Quantcast
Opinion

Letters: It's clear: limit vehicles

Comments

Return To Article
  • Skye Riversong Shelley, ID
    Dec. 9, 2013 3:38 p.m.

    Curt, I see you are from "Bountiful". Would that be here on Planet Earth, or are you telecommunicating from some other universe?

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 11:38 p.m.

    Allright, Get rid of the speed limits too. Freedom to drive means no limits at all. Move the troopers out there sneaking up on people to raise revenue to guard kids in school against those with assault rifles they give away at gun shows. Drive fast as your equipment allows in the name of freedom and liberty.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 5, 2013 11:39 p.m.

    I guess I've been mistaken in the definition of "always", I thought it always meant the same thing. Clearly, even though always, always means always it can always be used in unintended ways.

    Guns are 22 times more likely to kill their owners than a person that threatens them. Always.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 4, 2013 6:20 p.m.

    @dwayne
    Provo, UT

    Guns are always used for their intended purpose which is defense.

    =============

    Care to explain how on earth a firing squad or
    a outright massacre such as NewTown, CT could possibly be considered "defensive"?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 3, 2013 8:20 p.m.

    I didn't mention one important item above...

    By implementing and requireing all those "restrictions",
    The mean old nasty Government [as the far-right-wing keeps saying they are] isn't "banning" anyone from owning or operating anything.

    Restricitons such as size, weight, speed, as well as testing, licensing, taxing and regulating all in the best interest of public safety....and NOT banning the use all together.

    Perhaps - rather than taking their All-or-Nothing - stance on the issue,
    the whacky far-right should consider this example as the best option...instead of waiting for the NOTHING option to fall upon them.

  • Jeremy Parker Petersburg, Alaska
    Jan. 3, 2013 7:23 p.m.

    Freedom is a funny thing that few seem to understand anymore. Inherent in a decent understanding is the idea that we should be free to pursue our chosen path in life without restraint until such time that it can be shown that our actions infringe on the rights of others. Cars should not be regulated nor licensed, but their owners and operators should be fully held responsible for all their actions as should all people all the time. Would that society could return that understanding to the discourse and eliminate protected classes like corporations and return personal responsibility.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Jan. 3, 2013 7:05 p.m.

    @WRZ - I was wondering about comparing the data... it is kinda what I do... but alas...I was feeling too lazy. Of course the raw data tells you nothing. You have to normalized it so you are comparing apples to apples... number of deaths per 1,000 users. I don't know what that answer would be, but it would be interesting none the less.

    That analogy though itself is rather comical. Guns are made to do one thing - destroy things. Cars - hardly. If you use a car for its intended use, get to go from point A to point B. If you use a gun for its intended us.... you end up with dead people. Fortunately guns are not always used for their intended use.

  • Mr. Bean Ogden, UT
    Jan. 3, 2013 3:59 p.m.

    @LDS Liberal, Farmington, UT:

    "OK - let's look at the legal requirements to own and operate a vehicle."

    One could flunk everything you list and still drive on Utah roads. It does not take a license to drive a vehicle. And don't worry, as another poster noted you rarely see a cop on the freeways.

  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Jan. 3, 2013 3:57 p.m.

    @omni scent:
    "you don't see cops on the freeways?"

    Rarely if ever.

    Cops could make a mint pulling speeders over... until finally speeders would get wise, slow down, and everybody lives.

    "I'm starting to wonder the effacacy (sic) of the eye exam we give on the car regulations."

    I'm starting to wonder about the efficacy of your spell checker.

    "... you said 'More people die on the highways as a result from speeding then from guns.' In Utah, the average number of traffic deaths per year (from 2007 to 2011) was 263. Over the same period, the average per year for firearms related deaths was 271.

    Yes, but much of the deaths from guns are suicide. Why would that count?

  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Jan. 3, 2013 3:40 p.m.

    @Lagomorph:
    "... we would react with equivalent horror had someone deliberately plowed into a playground with a car to kill them. Car or gun is irrelevant; intent matters."

    If it were your loved one who died in a car crash from speeding, your reaction of horror would likely be much greater than some unknown child in a school shooting.

    We have numbed ourselves re deaths on the highways from speeding because it's so common. We would be equally numb if deaths from shootings in schools were as common. It's the commonality or rareness of the method of death that dictates the degree of horror we feel. Take soldiers dying in Iraq or Afghanistan... It's so common we rarely give it another thought... Yet the soldier is dead and he has loved ones at home who grieve. But, who else? No one. Why, because it's expected and common. Kids dying in school is totally unexpected and uncommon... so we all grieve.

    @omni scent:
    "Yes, the cold-blooded murder of children in school is more horrific then the tragic (but accidental) deaths of users of the freeway."

    See above.

  • rlsintx Plano, TX
    Jan. 3, 2013 11:16 a.m.

    The right to bear arms protects a basic, express constitutional RIGHT, not a privilege - which is what owning, lncensure and operation of a motor vehicle is. That said, many of the points to assure the safety of others are already in place regarding guns.

    The most pervasive privilege being abused in this country is operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. If this Jan 1st was in line with the past, 465 people died due to actions of drunk drivers and most of those drivers will continue to drive in the future. Lets fix that problem post-haste, since it rolls up to around 10,000 dead year in and year out. Several of them are my deceased friends. Where is the outcry for this far greater number of dead ?

  • JP71 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 3, 2013 10:48 a.m.

    This argument is so ridicules it blows my mind. I want to preface my statement with I am an Iraqi war veteran and I am currently in law enforcement, so I know a little about guns. The intended purpose of vehicles is to get from point A to point B. Do people get hurt in the process sometimes, yes. But, the purpose of a vehicle is not to kill people. The entire purpose of a 30 round magazine for a gun is to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. There is no practical application for a 30 round magazine except for combat. I am not for overreaching gun control but there is a tipping point where a weapon is too dangerous for the general public to have.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 3, 2013 9:35 a.m.

    OK - let's look at the legal requirements to own and operate a vehicle.

    1. Mandatory Training - you fail, no license.
    2. Testing - written and pratical - if you fail, no license.
    3. Back Ground check - you must be physically and mentally capable.
    4. You and the Vehicle BOTH need to be licensed and registered with the Gv'ment.
    5. You and the Vehicle BOTH must periodically retest, reregisture and relicense with the Gv'ment.
    6. Your vehicle must comply and pass annual safety and testing in order to be considered legal and to license and registure.
    7. You MUST purchase insurance. Persaonl Injury, Liability, and Collision, and Under Insured.
    8. You must pay taxes. Sales tax, annual property tax, gas tax.
    9. You must have built in safety features, and you must use them.
    10. You must obey ALL the traffic laws, and can and will be sighted for failure to do so. Including having your vehicle confisgated and impounded.
    11. You ARE restricted on size, weight, speeds, ect. Bigger and more powerful vehicles all require additional training, certifications, licesnses, endorsements and....taxes and insurance.

    We could go on and on....

    Still want to stand by that analogy/metaphor?

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Jan. 3, 2013 9:11 a.m.

    It's appallingly bad taste to lampoon cold-blooded of anyone via an inappropriate corollary of accidental death on the nation's highways. Not suitable material for comic relief by any stretch of the imagination.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 3, 2013 9:01 a.m.

    wrz: "I guess deaths of children in schools are far more horrifying than deaths of users of freeways."

    Well, frankly, yes. It goes to our perception of risk and harm and the intentions of the perpetrators of the harm. When we get in a car or cross a street, we recognize that we are assuming some risk of accidental injury or death. The key word is "accidental." Cars are rarely used as intentional instruments of death. We would respond differently to twenty school children killed in a bus traffic accident than we did to the Newtown shootings because we understand that it was unintentional. On the other hand, we would react with equivalent horror had someone deliberately plowed into a playground with a car to kill them. Car or gun is irrelevant; intent matters.

  • omni scent taylorsville, UT
    Jan. 3, 2013 8:25 a.m.

    Also (to wrz): Yes, the cold-blodded murder of children in school is more horrific then the tragic (but accidental) deaths of users of the freeway.

  • omni scent taylorsville, UT
    Jan. 3, 2013 8:11 a.m.

    @wrz: you don't see cops on the freeways? I'm starting to wonder the effacacy of the eye exam we give on the car regulations.
    Also, you said "More people die on the highways as a result from speeding then from guns". In Utah, the average number of traffic deaths per year (from 2007 to 2011) was 263. Over the same period, the average per year for firearms related deaths was 271.

  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 11:15 p.m.

    @omni scent:
    "Curt, I don't believe we should outlaw cars, but I realize that it is in the interest of public safety that we regulate them."

    Car usage is regulated... It's called traffic laws... including speed limits. More people die on the highways as a result of speeding than from guns.

    Are cops there to see that deaths from speeding is kept to a minimum? Don't seem much of them when I drive (@ the limit or less) the freeways.

    If we put cops in schools to assure deaths from guns don't happen... shouldn't we put cops on the freeways for the same reason? But they mostly ain't there. I guess deaths of children in schools are far more horrifying than deaths of users of freeways.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 10:40 p.m.

    What a waste of ink to print this sarcastic editoral opinion.

    A) The primary purpose of cars is to (what?...enter 4th grade answer here.)

    B) The primary purpose of guns is to (what?...enter 2nd grade answer here.)

    Answer KEY: A) Transport persons; B) Kill.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 2, 2013 9:15 p.m.

    False equivalencies are a way of life for conservatives (letter). Ad hominem attacks are really their first bread and butter though. (first comment).

    If you think guns are just a fun way to poke holes in paper then I think you should have compared them to a paper punch right?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 6:59 p.m.

    Re: "There isn't any one person, Bill Clinton or other, who has the power to enact a complete ban on gun possession."

    That won't stop them from trying, however. And, if enough of us don't care, they might succeed.

    Nothing in the Constitution authorizes liberals to impose sophomoric artificial distinctions between perfectly acceptable arms, either, like those they're currently pushing between "hunting rifles" and "assault weapons." In fact, the Second Amendment clearly applies to military arms -- those useable by a militia.

    But they're trying.

    Every "assault weapon" is a fine deer rifle. And WAY more people have been killed with .30-06 deer rifles than with "assault weapons." So, once they get their nose under the tent, you know the next argument they'll make is the one I just did.

    Liberals are famous worldwide for disingenuous incrementalism.

    They bleat, "We only want 'reasonable' restrictions on the 'most dangerous' weapons" -- knowing full well that's only step one, and that the real aim is a docile, disarmed citizenry, unable to resist imposition of their communitarian, totalitarian, eurosocialist agenda.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Jan. 2, 2013 6:41 p.m.

    Obama is a confusing guy. First he provides guns to the Fast and Furious crowd all of whom are criminals and crooks and murderers of the basest sort. Then he says that law abiding citizens shouldn't have guns. Does he really think that because he is charismatic, that he can dupe the American people into giving up their protection from his Fast and Furious friends?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 5:37 p.m.

    Nobody builds or buys cars with the express purpose to kill people. And they're tougher to get, own and operate from a legislative perspective than guns. If we want to play the car analogy then every gun and operator should be licensed...and insured to operate it.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 5:29 p.m.

    So the letter writer thinks we should require all gun owners to register their gun, then license it every year there after submitting to an inspection of the gun to insure it meets safety standards and that they should be required to carry liability insurance on each gun they own? Please stop and think before speaking you are not helping.

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 5:19 p.m.

    "That's why it IS and all-or-nothing proposition.

    US giving an inch will result in THEM taking and unconstitutional mile."

    There isn't any one person, Bill Clinton or other, who has the power to enact a complete ban on gun possession. Not even the current President can do that. It would take an act of Congress, and even that would be ruled unconstitutional and would never actually be enforced.

    So the argument that you can't give an inch or else gun-ban proponents will take a mile is ridiculous. When 90%+ of Americans support the right of individuals to own hunting rifles and low ammo-capacity handguns, there is absolutely zero chance of a complete ban being enacted. There is absolutely zero chance. The most that will happen is banning high-capacity ammo clips and assault style rifles. Your right to own a hunting rifle and/or a self-defense handgun will not be taken away.

    Quit focusing on the extreme and discuss the middle ground. The middle ground is where the large majority of Americans reside.

  • Demo Dave Holladay, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 4:19 p.m.

    Very clever letter. Point made.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 3:24 p.m.

    @joeblow
    I am a "liberal" and fully support gun rights, this type of letter does nothing to help insure gun rights and actually gives those that do want a gun ban more material to work with. think about what you say before you speak,. do you really want guns regulated at the same level that cars and driving are regulated.

  • Dave D Pocatello, ID
    Jan. 2, 2013 2:58 p.m.

    I love each of these ideas. They would really cut down on carbon emissions and could prevent illness, death, and misplacement for many resulting from climate change. I understand your letter to be a snarky one related to gun control, but you raise some interesting points regarding climate change and pollution. All three of your suggestions could only help.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Jan. 2, 2013 2:53 p.m.

    In my neighborhood, I have no use for a gun. But, there are areas in some large cities where drugs and crime are rampant and a gun to protect your home and family makes perfect sense. I don't understand all the fuss and opposition to a person wanting a gun for self protection.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 2:42 p.m.

    JoeBlow: "Will any of you "lefties" admit to wanting a total gun ban?"

    Nope - I'm a fang-toothed liberal, but I also have no illusions about the folly of an attempt to ban private ownership of firearms. There are just so many of them, and those that own them are generally pretty passionate about them.

    For the record, I own a few myself. I even used to be a member of the NRA but cancelled my membership in the 1990's after they morphed into a wingnut branch of the GOP.

    I know the functional differences between an AR-15 and a Mini-14. None. Banning certain firearms on the basis of their cosmetics makes no sense.

    Banning high-capacity magazines makes a lot more sense. But even then, the efficacy of such a ban is questionable.

    Ultimately, the efficacy of pretty much all gun control measures currently being discussed are questionable.

    Arm teachers?

    Worst. Idea. Ever.

    PeanutGallery: "Great letter. Cleverly put. Good logic."

    You're being sarcastic, right?

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 11:10 a.m.

    So curt do you really want there to be as many restrictions on gun ownership as there already are on cars and driving?

  • PeanutGallery Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 10:46 a.m.

    Great letter. Cleverly put. Good logic.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 10:41 a.m.

    Re: "I don't know a single person who supports a complete ban on private ownership of every kind of gun."

    There are plenty of them out there in the Democrat Party [eg. Bill Clinton -- "When we got organized as a country, [we] wrote a fairly radical Constitution . . . . [w]hen personal freedom is being abused, you have to move to limit it."] Even a few Repubs.

    That's why it IS and all-or-nothing proposition.

    US giving an inch will result in THEM taking and unconstitutional mile.

    Always has. Always will.

    No slack. Stick with our divinely-inspired Constitution.

    Don't fall for the liberals' disingenuous plans. Plans whose inspiration is much more suspect.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 10:24 a.m.

    In the gun debate, there are basically three camps.

    Those who want absolutely unlimited access to virtually anything.

    Those who want to completely ban everything.

    And those willing to go to work and seek some real solutions.

    It's very easy to see in these comments representatives from all three branches.

    Here's an open invitation to extremists to join the sensible folks in the middle and find something that will help all of us.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 2, 2013 10:17 a.m.

    Exactly merich,

    I am for reasonable gun restrictions, but if ANYONE introduced legislation restricting my right (or your right) to own a gun for protections, I would be out protesting loudly.

    So, while you can find some on the left who will advocate total firearm bans, they are by far the miniscule minority. Will any of you "lefties" admit to wanting a total gun ban?

    By contrast, MANY on this DN board in the past have advocated that there should be absolutely NO restriction on the type of gun you own, the number of guns, or places that you should be allowed to carry it.

    How many of you fall into this category?

  • Ford DeTreese Provo, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 10:05 a.m.

    The DesNews specializes in printing ridiculous analogies, as long as they are conservative analogies, but I repeat myself.

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 9:52 a.m.

    In the author's sarcastic analogy, he suggests that we limit car ownership/possession to only the police, military and government officials. This is a red herring.

    I know literally hundreds of people who support increased regulation on gun ownership. I don't know a single person who supports a complete ban on private ownership of every kind of gun. Certainly there are people in this country who do believe that all private ownership of any kind of gun should be banned. But those people are a very small minority.

    It isn't all or nothing. We already have bans against private ownership of nuclear bombs, missile launchers and such. We can include in the list of banned arms such things as assault style rifles and high-capacity ammo clips.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 9:45 a.m.

    Whoops--- 100/30 = 3.3 (not 33). Mea culpa. Gotta watch those decimal places.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 9:41 a.m.

    Satire is a useful means to make a point. Swift, Twain, and Mencken were great at it. The reductio ad adsurdum approach to an alleged double standard is a fine form of satire when properly applied (see Swift's "A Modest Proposal"). Unfortunately, Curt misses the boat here. Satire doesn't work when your foil undermines your case rather than buttressing it. As Blue and omni scent have pointed out, automobiles are already heavily regulated because of their potential lethality when misused (and fatalities are an unintended byproduct of car use, not the specific intent as is the case with guns). The gun/car analogy only points towards more regulation of guns as the logical conclusion. It is not a compelling argument. It fails as satire.

    However, to continue beat the dead car/gun horse...
    There were 1.1 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles driven in 2009. Assuming an average speed of 30 mph (accounting for iding time, etc.), this works out to 1.1 fatalities per 33 million hours of vehicle use. I doubt that the statistic has been measured, but what is the comparable value for firearms (fatalities per hour of use)? Any takers?

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 9:31 a.m.

    I love the author's analogy. Let's roll with it but turn it around just a bit.

    Let's require all gun owners to be licensed and have to periodically take a proficiency test in order to maintain their license.

    Let's require all gun owners to acquire liability insurance on each and every gun they acquire. If their gun causes any kind of harm or damage, their liability insurance covers the costs of that damage.

    And let's tax guns and ammo and dedicate those taxes collected to cover the costs of providing security at schools and other public venues against those guns and gun owners.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 9:30 a.m.

    Chris and Monty: The laugh here is that since neither of you has ever taken a logic class you can't see your entire "cars are like guns" is a classic of example of false logic that would give your opponents the win in any high school debate. Alas, the comment boards of newspapers have no such rules and the megaphone is the same size for a real logician and a ranting partisan who will stop at nothing (including faulty logic) to make a point.

    If you want to play the game, Blue makes excellent logical followup questions to your attempt to discredit gun control. Yearly registration, special taxes for ammo, taxes for the excess cost to society as a whole for you to exercise your "freedom". Hey wasn't it one of your side who said: "Freedom isn't free"? You brought up excellent points for the non-gun crowd to work on, because all of your concern about mental health and video games will disappear as soon as the heat is off for gun restrictions.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Jan. 2, 2013 9:19 a.m.

    mountain man..just where did I say I was going to deny you the right to own "a" gun. I would restrict some weaponry but that's a far cry from denying you "a" gun. Secondly in order for your "gun" to be more valuable than a cop on the phone..you would have to carry a loaded gun with you at all times..from room to room..or have a loaded gun in every room. Now you may just do that but if so I'm sure glad you live a thousand miles away. By the way..my personal experience with this is a close friend..gun enthusiast, active marine, who was awakened one night by a burgler downstairs. He grabbed his gun and blew the heck out of his house missing the burgler all nine times. In the meantime his wife had called the police who responded while he was re-loading and difused the situation..that's the anecdote I have to make my bayesian probablity prediction. A true story.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 9:18 a.m.

    Blue said it perfectly. His comment, with its good sense and thinking behind it, stands in stark contrast to many other comments here.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 8:32 a.m.

    Guns = Cars? It's a really dumb attempt at equivalence, but useful nonetheless.

    You want to regulate guns the same way you regulate cars? Fine by me.

    Take it on public streets? Register it and license it. Also, pay taxes on it.

    You want to "fuel" it? That's taxed, too.

    You want to operate it somewhere other than on your own private property? OK, but you must be licensed to operate it. Also, you must renew that license every few years, and pass a test to prove your competence and understanding of the applicable laws.

    Oh - and if you plan to take it off your private property then you have to have at a minimum a liability insurance policy.

    Treat guns the same as cars? Sure. See above.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 8:17 a.m.

    Curt and Mountanman

    Thanks for the laughs. This is a great analogy, and the libs are going nuts. What fun.

    Too bad you are out of posts. I am not an expert on guns and gun laws to pick it up for you. I guess we just sit back an laugh at the circus about to commence.

    Bring out the Volkswagen Beetle and filler-up!!!

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 8:15 a.m.

    Re: ". . . limit vehicles."

    And don't forget -- gas tanks that hold not more than 5 gallons.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 8:08 a.m.

    Mountanman You are behind your times when it comes to guns so please allow me to bring you up to date.

    "All guns have safeties," FALSE
    "In every state, you must have a license (concealed weapons permit) or at least a hunting license to carry a weapon" FALSE
    "there is a back ground check when you buy a gun" Partially true, But not from Private citizens (classifieds or gunshows)
    "a functional education class required to obtain the permit to carry and even to go hunting" FALSE
    and it has to be renewed depending on the state every year. FALSE, unless your referring to your hunting licence which has nothing to do with the gun, but permission to harvest an animal.

    Please at least use the truth to defend yourself.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 2, 2013 7:56 a.m.

    Pragmatistferlife. The purpose of my guns is to protect my family. The police can't protect you or me any more than they protected those poor children in Sandy Hook or those people in the theater or anyone else from criminals who want to kill you!
    A gun in my hand is far better than a cop on the phone. That is not only very logical but it is true! If you don't want to own a gun, that's your privilege. Please stop trying to deny me my privilege of self defense because as we have all seen, all the gun control laws in the world will not stop bad guys from getting guns.
    I hang around here for the same reasons you do, I refuse to let ya'll just willy nilly spout your stuff without argument.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 2, 2013 7:50 a.m.

    @ Omni scent. You are behind your times when it comes to guns so please allow me to bring you up to date. All guns have safeties, its a device that prohibits the gun from firing until it is switched off. In every state, you must have a license (concealed weapons permit) or at least a hunting license to carry a weapon and there is a back ground check when you buy a gun and a functional education class required to obtain the permit to carry and even to go hunting and it has to be renewed depending on the state every year. Just as it is illegal to drive Forumula-1 race car on the streets, there are existing laws against many kinds of firearms such as fully automatic weapons. Again, the problem isn't the good guys, its those bad guys who do not obey any laws, including gun laws. Please explain why you think criminal will obey more gun laws!

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Jan. 2, 2013 7:40 a.m.

    Mountain Man...acurate analogy..please. The only purpose for a gun is to kill. The purpose of a car is not to kill..when mishandled they can kill, so society heavily regulates all of the activities of driving that lead to mishandling (see above responses).

    You know such tortured logic is the only reason many of us hang around here..we refuse to let ya'll just willy nilly spout this stuff without argument. I think it's going to be a fun year for us.

  • omni scent taylorsville, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 7:25 a.m.

    Curt, I don't believe we should outlaw cars, but I realize that it is in the interest of public safty that we regulate them. Cars have to pass safty examinations. They must all have saftey features like seatbelts. You must licence and register your car every year. People who operate cars have to pass both a written and a functional exam. On the renewal every 5 years, there are questions about health and an eye exam. There are some cars deemed not street-legal (like a Formula-1 racecar). What practical measures for something that can be so dangerous! We should apply those same principles to other things, don't you think?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 2, 2013 7:10 a.m.

    Curt; see what I mean by JoeBlow's reaction?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 2, 2013 6:56 a.m.

    Curt,

    There are certainly reasonable analogies to be made between guns and cars.

    Unfortunately, yours is not one of them. Makes absolutely no sense.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 2, 2013 5:53 a.m.

    Curt. Wonderful sarcasm but liberals will be offended and confused by your accurate demonstration of logic.