Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 kronk wrote:
I'll also propose a bill that Auto makers have to design their cars that makes it so that when you turn on your windshield wipers, your headlights come on automatically.

If you've driven in a proper Houston monsoon, you know why this is important. Grey cars (and a few other colors) become practically invisible when it rains during the day time, yet people don't turn on their headlights.

I'm taking away that ability to chose!

I was in one of those in Houston with some guy driving not 5 feet behind me. Fun times.

 kronk wrote:
I'll also propose a bill that Auto makers have to design their cars that makes it so that when you turn on your windshield wipers, your headlights come on automatically.

If you've driven in a proper Houston monsoon, you know why this is important. Grey cars (and a few other colors) become practically invisible when it rains during the day time, yet people don't turn on their headlights.

I'm taking away that ability to chose!

This might actually be a good idea.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 xole wrote:
My previous post was sarcastic.

I'd vote for Kronk too. <---that was less sarcastic. He can't possibly do worse than anyone else up there.

Fair enough sarcasm is hard to tell sometimes on the internet.

No problem. I've edited my signature to help.

I like the second post in this thread. I found that article(and related ones) interesting. The first article doesn't seem to call for outrage.

Relapse wrote:
]

Cars are needed for our societies to function, recreational drugs aren't. People get tickets and lose licences over talking on mobile phones while driving in many areas.

Mankind has been taking "recreational drugs" for untold thousands of years,and continues to take them in numbers that dwarf the number of people who drive cars in the world.

We need some form of release or stimulant for our societies to function, far more so than we do cars. A point easily proven if one bothers to consider the length of time we've had cars compared to the length of time we've been happily altering our moods and consciousnesses through chemicals.

Where's the outrage? Forget the gun or drugs angle, they're both wrong. These are 12 dead Mexicans, in Mexico. You couldn't pay Americans to care about this.

When 12 dead white blonde girls show up in a well, then you'll see outrage.

Cars don't kill people.

Kids who play racing videogames kill people.

 Ouze wrote:
Where's the outrage? Forget the gun or drugs angle, they're both wrong. These are 12 dead Mexicans, in Mexico. You couldn't pay Americans to care about this.

When 12 dead white blonde girls show up in a well, then you'll see outrage.

I guess it bugs me because I'm friends with quite a few Mexicans both at work and in my neighborhood and I hear their stories about what's going on down there. They love Mexico, but because of the cartels and drug violence a lot came here to keep their families safe. The point about the average U.S. Citizen not caring is well taken, though.

 kronk wrote:
I'll also propose a bill that Auto makers have to design their cars that makes it so that when you turn on your windshield wipers, your headlights come on automatically.

If you've driven in a proper Houston monsoon, you know why this is important. Grey cars (and a few other colors) become practically invisible when it rains during the day time, yet people don't turn on their headlights.

I'm taking away that ability to chose!

Yep. Of course its just been recently cars will turn their lights off if you turn the key off (or something similar).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Where's the outrage? Forget the gun or drugs angle, they're both wrong. These are 12 dead Mexicans, in Mexico. You couldn't pay Americans to care about this.

When 12 dead white blonde girls show up in a well, then you'll see outrage.

I guess it bugs me because I'm friends with quite a few Mexicans both at work and in my neighborhood and I hear their stories about what's going on down there. They love Mexico, but because of the cartels and drug violence a lot came here to keep their families safe. The point about the average U.S. Citizen not caring is well taken, though.

The issue of course is, how do we stop the cartels? Legalize weed and they sell more crack, more human trafficing. How do you stop them?
When its a few dozen mob guys...meh. When its a few thousand guys...

@Frazzled,

That is one of the big things that pisses me off about the anti gun crowd. A lot of them use drugs and helped build up the cartels with the money spent on their drugs. Then they turn around and say we need to either tightly control or eliminate guns in order to save lives.

I also propose that the expiration dates on milk have two days added to them. Mine expire when I have at least one more cereal bowl's worth of milk left!

Stop making me throw out my milk!

To be serious for a moment, Relapse has a good point. Too many people are killed or injured by cars and something should be done.

I have never thought it worthwhile before, but if it is the price that pro-gun people demand in return for their support for restrictions on guns, I would definitely approve of the following anti-car measures.

1. Registration of all vehicles.
2. Certain types of vehicles to be restricted, such as military.
3. Licensing of drivers. Licence only granted if they pass a realistic test.
4. Compulsory insurance.
5. Pedestrians, who let's face it are responsible for a lot of accidents, to be prevented from wandering over the roads and given proper crossing places.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be serious for a moment, Relapse has a good point. Too many people are killed or injured by cars and something should be done.

I have never thought it worthwhile before, but if it is the price that pro-gun people demand in return for their support for restrictions on guns, I would definitely approve of the following anti-car measures.

1. Registration of all vehicles.
2. Certain types of vehicles to be restricted, such as military.
3. Licensing of drivers. Licence only granted if they pass a realistic test.
4. Compulsory insurance.
5. Pedestrians, who let's face it are responsible for a lot of accidents, to be prevented from wandering over the roads and given proper crossing places.

I love you.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be serious for a moment, Relapse has a good point. Too many people are killed or injured by cars and something should be done.

I have never thought it worthwhile before, but if it is the price that pro-gun people demand in return for their support for restrictions on guns, I would definitely approve of the following anti-car measures.

1. Registration of all vehicles.
2. Certain types of vehicles to be restricted, such as military.
3. Licensing of drivers. Licence only granted if they pass a realistic test.
4. Compulsory insurance.
5. Pedestrians, who let's face it are responsible for a lot of accidents, to be prevented from wandering over the roads and given proper crossing places.

Well said. I'd consider all of these to be reasonable measures.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be serious for a moment, Relapse has a good point. Too many people are killed or injured by cars and something should be done.

I have never thought it worthwhile before, but if it is the price that pro-gun people demand in return for their support for restrictions on guns, I would definitely approve of the following anti-car measures.

1. Registration of all vehicles.
2. Certain types of vehicles to be restricted, such as military.
3. Licensing of drivers. Licence only granted if they pass a realistic test.
4. Compulsory insurance.
5. Pedestrians, who let's face it are responsible for a lot of accidents, to be prevented from wandering over the roads and given proper crossing places.

When did I say too many people were being killed by cars? .

 kronk wrote:
I also propose that the expiration dates on milk have two days added to them. Mine expire when I have at least one more cereal bowl's worth of milk left!

Stop making me throw out my milk!

You know you don't have to throw it out just because it's passed the date on the carton or jug. If it's not sour it's fine, and if it's only a bit sour you can still use it for baking.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

2. Certain types of vehicles to be restricted, such as military.

Did you know it's not illegal to buy a tank in the US? It's just normally prohibitively expensive. Getting ammunition for the main gun would probably be tricky though.

Relapse wrote:
@Frazzled,

That is one of the big things that pisses me off about the anti gun crowd. A lot of them use drugs and helped build up the cartels with the money spent on their drugs. Then they turn around and say we need to either tightly control or eliminate guns in order to save lives.

I'm sorry, but are this 'anti-gun crowd' of which you speak forced to submit to mandatory drug testing with public results or something? Because the way you say 'a lot of them use drugs' and then use that to theoretically disprove their argument must mean that:

a) you have statistics showing the proportion which take drugs, and that
b) it must be at least 50% for it to have that kind of impact, and
c) doing one bad thing means you're a hypocrite when you say something else altogether is bad (which is some pretty strange system of moral judgement).

I mean, to expound on c), if I let my kid get fat, my opinion on drugs, drunk driving, and many other things should be ignored. All because I'm theoretically sponsoring deaths through obesity, and thus should have no say on anything that causes death.

Just because a white collar thief says mugging old ladies in the street is wrong does not make his argument invalid. Just because someone watched a movie at their friends house does not automatically disprove/counter them when they say online piracy should be stopped.

ERRG MA GUNS AND MA FREEDUMS

Also, when did this "most anti gun people are drug users" meme start up? I mean does this have any basis in reality, or is it as made up as all those stupid facebook image macros of some founding father with a pro-gun sentiment they never said scrawled on it?

 Ouze wrote:
Also, when did this "most anti gun people are drug users" meme start up? I mean does this have any basis in reality, or is it as made up as all those stupid facebook image macros of some founding father with a pro-gun sentiment they never said scrawled on it?

Yeah... I'm sorta puzzled by this too... still am. *shrugs*

I blame D-USA's facebookers!

 nectarprime wrote:
ERRG MA GUNS AND MA FREEDUMS

Yep, that's totally going to lead somewhere. You sure make a compelling argument.

 Ketara wrote:

Relapse wrote:
@Frazzled,

That is one of the big things that pisses me off about the anti gun crowd. A lot of them use drugs and helped build up the cartels with the money spent on their drugs. Then they turn around and say we need to either tightly control or eliminate guns in order to save lives.

I'm sorry, but are this 'anti-gun crowd' of which you speak forced to submit to mandatory drug testing with public results or something? Because the way you say 'a lot of them use drugs' and then use that to theoretically disprove their argument must mean that:

a) you have statistics showing the proportion which take drugs, and that
b) it must be at least 50% for it to have that kind of impact, and
c) doing one bad thing means you're a hypocrite when you say something else altogether is bad (which is some pretty strange system of moral judgement).

I mean, to expound on c), if I let my kid get fat, my opinion on drugs, drunk driving, and many other things should be ignored. All because I'm theoretically sponsoring deaths through obesity, and thus should have no say on anything that causes death.

Just because a white collar thief says mugging old ladies in the street is wrong does not make his argument invalid. Just because someone watched a movie at their friends house does not automatically disprove/counter them when they say online piracy should be stopped.

This. This. A thousand times this.

Nice try at deflecting the debate over gun control by insulting those who disagree with you, Relapse.

 Ketara wrote:

Relapse wrote:
@Frazzled,

That is one of the big things that pisses me off about the anti gun crowd. A lot of them use drugs and helped build up the cartels with the money spent on their drugs. Then they turn around and say we need to either tightly control or eliminate guns in order to save lives.

I'm sorry, but are this 'anti-gun crowd' of which you speak forced to submit to mandatory drug testing with public results or something? Because the way you say 'a lot of them use drugs' and then use that to theoretically disprove their argument must mean that:

a) you have statistics showing the proportion which take drugs, and that
b) it must be at least 50% for it to have that kind of impact, and
c) doing one bad thing means you're a hypocrite when you say something else altogether is bad (which is some pretty strange system of moral juUdgement).

I mean, to expound on c), if I let my kid get fat, my opinion on drugs, drunk driving, and many other things should be ignored. All because I'm theoretically sponsoring deaths through obesity, and thus should have no say on anything that causes death.

Just because a white collar thief says mugging old ladies in the street is wrong does not make his argument invalid. Just because someone watched a movie at their friends house does not automatically disprove/counter them when they say online piracy should be stopped.

It's easily enough proved by personal observation and asking people that are for strict gun control. I've had this conversation with several people over the years and it's pretty much the same in that they either admit using drugs themselves or know others pushing for gun control that do. Just do some checking around and try to prove me wrong and whilem your at it ask how many don't think twice about drinking and driving.

"Hey, I made something up, prove otherwise!"

 Ouze wrote:
"Hey, I made something up, prove otherwise!"

"That's not proof! And I never actually said that even though you have a direct quote of me saying that! What I meant was...!"

 Hordini wrote:

Did you know it's not illegal to buy a tank in the US? It's just normally prohibitively expensive. Getting ammunition for the main gun would probably be tricky though.

For fun

Lots of things you wouldn't think you can get your hands on. Hell, if I wanted to, I could just build a projectile weapon.

Anyways, this is turning into another gun debate thread, and we all know how those go, so I'll be backing out now.

Have fun.

Relapse wrote:
It's easily enough proved by personal observation and asking people that are for strict gun control. I've had this conversation with several people over the years and it's pretty much the same in that they either admit using drugs themselves or know others pushing for gun control that do. Just do some checking around and try to prove me wrong and whilem your at it ask how many don't think twice about drinking and driving.

Well guys I don't think we can argue with that, this guy knows his stuff.

 kronk wrote:
I also propose that the expiration dates on milk have two days added to them. Mine expire when I have at least one more cereal bowl's worth of milk left!

Stop making me throw out my milk!

Milk has a Best Before date, rather than an Expiry date, as it is a product that will become too nasty to consume long before it actually becomes dangerous to consume. It's still perfectly safe (if progressively less pleasant) to consume milk that is past its Best Before date.

Relapse wrote:
It's easily enough proved by personal observation and asking people that are for strict gun control. I've had this conversation with several people over the years and it's pretty much the same in that they either admit using drugs themselves or know others pushing for gun control that do. Just do some checking around and try to prove me wrong and whilem your at it ask how many don't think twice about drinking and driving.

As much as I dislike the idea of disarming the US people in any capacity, the plural of anecdote is not data.

I kind of think you're going about what you're trying to go about doing in the wrong way.

Relapse wrote:
It's easily enough proved by personal observation and asking people that are for strict gun control. I've had this conversation with several people over the years and it's pretty much the same in that they either admit using drugs themselves or know others pushing for gun control that do. Just do some checking around and try to prove me wrong and whilem your at it ask how many don't think twice about drinking and driving.

So you're saying that your evidence for, 'lots of anti-gun people do drugs' is, 'I've occasionally spoken to someone who was anti-gun, and they said that they, or someone else they knew take or once took drugs?'

I especially like the additional implication that all these crazy drug using anti-gun nutters all do drink driving as well.


I think I'm done here. That's enough crazy for me in one night.

Relapse wrote:
It's easily enough proved by personal observation and asking people that are for strict gun control. I've had this conversation with several people over the years and it's pretty much the same in that they either admit using drugs themselves or know others pushing for gun control that do. Just do some checking around and try to prove me wrong and whilem your at it ask how many don't think twice about drinking and driving.

All the pro gun people I know play wargames and talk about them online. They are clearly not mature people and so should not be listened to when they talk about there being no need for gun control. I've spoken with quite a few of these people but then I see them talking about playing with toy soldiers!

Ask anyone on this forum and they will tell you they play or collect models! How can you take anything they say about gun control seriously when I know people who don't play with toy soldiers who are for gun control - clearly they are the people who we should listen to!?!?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It's easily enough proved by personal observation and asking people that are for strict gun control. I've had this conversation with several people over the years and it's pretty much the same in that they either admit using drugs themselves or know others pushing for gun control that do. Just do some checking around and try to prove me wrong and whilem your at it ask how many don't think twice about drinking and driving.

All the pro gun people I know play wargames and talk about them online. They are clearly not mature people and so should not be listened to when they talk about there being no need for gun control. I've spoken with quite a few of these people but then I see them talking about playing with toy soldiers!

Ask anyone on this forum and they will tell you they play or collect models! How can you take anything they say about gun control seriously when I know people who don't play with toy soldiers who are for gun control - clearly they are the people who we should listen to!?!?

It's kind of like the anti-gun people who keep saying that the guns that Feinstein considers "assault weapons" don't have any use in hunting or defense, when there is evidence to the contrary. Or anti-gun people who paint gun-owners or NRA members as dangerous lunatics. Neither side is innocent of making silly sweeping generalizations.