Ban on high speed cars

The reason this works against the sports car group is the bill will never get real traction and be viewed as a threat. They won't get upset.

It will get less traction than the outright ban on all firearms bills that are occasionally introduced. Do you worry about those? I sure don't.
 
johnwilliamson062 said:
The reason this works against the sports car group is the bill will never get real traction and be viewed as a threat. They won't get upset.
Click to expand...

The reason this won't get any traction is that non-gun folk will say, "I need a car to get around and make a living but violent crime is unlikely to happen to us so we don't need guns." They don't think like those of us who are gun enthusiasts do. They are in condition white 99.99% of the time.

This is the problem that you run into when comparing apples and oranges.

Cars and guns ain't the same.
 
You think the average person doesn't see a stark difference between a Civic and a Corvette? Doesn't think about the two vehicles entirely differently?
I think they look at it as differently as they look at a police force and a HD pistol.
 
johnwilliamson062 said:
You think the average person doesn't see a stark difference between a Civic and a Corvette?
Click to expand...

Not viz-a-viz a gun. Civics and Corvettes are apples and gun are oranges. Is that better? Also, Police Force and SD pistol are also apples and oranges. These are items that cannot be validly compared. I believe the debaters call it a false or invalid analogy.
 
When our political system is run by college logic professors and those with common sense, I will know who to call on gentleman. Until then I guess I am stuck with court cases and amendments that are wholly ignored.
 
The problem that I see here is that I see way more boy racers driving Corollas than I do Corvettes. The Corvette driver doesn't need prove anything. On the other hand, this is sort of the logic applied to banning cheap handguns, the Saturday night specials.

Then there are the Lexus drivers, who all think they are above the law, though they don't necessarily speed. They just see everyone else as being in the way.
 
What you are fighting is 100's of years of preconception with guns.

Guns were originally created to kill things, end of story. The guy who made the first gun didn't think to himself "this will make a great sport". It was created with hunting/defense/aggression in mind. The concept of firearms as a sport among the general public is a more recent concept. Sure you had a few nobles using guns as a means of relaxation for their little hunts a few hundred years ago, but I don't think it ever occurred to the commons that the gun could be used in such a manner (they were way to expensive to be used in such a trivial way).

Now people aren't "required" to go hunting for their food and I don't think England is going to invade any time soon... It's given people the leisure to explore different applications for the gun, and they've found it's down right fun to put holes in a piece of paper! Thank you mass production :D

The problem goes back to my first sentence. People who have never used a gun are still fixated on the guns original purpose... to kill something. Until you can break that mental block, you'll never convince people that owning a gun doesn't make you an unstable person who will eventually snap and go on killing spree.

The cars original purpose (regardless of how many people die in them) was transportation, therefore it doesn't hold the same stigma associated with firearms.

Surprisingly, the method I've found to convince SOME people guns aren't that bad is by getting them to a firing range and giving it a try. Those are the ones who usually want to buy a gun shortly after :D

This usually works to get someone to try it and unless they are completely shutoff "Why don't you come try it, how can you judge something you've never tried?" or some variation.
 
I think a general comparison between cars and guns is illogical. But a comparison of bans on types of cars and types of guns based upon a "you don't need one of those" argument is completely valid.

It's the need argument that the antis like to use when discussing semi-automatic bans, high capacity magazine bans, handgun bans etc..


If the government can decide that we don't need a 30 round magazine couldn't they just as easily decide what type of car you don't need to drive.
 
Fight Fire with Fire, Eh?

I don't think it would do anyone any good to reduce ourselves to their level. Once you agree with them that legislation trumps morality and that it is the governments prerogative to enforce common sense, you may as well load their policy making cannons for them.
 
I am still waiting on the data that shows $500,000 sports cars kill thousands of people each year. It is a stated fact that is a basis of the major premise of this thread and so far it just seems to be made up data. Fabricating data to give validity to your claims really destroys one's credibility.
 
I wish one of the gun rights organizations would push a ban on sports cars. Throw in some pointless regulation on the number of gears or 'traction control selector switches.' No one NEEDS a $500,000 sports car, and there is no constitutional protection of their ownership. Thousands are killed each year by the irresponsible activities of their owners. They cause extreme environmental damage. From a logical and fact based point of view the arguments for banning them is SO MUCH stronger than for firearms. Throw in some emotion by including the cars owned by dictators and things about them etc.

I honestly think this would be a very very good way to explain our position to many members of the public, and a bill would be a good way to get some attention. It obviously would not pass. Maybe it would just tick of car collectors, but I think they would get it.
Click to expand...

:) I shot my first rifle when I was nine, got into muscle cars when I was 17, and still own one now that I'm damn near 38. Supported my local machinists, interstate trade, craftsmen, etc etc blah blah with the tens of thousands in cake I spent

I didn't have a permit for firearms until last year, but from me to you, two things to consider:

1) My 2007 sportscar cost me 25.5K after negotiating a bit, not 500K. It's a 2.0L, RWD two seater and its fun. I ain't hurting you with it; your logic depends on me "speeding" apparently. Surprise, I can kill a person with a car going 5mph. Therefore, "no car" is safe by definition, and the logical conclusion is to ban cars, not just one type. Hell, even buses can go 50 mph, we all saw the movie ;)

2) Car Guys SUPPORT GUN OWNERS because they know they don't have any RIGHT they can fall back on, to own a car that is "NOT NEEDED". They see how easy it is for the voters and local governments to abuse their power to play 'nanny'.

Get off the gas on the car thing bro. If they come to take my sports car, my musclecar, or my supercharged daily driver...I'll go get my...oh jeez, I forgot, I lost all them guns on that fishing trip. Dammit! ;)
 
Last edited:
I am still waiting on the data that shows $500,000 sports cars kill thousands of people each year.
Click to expand...
My 2007 sportscar cost me 25.5K after negotiating a bit, not 500K.
Click to expand...
sports cars, not just super cars. The numbers for sports cars are pretty big. I will see if I can pull some current numbers.
Click to expand...

There is obviously a wide range of "sports cars," just as there is a wide range of firearms facing possible regulation(from 10 round 22lr revolvers to FA MGs). I never said the $500,00 dollar ones are causing all the deaths. Even the very rich very seldom drive their $500k sports cars. I hear the ride is quite poor.

I have not been able to find a statistic that breaks it out by type of car. Part of the problem here is what is a "sports car?" Very similar to what is an "assault weapon?" I know there are stats car by car. They are used extensively in insurance, but I have not found them broken up by "sports car." How about some people on here who drive corvettes disclose what their liability insurance is compared to people driving Tauruses, etc.? Maybe a look at ISO symbols would suffice, although they take into account many other factors.

I can not come up with an argument for me purchasing another "defensive" firearm. I have a good rifle, a good shotgun, a good CCW pistol, and a good sidearm pistol. The "sidearm" is more than likely extraneous as it is. So, the right to self defense no longer covers my firearm purchases. I absolutely can not make the claim that my right to self defense provides for me to purchase a 1911 Swedish Mauser, especially when I already own a superior K31 as another extraneous long range SD rifle.

By your logic, which concludes self defense is the only legitimate argument we have, does it now stand that the government can regulate a limit on firearms owned? 4? 5? 7? I don't like that at all, but, if all we have is a right to self defense, I find it hard to argue against such a measure.

'Stoop to their level.' I haven't quite started taking advantage of dead toddlers and grieving parents yet, but if I feel the need to firebomb Dresden...
 
Last edited:
I never said the $500,00 dollar ones are causing all the deaths.
Click to expand...

Uh yeah, you did say exactly that...

No one NEEDS a $500,000 sports car, and there is no constitutional protection of their ownership. Thousands are killed each year by the irresponsible activities of their owners.
Click to expand...

So stop backtracking. You made the claim.
 
Folks, I look at it like this:
"guns were made to kill"--argue all you want, mine kill bottles, paper targets, and soda cans. That is MY opinion. Lets look at various items and consider their danger factors.

Guns....How many have gone off without a hand holding it?
Cars....How many have crashed or run over somebody without a key in it?
Kitchen knives....how many have cut anything without a hand holding it?
Fifths of liquor....how many have caused liver disease and death without a hand holding it?


You get the picture. My gripe is why only one item catches the most slack.
Everything is a tool, specialized to a certain task/accomplishment, but only dangerous when you(being a human being) have control of it. Point being that nearly nothing is dangerous until it is used in such a manner by people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top