car, and go into town on the train
I mean there's definitely people here who think that any sort of car needs to be made illegal such that cities won't have any way for them to drive around but you need things like emergency vehicles and even such things as car hire is ok.
I've had several discussions and been downvoted on other posts here in regards to saying things like emergency vehicles would still be needed, and that cars should be illegal everywhere full stop, so.
As for the railroad thing, yeah in some places it would work but it's still not neccessarily a solution for all rural areas. Here, the closest rail station to us historically was in town. Which is 15 miles away haha.
For every 1 car street there should be 5-6 streets that are bike and ped only. There's the example of superblocks in Barcelona that makes sense. And you can have automatic bollards for emergency vehicles or some residents that get permits for them. Eliminating through traffic is key.
I actually have no problem with cars and I was a pretty big car enthusiast too. I totally acknowledge that you can’t get rid of cars all together. The real argument that I always push is moving away from car centric society and city planning in places that make zero sense. Living in New York it’s absolutely miserable doing anything in the suburbs.
There's also this other way to get places called a train. The entire US was linked by passenger trains until the mid 20th century. Plenty of rural small towns have a boarded up train station.
A town in Germany called Dachrieden, population ~200, is served by two different regional trains *per hour.* Yes, you read that right. If someone from Dachrieden needs to go shopping they can hop on the train and be there in 30 minutes. And this is in former East Germany where rail service is unfortunately being scaled back lately.
Yes, the US is less densely populated than Germany. But I don't find that a convincing argument for why the US should be crisscrossed by highways with cars going 70mph, rather than rails with trains going 100+ mph.
Yeah having a car feels like I am weighted down by a ball and chain. I can go anywhere but often have to figure it what to do with the car on each end of the trip. Having to find parking is a burden.
I live in NYC and I don't need a car but if I could have one for occasional weekend trips it would be nice. Right now I'll rent every few months when I do want something but the process is a pain in the ass. I kinda miss when there was still Car2Go and wish there was a good car share program here.
Yeah and you're not really sacrificing freedom in that urban environment so much as you're making room for a different kind of freedom, the freedom to live life without needing to own a car.
I think people have to understand that you have to look at it from what exists today to see their frame of reference and then explain how you create the new freedom
> I think part of it is that cars also represent ultimate freedom. Say what you want, but the fact that with a car you can decide to make a trip to a very specific place at a very specific time means in theory you can move around without constraints. I'm pretty sure that's how cars were sold to people overall too.
On roads that the taxpayer pays for.
Yep, this. They are saying "since death and damage is also caused by other things, the thing we're talking about doesn't matter until all other things that do death and damage are banned first" or some such.
Weird, I've never killed anyone or destroyed anyone's property with my guns. Am I doing it wrong? I've done more damage with my car(black ice rollover), than my guns at all.
Still doesn't stop automotive accidents from being one of the leading causes of death in the US. Still doesn't stop pointless and wanton slaughter of wildlife and pets — even pollinators aren't spared, and just wind up splattered on windshields. Still doesn't stop governments from building an absurd amount of infrastructure for one of the least efficient modes of transportation ever devised.
Why do we have cars?
They provide services and mobility and they have a lot of practical use. Here on this sub we might feel like their practical use is generally greatly exaggerated and there are a lot of better options. But cars do provide a lot of practical use.
Why do we (as civilians) have guns?
Because its fun. That's it. That is their only use. There is no practical use among the general population.
What about as self defense? No, doesn't work. All statistics clearly show that as self-defense guns are counter-productive. They do way more damage than they offer protection.
So why ban guns? Their dangers far outweigh their practical use.
Why not ban cars? Their dangers do not outweigh their practical use. (But they are seriously regulated and taxed and should be even more so.)
I'd say the danger of cars does absolutely outweigh their practical use, even if you were to ignore their contribution to the impending climate-induced collapse of our civilization.
We only accept the dangers of cars because we're denial, like addicts who refuse to admit the damage their habit is doing. If we looked at the deaths, injuries and illnesses rationally, we'd conclude we'd have to change ASAP. Especially since there are fairly easy alternatives available.
>I'd say the danger of cars does absolutely outweigh their practical use
Absolutely an argument to be made and had but my point was just in comparison to guns and rifles.
Cars have a myriad of practical uses, rarely the best tool for the job but it is a tool.
Guns are not tools in the hands of the general public. They are toys. But very dangerous toys.
> I'd say the danger of cars does absolutely outweigh their practical use
You can make this argument, and in certain circumstances it might even be a good argument, but even the most fuckcars of us wouldn't claim that cars have *no* practical use. Guns, with a possible exception for hunting rifles in rural areas, don't.
>Why not ban cars? Their dangers do not outweigh their practical use
The danger of cars is total climate collapse and the end of the livability of Earth for the human race. I think that danger outweighs ANY practical use
I think fear is a huge part of gun ownership possibly more than fun. There are so many real and imagined dangers around you many of which dont get addressed in a meaningful way. My protection is my responsibility, so i am going to buy a dangerous weapon for the day when the things i see on the news innevitably arrive on my doorstep.
>What about as self defense? No, doesn't work. All statistics clearly show that as self-defense guns are counter-productive. They do way more damage than they offer protection.
Considering that a CDC study estimates instances of self-defense [being higher than instances of criminal use](https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/?sh=1a152954299a), I do have doubts on this claim.
"Why do we (as civilians) have guns?
Because its fun. That's it. That is their only use. There is no practical use among the general population."
Alright city boy, what about people that live in rural northern places that have to deal with dangerous wildlife?
>Alright city boy,
I grew up in a "town" with 700 people but ok.
>what about people that live in rural northern places that have to deal with dangerous wildlife?
How many of the 300 million+ weapons in the US is used for that reason?
Also, hunters etc. are not "the general population".
This ridiculous, nonsensical argument is trotted out by so many ammosexuals. Literally the 30-50 feral pigs argument.
If you live on a farm or someplace that has "dangerous wildlife," especially if it's rural, you should be able to apply for a permit for one (1) firearm. Not a semi-auto with 30 rounds, just something for actual self-defense. You do not need a military rifle designed for killing many humans at a long range to defend against "dangerous wildlife."
Much the same way that "ban all cars" doesn't mean ban emergency and delivery vehicles, ban guns means removing them from 99% of civilians' hands (and cops too, tbh - they're fucking useless with 'em). If you have a legitimate need for one, you'd still be able to get it. You just wouldn't be able to stockpile a shed full of them. 18 year olds with nothing to defend wouldn't be able to walk into a store and walk out with a rifle and ammo. Fuck that all the way to hell.
But like, we all know the US will never confiscate guns from the entire population (without the country as we know it drastically changing). It’s just not going to happen. Reducing car dependency is much more feasible.
I don’t think defense never works. In Dallas a homeless camp was defended only because the police were scared of the armed protesters.
I worked in a pawn shop as a teen, at least once every month or two a woman would buy a handgun and tell us it was to protect herself against an ex. I’d rather women like that have a gun to use than rely on useless restraining orders.
That is completely false, there are millions of examples where people use guns in self-defense every year across the United States. I mean really serious horrific crimes are being averted too.
>they are saying that because to north americans, banning cars is unthinkable as cars are simply that entrenched in daily life here,
Here in Germany we are not that far off from that mindset.
The bigger problem is that in North America there are very few places we can travel on public transit effectively For example if I lived in a suburb of Minneapolis and worked 15 miles away in a suburb of st Paul it would take me 2.5 hours to travel their buy bus and or train. Where in my experience there are very few places in Germany public transit isn't effective.
I’m pretty sure that’s not the argument being made by most gun ownership supporters. People that want to ban guns usually claim that they are way too dangerous for people to own. In general, cars kill and injure significantly more Americans than guns every year, especially when you remove suicide from gun deaths. The logic is that if the people calling to ban guns, or subsets like assault rifles, really cared about the public’s safety, they would focus on banning cars first. Since they don’t, they are obviously just using safety as an excuse to ban them for another reason, like easier government control over certain groups.
Most places in amaerica it's harder and more expensive to get a drovers license and get a car than it is to get a gun.
But atleast the car can have the excuse of being "transportation" while the gun is a tool for killing and threatening.
> Most places in amaerica it's harder and more expensive to get a drovers license and get a car than it is to get a gun.
Because apparently some important ancient document allowed guns for use in a “well regulated militia” (but not cars for use in a “well regulated highway”) and one political party decided “well regulated” meant “any idiot who wants one, gets one,” and now we’re stuck with that.
It’s also interesting because cars are more regulated than guns than guns in a lot of ways. You need a drivers license, registration, number plates, insurance, safety inspection and so on. Also you have a standardized form to record incidents with motor vehicles, national statistics and databases run by federal institutions. Safety standards for new vehicles also come federal institutions. So maybe, just maybe, you should treat guns the same way.
I’m not saying the status quo is good when it comes to motor vehicles in the US, but it’s a lot ~~better~~ *less bad* than the gun situation.
Nah, there will always be jobs that need them, and you need them for stuff like moving. Owning cars for personal use should be discouraged, while making public transport better
My favorite time in life was when I had no car but I had three guns. I felt free of a car yet I kept a .45 on me as I would skate or ski the cross country trails throughout Anchorage.
Ban all cars then the ATF. I wanna take my AR’s to the range by taking public transport. Safely and with proper training given to me by the same government who’s paying for my train or bus ride. Just my dream is all
In MN you actually can. Our state supreme court determined that public transit counts as public space, so as long as you're not breaking any other laws you can absolutely open carry on the bus. Never see anyone actually doing that, because most people don't feel the need to carry a gun around, but it's a nice freedom to have.
Not always. Car deaths (40-50 thousand per year) is pretty comparable to gun deaths (40-50 thousand per year).
I'm a motorhead myself and a gun nut too, but we need to discuss regulation of both of those things. Otherwise, they're going to be banned outright.
Edit: fucc u autocorrect
I love when crypto/gun/silver investment weirdos visit this sub. It's a reminder that people think there will be some sort of proto feudalism based on a gold standard as climate collapse takes place. Muh gun muh car muh precious metals muh NFTs
It's hilarious how easy conservatives are as marks for grifters. They basically jump from one MLM scam to the next, falling prey to seriously low-effort grift, never learning, never realizing. Religion, crypto, everything. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion, except they have their hand on the brake and can stop at any time... yet they choose to continue. Fucking wild.
Okay but come on. We can't just be highly efficient murderer weapons to anyone who asks same day. A license and training and a background check before buying are all reasonable things to require
that quote was from marx and it has revolutionary undertones because marx understood that revolutions rarely were peaceful and that the workers, aka, regular people, need access to weapons. its always a little funny to see that quote because a lot of people who are pining for revolution these days do not have guns and probably will never hold a gun because its just not their vibe
"In a word, from the very moment of victory the workers’ suspicion must be directed no longer against the defeated reactionary party but against their former ally, against the party which intends to exploit the common victory for itself.
To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party, whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory, the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers."
At the point where a revolution is even a slight possibility, we will be more than able to obtain weapons illegally. Also, any revolution needs certain support in the army anyways.
> Also, any revolution needs certain support in the army anyways.
This is key. You think *you,* an individual with a couple pew pew toys, have any chance against an actual state-sponsored, well trained militia with hundreds of thousands of personnel and weapons? Not a fucking chance.
We'll be sent to downvote hell by edgy "revolutionary" liberals, but yup, no AR-15 is gonna defend us before a huge, nuclear based military. Even the Paris commune had the support of certain armed forces in the city, these guy's image of a revolution is that one scene in "Les miserables".
Cars are more dangerous than guns, and people are more likely to be killed by a car than a gun. Yet we practically require people to have a car. How about we deal with the bigger problem first (cars)?
"the state should require a certain level of wealth for gun ownership".
That's what you're saying when you suggest an expensive permitting, licensing, and required training system
We can. Are you going to be the guy who denies a potential DV victim they can't get a gun to protect themselves because some old fart in the government, with his own private security force, says so? Requiring a license and training is just another way to keep arms out of the hands of undesirables.
its atf form 4473, required nationally by any ffl. there are exceptions for private sales in many states, which I'm assuming is what you're referencing? but the vast majority of gun sales happen through licensed ffl dealers.
Sure, but surveys conducted as part of research often find the percentage of private sales is about 22% meaning the other 78% go through public FFL dealers,[source ](https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M16-1590). While I suppose there's a high likelihood that prohibited persons wouldn't be answering that question truthfully, there's little evidence that this makes up a significant amount of gun sales in the us. The best I could find in my cursory research was this [article ](https://www.studyfinds.org/convicted-felons-have-guns-illegally/) which estimates out of the 4 million gun owners in California, approximately 98,000 of them are prohibited owners. This is obviously a major problem, but per the [NIJ report from 1997](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjPxuyZ8sD5AhV_FjQIHYOXBFoQFnoECAUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0HEvHOv89gO9Ucw5QwUHyt), approximately 30% of those people stole their firearms.
To be clear, I also believe that background checks should be required for all sales and transfers in possession of firearms, but to say that there's no way we can know about the stats is absurd, and frankly, lazy thinking.
False.
Background checks are required for any and all commercial sales, including at gun shows.
Private sales are exempted federally, and therefore are also exempted in many states, however this was a compromise to get commercial background checks including at gun shows.
What compromise would you recommend to require background checks for private sales? Opening the machine gun registry? Removing suppressors and short barreled weapons from the NFA? Repealing foreign weapon and ammunition import bans?
Oh no, now you'll get the people who don't want the machine gun registry opened because it'll crater the value of the pile of MAC-11s in their gun safe.
(My suspicion is that the Hughes Amendment *increased* demand for machine guns significantly by making them forbidden fruit, while simultaneously ending new supply. So, a lot of people who own machine guns that most actual buyers wouldn't treat as even being worth the *tax stamp*, let alone the purchase price, but because of the scarcity, they get treated as *investments*.)
I'd actually like to see a system for private party background checks that tries to minimize abuses, in addition to reopening the machine gun registry, removing suppressors (which were included as a "fuck the poor" measure) and short-barreled weapons (which were only included because handguns were included in the drafts, and lobbying removed handguns, so they should've been removed too) from the NFA, and repealing at least some foreign weapons importation bans (at the very least the ones based on features and whether it's "sporting" or not). (AFAIK the only ammo import bans are sanctions against named countries, and the most notable one is the Russian one on new import permits. And, frankly, fuck Russia.)
Literally don't care. The only reason people parrot this is because Marx said it. No better than people who parrot the words of founding fathers just because of who they were historically.
Im all for arming the working class, but theres other nations in the world where people are also allowed to have guns and shootings arent this big of a problem. I for example am from a country where guns are illegal yet ive seen some guns in my life.
There’s the real, underlying reason why the 2nd amendment exists. People will flame you for saying it, something like:
“but but but your gun won’t beat a tank!!!”
“I know that. Now are you going to help fill Molotovs or are you going to just stand there?”
> automatic firearms nor machine guns were invented
1861 for Gatling gun. And while Marx probably didn't envision HIMARS and SeaRAMs, I doubt he didn't foresee "guns but does pewpewpew better".
Just because Marx said something does not mean it is automatically the best course of action hundreds of years later. If you will actually join a revolution sure, but you won’t, all posturing.
I like guns because I'm a socialist and you can't really be a socialist and be anti-gun consistently. At least, not a revolutionary socialist. I would ban cars though
If an omnipotent being came down to earth and blessed a single sub with the power to collectively build their own utopia, I would trust either this sub or r/hydrohomies.
So it's summer and my city will transform a fuckton of streets to walkable only, and currently the city festival is ongoining too, only doubling that effect.
normally my city is pretty praised for being bike friendly and so on but I hate how bike unfriendly it is, it's car brained. but now when the planets have aligned perfectly it's decent (in some areas)
sadly all it's done is push traffic out to the roods that go more around the city and they are now impossible to navigate in a car.
So if you truly have business in a car it sucks, because all the morons who are just lazy ruined it, again !
I'm not anti-gun. I think we need to regulate them more, like closing some of those gun seller loopholes, and maybe increase our baseline gun education in the country. But that's all.
If regulations supposedly work, can we not regulate cars first to prove and qualify it?
Smog wagons are not a protected right, banning them has no civil rights and racist history. This should be legally easy.
Limits to energy. Mass, acceleration, velocity? Severe cap to 0-60 times and mass.
Road ragers are a huge cause of death. Criminal, domestic abuser, and mental health history background checks to purchase and operate cars. Yes please.
To be clear: I made this meme as a joke, riffing on a very specific scenario when gun fanatics who argue against even reasonable legal measures compare guns to cars. Like, oh, we're talking about a whole different ideology now, and this subreddit (as a whole) has some good opinions about how we should build cities and construct society inreference to cars.
But yeah, I guess everybody can go off. That's a reasonable thing to do online, especially relating to a meme involving Kung Fu Panda.
I'm glad you're privileged enough to live in a region where crimes of opportunity are low and police actually do their job. Some of us aren't that lucky.
All I want is sustainable infrastructure. If I can get sustainable infrastructure without gun control, I'll go for it. Reforming our infrastructure is much more important and will benefit the US much more than even an outright ban on firearms.
Every time that I say I should be allowed to carry just a little handgun to deter motorists from killing my kids in my bike trailer, I get downboated :(
Not here though :)
Waive? No, shoot it, duh. Waving it would be pretty proportionate tho, actively threatening one life in exchange for casually threatening 3.
Edit: this thread is fun and all, but seriously? 130k people a year killed by cars, and I can only think of one person in Texas who used a gun to defend his riding partner after she was hit by some yahoo for fun?
Are we really, in r/fuckcars , morally equivocating him with the 16 year old (also in Texas) who hit 6 cyclists while trying to roll coal, because his daddy taught him that was cool?
Why would you ban Cars 2(2011) :(
Because, thematically, if just doesn't fot the tone of the series. 1 and 3 are both feel good, inspirational racing movies. 2? Its an action adventure spy movie starring a racecar and a tow truck. Idk man, its just weird.
But it has an environmental/economic message to it!
[удалено]
My takeaway from it was that the fossil fuel industry/lobby will do everything in their power to avoid losing profit, including faking alternative fuels and making them look dangerous so as discourage funding and research into them.
[удалено]
Haha that's fair. And yeah that's an apt description of what it boils down to. I also think some of the UK government in the film was also involved in it, if I remember correctly, so it's also a "can't trust all the government" as well.
Did you have this argument ready to go in your back pocket? Because it’s true. So you’ve definitely had this thought before.
Lol, I have maybe two opinions about the Cars franchise. One is that it's a pretty fun series, but dont think about the fact that Car Jesus exists. The other is this one, about the very weird tone shift of the second movie.
In my personal opinion. Cars 2 is the masterpiece and the other two are the weird ones.
Im going to steal your left shoes if you don’t take that back right now.
I dont mean that as an insult. Just an odd tone shift.
Nah im just messin with ya.
Because cussy.
Carbussy
So… you know the movie Cars, right? And you know how there’s baby cars? Yeah, they have baby cars in the movie Cars. Like a small car that grows bigger. Now when a- when a boy car loves a girl car, they make a baby car. To do that …(they’re all looking at me)… they need a- they need a CUSSY. You need a- …the cussy is where the car comes from. C- it’s a c- it’s a car pussy. It’s a car pussy.
[Visual aid [NSFW]](https://youtube.com/shorts/S_Y0dLTbISw?feature=share)
Masterpiece.
Because it kind of [endorses eugenics.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6qMgiA-VY0)
Because I spilled baked beans all over myself watching Cars 2 in theaters
Oh god, if I could ban cars from our city centre, I would in a heartbeat. Just let delivery trucks in at night, the rest of the day would be so peaceful and quiet.
I dunno, the trucks at night when people are trying to relax vs during the day when everyone is already out and about?
When I visited Japan and would every once in a while see little kei trucks slowly ambling, just faster than the peds who had no trouble making room, to make their deliveries throughout the day; that shit just made so much more sense.
rhetorically i think its interesting why people defending gun ownership will talk about banning cars. they are saying that because to north americans, banning cars is unthinkable as cars are simply that entrenched in daily life here, vis a vis, they also think banning guns is unthinkable as guns are so entrenched in daily life here
It's more than just cars and guns being so entrenched that they can't imagine a nation without them. They're declaring that the death and damage they cause don't matter, that it's just a basic and necessary fact of life and they're going to resist any change to the status quo.
I think part of it is that cars also represent ultimate freedom. Say what you want, but the fact that with a car you can decide to make a trip to a very specific place at a very specific time means in theory you can move around without constraints. I'm pretty sure that's how cars were sold to people overall too. Thing is, with proper urban planning and transit setups, you sacrifice a sliver of that "freedom" and are still able to get around pretty easily. For the places you can't get to via transit, you could always rent a car or better yet use a car share program.
True to some extent, but a lot of that is only because of the effort we've put in to make our world accessible by car. You can't drive through a forest, or mountains, or a river (at least without a car or truck specialized for those environments). People only feel free in cars because our roads are designed to free people in *cars*.
indeed! but that's basically how it was sold and the current reality too
For the places you can't get to via transit you can just walk because if you don't build a sprawling city, everything is a lot closer together. There is no "sliver of freedom" being sacrificed because you're taking public transport that actually works, because you still get to where you want to go in a cheap way, and I'd argue there's more freedom there because you aren't tied to car-related worries after you get there, like finding a good, practical and safe parking space.
Exactly. Were people not free before governments existed just because they couldn’t take a ~~plain~~ plane across the planet? 🙃
1) Plane not plain 2) Governments didn't invent planes, the Wright Brothers did. Planes would exist without governments.
> I'd argue there's more freedom there because you aren't tied to car-related worries after you get there, like finding a good, practical and safe parking space. This is it. It's like when people say our healthcare system gives you freedom, when in reality it's the freedom to pick between expensive insurance plans while every other developed country has the freedom to go to a doctor whenever you want for no cost.
This is also why I like bikeshare better than riding my own bike, at least for getting-around purposes. Yes, I have to take the bike to a prescribed station, but then I don’t have to worry about locking it up somewhere safe, and I also don’t have to bike back home if I don’t want to. If it starts raining or something, I can take the subway or even a cab instead.
"For no cost" so, you're ignoring the cost for everyone vs the individual.
The cost for everyone gets paid no matter what. You're paying it right now.
> For the places you can't get to via transit you can just walk because if you don't build a sprawling city, everything is a lot closer together. i was thinking more like rural areas or even just state parks/hiking trails. again, I think a world without cars so to speak will still have them but you have like 4% of the current number of cars. With that many less vehicles on the roads, you have more space for people to live and the specialized use cases that do need a car/truck get better too.
As someone who lives in a rural area, this. It really irks me that a lot of this sub seems to completely disregard those of us stuck in rural areas that are literally hours away from stuff if we had to cycle or walk. So unless people are willing to put up the money to relocate everyone from rural areas to more urban areas, and then find some solution regarding farms and stuff, then us people in rural areas are pretty much fucked without cars, regardless of what they run off of.
There is also a solution to getting public transit in rural areas. RMTransit has a recent video about it. It doesn't mean you eliminate cars altogether but overall you want to make cars a specific use case vs the default way for individual people to move around too.
I don't think anybody has a problem with cars and rural areas or even in the suburbs, where it's obviously necessary. I will point out that even rural areas used to have more rail service. My grandfather used to drive to the train station park his car, and go into town on the train
I mean there's definitely people here who think that any sort of car needs to be made illegal such that cities won't have any way for them to drive around but you need things like emergency vehicles and even such things as car hire is ok.
I've had several discussions and been downvoted on other posts here in regards to saying things like emergency vehicles would still be needed, and that cars should be illegal everywhere full stop, so. As for the railroad thing, yeah in some places it would work but it's still not neccessarily a solution for all rural areas. Here, the closest rail station to us historically was in town. Which is 15 miles away haha.
It's ordinary parking in the city that needs to be illegal, or greatly limited. Turn streets into pedestrian-only Etc
For every 1 car street there should be 5-6 streets that are bike and ped only. There's the example of superblocks in Barcelona that makes sense. And you can have automatic bollards for emergency vehicles or some residents that get permits for them. Eliminating through traffic is key.
I actually have no problem with cars and I was a pretty big car enthusiast too. I totally acknowledge that you can’t get rid of cars all together. The real argument that I always push is moving away from car centric society and city planning in places that make zero sense. Living in New York it’s absolutely miserable doing anything in the suburbs.
There's also this other way to get places called a train. The entire US was linked by passenger trains until the mid 20th century. Plenty of rural small towns have a boarded up train station. A town in Germany called Dachrieden, population ~200, is served by two different regional trains *per hour.* Yes, you read that right. If someone from Dachrieden needs to go shopping they can hop on the train and be there in 30 minutes. And this is in former East Germany where rail service is unfortunately being scaled back lately. Yes, the US is less densely populated than Germany. But I don't find that a convincing argument for why the US should be crisscrossed by highways with cars going 70mph, rather than rails with trains going 100+ mph.
[удалено]
Yeah keeping a car in the city is awful anyway, parking etc. Not even a "sacrifice" it's liberation from being chained to this expensive burden.
Yeah having a car feels like I am weighted down by a ball and chain. I can go anywhere but often have to figure it what to do with the car on each end of the trip. Having to find parking is a burden.
I live in NYC and I don't need a car but if I could have one for occasional weekend trips it would be nice. Right now I'll rent every few months when I do want something but the process is a pain in the ass. I kinda miss when there was still Car2Go and wish there was a good car share program here.
Yeah and you're not really sacrificing freedom in that urban environment so much as you're making room for a different kind of freedom, the freedom to live life without needing to own a car.
I think people have to understand that you have to look at it from what exists today to see their frame of reference and then explain how you create the new freedom
I feel much more constrained as a child in a car dependent world, fully dependent upon my parents for any mobility, because walking was not an option.
> I think part of it is that cars also represent ultimate freedom. Say what you want, but the fact that with a car you can decide to make a trip to a very specific place at a very specific time means in theory you can move around without constraints. I'm pretty sure that's how cars were sold to people overall too. On roads that the taxpayer pays for.
Yep, this. They are saying "since death and damage is also caused by other things, the thing we're talking about doesn't matter until all other things that do death and damage are banned first" or some such.
Weird, I've never killed anyone or destroyed anyone's property with my guns. Am I doing it wrong? I've done more damage with my car(black ice rollover), than my guns at all.
Weird, it's almost like you're intentionally missing the point.
so they argue it cause they forget how massively regulated cars are at this point for safety and health.
Still doesn't stop automotive accidents from being one of the leading causes of death in the US. Still doesn't stop pointless and wanton slaughter of wildlife and pets — even pollinators aren't spared, and just wind up splattered on windshields. Still doesn't stop governments from building an absurd amount of infrastructure for one of the least efficient modes of transportation ever devised.
>rhetorically i think its interesting why people defending gun ownership will talk about banning cars. They dont. Even rhetorically it sound dumb.
nah im using a different definition of rhetorically, in this case im talking about "the art of persuasive speaking or writing"
Why do we have cars? They provide services and mobility and they have a lot of practical use. Here on this sub we might feel like their practical use is generally greatly exaggerated and there are a lot of better options. But cars do provide a lot of practical use. Why do we (as civilians) have guns? Because its fun. That's it. That is their only use. There is no practical use among the general population. What about as self defense? No, doesn't work. All statistics clearly show that as self-defense guns are counter-productive. They do way more damage than they offer protection. So why ban guns? Their dangers far outweigh their practical use. Why not ban cars? Their dangers do not outweigh their practical use. (But they are seriously regulated and taxed and should be even more so.)
I'd say the danger of cars does absolutely outweigh their practical use, even if you were to ignore their contribution to the impending climate-induced collapse of our civilization. We only accept the dangers of cars because we're denial, like addicts who refuse to admit the damage their habit is doing. If we looked at the deaths, injuries and illnesses rationally, we'd conclude we'd have to change ASAP. Especially since there are fairly easy alternatives available.
>I'd say the danger of cars does absolutely outweigh their practical use Absolutely an argument to be made and had but my point was just in comparison to guns and rifles. Cars have a myriad of practical uses, rarely the best tool for the job but it is a tool. Guns are not tools in the hands of the general public. They are toys. But very dangerous toys.
> I'd say the danger of cars does absolutely outweigh their practical use You can make this argument, and in certain circumstances it might even be a good argument, but even the most fuckcars of us wouldn't claim that cars have *no* practical use. Guns, with a possible exception for hunting rifles in rural areas, don't.
>Why not ban cars? Their dangers do not outweigh their practical use The danger of cars is total climate collapse and the end of the livability of Earth for the human race. I think that danger outweighs ANY practical use
But check out this sick burnout!
I think fear is a huge part of gun ownership possibly more than fun. There are so many real and imagined dangers around you many of which dont get addressed in a meaningful way. My protection is my responsibility, so i am going to buy a dangerous weapon for the day when the things i see on the news innevitably arrive on my doorstep.
>What about as self defense? No, doesn't work. All statistics clearly show that as self-defense guns are counter-productive. They do way more damage than they offer protection. Considering that a CDC study estimates instances of self-defense [being higher than instances of criminal use](https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/?sh=1a152954299a), I do have doubts on this claim.
"Why do we (as civilians) have guns? Because its fun. That's it. That is their only use. There is no practical use among the general population." Alright city boy, what about people that live in rural northern places that have to deal with dangerous wildlife?
>Alright city boy, I grew up in a "town" with 700 people but ok. >what about people that live in rural northern places that have to deal with dangerous wildlife? How many of the 300 million+ weapons in the US is used for that reason? Also, hunters etc. are not "the general population".
Just hit the bears with your car.
This ridiculous, nonsensical argument is trotted out by so many ammosexuals. Literally the 30-50 feral pigs argument. If you live on a farm or someplace that has "dangerous wildlife," especially if it's rural, you should be able to apply for a permit for one (1) firearm. Not a semi-auto with 30 rounds, just something for actual self-defense. You do not need a military rifle designed for killing many humans at a long range to defend against "dangerous wildlife." Much the same way that "ban all cars" doesn't mean ban emergency and delivery vehicles, ban guns means removing them from 99% of civilians' hands (and cops too, tbh - they're fucking useless with 'em). If you have a legitimate need for one, you'd still be able to get it. You just wouldn't be able to stockpile a shed full of them. 18 year olds with nothing to defend wouldn't be able to walk into a store and walk out with a rifle and ammo. Fuck that all the way to hell.
But like, we all know the US will never confiscate guns from the entire population (without the country as we know it drastically changing). It’s just not going to happen. Reducing car dependency is much more feasible.
People want to shoot other people too tho! What if they try to take me stuff?
I'm from rural Alaska, never owned a gun in my life. For hunting I'd borrow.
All of this, and so concise. Well said.
I don’t think defense never works. In Dallas a homeless camp was defended only because the police were scared of the armed protesters. I worked in a pawn shop as a teen, at least once every month or two a woman would buy a handgun and tell us it was to protect herself against an ex. I’d rather women like that have a gun to use than rely on useless restraining orders.
That is completely false, there are millions of examples where people use guns in self-defense every year across the United States. I mean really serious horrific crimes are being averted too.
>they are saying that because to north americans, banning cars is unthinkable as cars are simply that entrenched in daily life here, Here in Germany we are not that far off from that mindset.
The bigger problem is that in North America there are very few places we can travel on public transit effectively For example if I lived in a suburb of Minneapolis and worked 15 miles away in a suburb of st Paul it would take me 2.5 hours to travel their buy bus and or train. Where in my experience there are very few places in Germany public transit isn't effective.
I’m pretty sure that’s not the argument being made by most gun ownership supporters. People that want to ban guns usually claim that they are way too dangerous for people to own. In general, cars kill and injure significantly more Americans than guns every year, especially when you remove suicide from gun deaths. The logic is that if the people calling to ban guns, or subsets like assault rifles, really cared about the public’s safety, they would focus on banning cars first. Since they don’t, they are obviously just using safety as an excuse to ban them for another reason, like easier government control over certain groups.
As a North American, Ban cars in cities but let me have my guns. I'm a poor trans woman in conservative America. I'm not getting murdered.
Most places in amaerica it's harder and more expensive to get a drovers license and get a car than it is to get a gun. But atleast the car can have the excuse of being "transportation" while the gun is a tool for killing and threatening.
> Most places in amaerica it's harder and more expensive to get a drovers license and get a car than it is to get a gun. Because apparently some important ancient document allowed guns for use in a “well regulated militia” (but not cars for use in a “well regulated highway”) and one political party decided “well regulated” meant “any idiot who wants one, gets one,” and now we’re stuck with that.
It’s also interesting because cars are more regulated than guns than guns in a lot of ways. You need a drivers license, registration, number plates, insurance, safety inspection and so on. Also you have a standardized form to record incidents with motor vehicles, national statistics and databases run by federal institutions. Safety standards for new vehicles also come federal institutions. So maybe, just maybe, you should treat guns the same way. I’m not saying the status quo is good when it comes to motor vehicles in the US, but it’s a lot ~~better~~ *less bad* than the gun situation.
It’s not ban cars, it’s remove the need to have them. And to regulate where and when they can be used.
Nah send them all to the crusher.
nope cars 100% do have legit uses. adding more options for transportation IMPROVES freedom while banning cars kills freedom.
RIP emergency vehicles.
And then ban them
Nah, there will always be jobs that need them, and you need them for stuff like moving. Owning cars for personal use should be discouraged, while making public transport better
I actually saw this in a comment section after the Uvalde shooting
I'm a RESPONSIBLE car owner I swerve AROUND your children I keep MY car in a SAFE
The OnLy THing THaT CaN StOP a BAd MaN wiTH a CaR iS a GOoD oNe WiTH a CaR
No, actually the only thing that can stop a bad guy in a car is a good guy with a gun
My favorite time in life was when I had no car but I had three guns. I felt free of a car yet I kept a .45 on me as I would skate or ski the cross country trails throughout Anchorage.
Hey that's me right now!
Ban all cars then the ATF. I wanna take my AR’s to the range by taking public transport. Safely and with proper training given to me by the same government who’s paying for my train or bus ride. Just my dream is all
In MN you actually can. Our state supreme court determined that public transit counts as public space, so as long as you're not breaking any other laws you can absolutely open carry on the bus. Never see anyone actually doing that, because most people don't feel the need to carry a gun around, but it's a nice freedom to have.
Plenty of shade to gun nuts
[удалено]
I like that one, and would be stealing it if I lived somewhere people own guns
[удалено]
Not always. Car deaths (40-50 thousand per year) is pretty comparable to gun deaths (40-50 thousand per year). I'm a motorhead myself and a gun nut too, but we need to discuss regulation of both of those things. Otherwise, they're going to be banned outright. Edit: fucc u autocorrect
I love when crypto/gun/silver investment weirdos visit this sub. It's a reminder that people think there will be some sort of proto feudalism based on a gold standard as climate collapse takes place. Muh gun muh car muh precious metals muh NFTs
It's hilarious how easy conservatives are as marks for grifters. They basically jump from one MLM scam to the next, falling prey to seriously low-effort grift, never learning, never realizing. Religion, crypto, everything. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion, except they have their hand on the brake and can stop at any time... yet they choose to continue. Fucking wild.
Ban cars, keep guns crew reporting in.
based crew reporting in
Getting rid of car culture is more important than gun bans, and a lot more feasible too
Fuck guns too
At least guns are ohnest about their purpose
Ironically I'm fine with guns. You don't have to drive a gun to the grocery store.
"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary."
Okay but come on. We can't just be highly efficient murderer weapons to anyone who asks same day. A license and training and a background check before buying are all reasonable things to require
that quote was from marx and it has revolutionary undertones because marx understood that revolutions rarely were peaceful and that the workers, aka, regular people, need access to weapons. its always a little funny to see that quote because a lot of people who are pining for revolution these days do not have guns and probably will never hold a gun because its just not their vibe
The really funny thing is when people attribute that quote to Ronald Reagan, who is responsible for quite a lot of gun control.
Cuz the Black Panthers were like "Stop murdering us. We have guns." *Cue cartoon gallop to enact gun regulations*
The quote isn't about enacting revolution. It's about preventing a monopoly on violence.
"In a word, from the very moment of victory the workers’ suspicion must be directed no longer against the defeated reactionary party but against their former ally, against the party which intends to exploit the common victory for itself. To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party, whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory, the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers."
At the point where a revolution is even a slight possibility, we will be more than able to obtain weapons illegally. Also, any revolution needs certain support in the army anyways.
> Also, any revolution needs certain support in the army anyways. This is key. You think *you,* an individual with a couple pew pew toys, have any chance against an actual state-sponsored, well trained militia with hundreds of thousands of personnel and weapons? Not a fucking chance.
We'll be sent to downvote hell by edgy "revolutionary" liberals, but yup, no AR-15 is gonna defend us before a huge, nuclear based military. Even the Paris commune had the support of certain armed forces in the city, these guy's image of a revolution is that one scene in "Les miserables".
Cars are more dangerous than guns, and people are more likely to be killed by a car than a gun. Yet we practically require people to have a car. How about we deal with the bigger problem first (cars)?
Background checks and waiting periods are already required in the US
"the state should require a certain level of wealth for gun ownership". That's what you're saying when you suggest an expensive permitting, licensing, and required training system
We can. Are you going to be the guy who denies a potential DV victim they can't get a gun to protect themselves because some old fart in the government, with his own private security force, says so? Requiring a license and training is just another way to keep arms out of the hands of undesirables.
Ah yes, adding a gun to a house where domestic violence takes place is definitely the best option!
[удалено]
In less then half of states Edit: Turns out all states are supposed to
its atf form 4473, required nationally by any ffl. there are exceptions for private sales in many states, which I'm assuming is what you're referencing? but the vast majority of gun sales happen through licensed ffl dealers.
How would anyone know where the vast majority of sales happen? Private sales aren’t logged or registered in any way
Sure, but surveys conducted as part of research often find the percentage of private sales is about 22% meaning the other 78% go through public FFL dealers,[source ](https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M16-1590). While I suppose there's a high likelihood that prohibited persons wouldn't be answering that question truthfully, there's little evidence that this makes up a significant amount of gun sales in the us. The best I could find in my cursory research was this [article ](https://www.studyfinds.org/convicted-felons-have-guns-illegally/) which estimates out of the 4 million gun owners in California, approximately 98,000 of them are prohibited owners. This is obviously a major problem, but per the [NIJ report from 1997](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjPxuyZ8sD5AhV_FjQIHYOXBFoQFnoECAUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0HEvHOv89gO9Ucw5QwUHyt), approximately 30% of those people stole their firearms. To be clear, I also believe that background checks should be required for all sales and transfers in possession of firearms, but to say that there's no way we can know about the stats is absurd, and frankly, lazy thinking.
(Comment has been removed by Power Delete Suite for privacy.)
False. Background checks are required for any and all commercial sales, including at gun shows. Private sales are exempted federally, and therefore are also exempted in many states, however this was a compromise to get commercial background checks including at gun shows. What compromise would you recommend to require background checks for private sales? Opening the machine gun registry? Removing suppressors and short barreled weapons from the NFA? Repealing foreign weapon and ammunition import bans?
Oh no, now you'll get the people who don't want the machine gun registry opened because it'll crater the value of the pile of MAC-11s in their gun safe. (My suspicion is that the Hughes Amendment *increased* demand for machine guns significantly by making them forbidden fruit, while simultaneously ending new supply. So, a lot of people who own machine guns that most actual buyers wouldn't treat as even being worth the *tax stamp*, let alone the purchase price, but because of the scarcity, they get treated as *investments*.) I'd actually like to see a system for private party background checks that tries to minimize abuses, in addition to reopening the machine gun registry, removing suppressors (which were included as a "fuck the poor" measure) and short-barreled weapons (which were only included because handguns were included in the drafts, and lobbying removed handguns, so they should've been removed too) from the NFA, and repealing at least some foreign weapons importation bans (at the very least the ones based on features and whether it's "sporting" or not). (AFAIK the only ammo import bans are sanctions against named countries, and the most notable one is the Russian one on new import permits. And, frankly, fuck Russia.)
No, they aren’t.
Literally don't care. The only reason people parrot this is because Marx said it. No better than people who parrot the words of founding fathers just because of who they were historically.
I don't think you should treat Marx like a religious figure...
The quote still stands regardless of who said it
Im all for arming the working class, but theres other nations in the world where people are also allowed to have guns and shootings arent this big of a problem. I for example am from a country where guns are illegal yet ive seen some guns in my life.
Because things are working ***so damn well*** as they are right now.
There’s the real, underlying reason why the 2nd amendment exists. People will flame you for saying it, something like: “but but but your gun won’t beat a tank!!!” “I know that. Now are you going to help fill Molotovs or are you going to just stand there?”
I wish there was more intersectional critical thought in this sub, the overwhelming negativity toward this Marx quote alone is pretty sad
If you will do a revolution sure, but let’s be honest you never will
[удалено]
> automatic firearms nor machine guns were invented 1861 for Gatling gun. And while Marx probably didn't envision HIMARS and SeaRAMs, I doubt he didn't foresee "guns but does pewpewpew better".
Just because Marx said something does not mean it is automatically the best course of action hundreds of years later. If you will actually join a revolution sure, but you won’t, all posturing.
Don't forget the puckle gun.
[удалено]
Both existed. And they would have loved the newer ones.
[удалено]
Yeah because the words of a man who died over a hundred years ago in a country that doesn't even exist anymore still applies today.
I know it's on the edge, but the UK does still exist
Boris is doing his best!
I like guns because I'm a socialist and you can't really be a socialist and be anti-gun consistently. At least, not a revolutionary socialist. I would ban cars though
I'm pro gun and anti car.
Them: You gonna ban cars too? Me: Someone's been reading ahead.
Please, I can only get so erect.
If an omnipotent being came down to earth and blessed a single sub with the power to collectively build their own utopia, I would trust either this sub or r/hydrohomies.
Wtf i love gun owners now
Ban cars, not guns
I’m the opposite, ban cars, keep guns
So it's summer and my city will transform a fuckton of streets to walkable only, and currently the city festival is ongoining too, only doubling that effect. normally my city is pretty praised for being bike friendly and so on but I hate how bike unfriendly it is, it's car brained. but now when the planets have aligned perfectly it's decent (in some areas) sadly all it's done is push traffic out to the roods that go more around the city and they are now impossible to navigate in a car. So if you truly have business in a car it sucks, because all the morons who are just lazy ruined it, again !
I hate car centered infrastructure too but please, leave my guns alone OP.
I'm not anti-gun. I think we need to regulate them more, like closing some of those gun seller loopholes, and maybe increase our baseline gun education in the country. But that's all.
“I’m not anti-gun, but…” lol
If regulations supposedly work, can we not regulate cars first to prove and qualify it? Smog wagons are not a protected right, banning them has no civil rights and racist history. This should be legally easy. Limits to energy. Mass, acceleration, velocity? Severe cap to 0-60 times and mass. Road ragers are a huge cause of death. Criminal, domestic abuser, and mental health history background checks to purchase and operate cars. Yes please.
Okay, I can stomach that. What do you think the chances of that happening in the US are?
About the same as high speed rail.
Every single gun owner classifies themselves as "responsible" whether they are or not, so
To be clear: I made this meme as a joke, riffing on a very specific scenario when gun fanatics who argue against even reasonable legal measures compare guns to cars. Like, oh, we're talking about a whole different ideology now, and this subreddit (as a whole) has some good opinions about how we should build cities and construct society inreference to cars. But yeah, I guess everybody can go off. That's a reasonable thing to do online, especially relating to a meme involving Kung Fu Panda.
r/foundthemobileuser
Istg the mental gymnastics I pull off to be pro gun and anti car should get me an Olympic gold medal
Idk guns probably kill less than cars
Cars and guns go together. You can't ban one and allow the other.
Why not?
shade to responsible gun owners. Nobody should own a gun.
Lmao except the government right?
Are we really the "fuck cars but responsible gun owners are ok" sub? I'm not down with that. r/repealthe2nd fuck guns more than fuck cars
I'm glad you're privileged enough to live in a region where crimes of opportunity are low and police actually do their job. Some of us aren't that lucky.
Nah, fuck the people who only want the government armed. You are the saddest of bootlickers.
All I want is sustainable infrastructure. If I can get sustainable infrastructure without gun control, I'll go for it. Reforming our infrastructure is much more important and will benefit the US much more than even an outright ban on firearms.
Yes
Bike riding gunbrain here 😎 ban cars and unban full autos
Every time that I say I should be allowed to carry just a little handgun to deter motorists from killing my kids in my bike trailer, I get downboated :( Not here though :)
Guns and road rage famously are an awesome combination, never result in innocent lives being taken, no sir
Don't worry, I'll only off the ones who are threatening my kids
If you’re whipping out a gun on the road with your kids, you’re the one endangering your kids.
So you want to waive a gun about when someone close passes you? Sounds like a very proportionate response
Waive? No, shoot it, duh. Waving it would be pretty proportionate tho, actively threatening one life in exchange for casually threatening 3. Edit: this thread is fun and all, but seriously? 130k people a year killed by cars, and I can only think of one person in Texas who used a gun to defend his riding partner after she was hit by some yahoo for fun? Are we really, in r/fuckcars , morally equivocating him with the 16 year old (also in Texas) who hit 6 cyclists while trying to roll coal, because his daddy taught him that was cool?
based.
My little Ruger SR22 has like 1% of the stopping power of a Chevy Suburban. At least let me keep it visible in my back pocket