Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (41343)	11/17/2005 10:06:43 AM
From: mph	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

...But we don't let idiots drive cars, we don't let children drive cars, we don't let people drive cars if they've been drinking, we don't let people drive cars that are 100 feet long or wide--and so forth. Actually, we do let them. Punishment only occurs if they're caught, and even then does not necessarily follow. Goes to show that regulation doesn't necessarily prevent anything. Those inclined to break the law will do so regardless of the regulations. The nature of firearms is such that one would expect the greatest disregard for the law from those whom we most fear should not have access. IOW, the bad guys will get the guns regardless of the law. Why the focus on regulation of the law abiding public? I, for one, would rather see resources used to enforce motor vehicle laws, including keeping cars off the highway that shouldn't even be on the road and preventing unlicensed, uninsured or bad drivers from driving, and making the penalties swifter and more certain for lack of compliance. More people are killed or injured by cars than hand guns. I don't know how many cases I've handled where the most culpable driver was driving a car with a junker title, which should not have been on the road, and where the driver was both unlicensed and uninsured.

To: Solon who wrote (41343)	11/17/2005 12:21:29 PM
From: Alan Smithee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

we don't let children drive cars, Whaddya mean? I'm teaching my seven-year-old to drive the Surburban. Never know when there might be a medical emergency and she'll need to drive me to the hospital. <ggg>

To: Solon who wrote (41343)	11/17/2005 7:30:36 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

But we don't let idiots drive cars, we don't let children drive cars, we don't let people drive cars if they've been drinking, we don't let people drive cars that are 100 feet long or wide--and so forth. All of the above can own and possess and to an extent drive cars. Cars go on public roads. Children and idiots can own cars. They can probably even legally drive them when they are on private property. I could, if I was wealthy and eccentric enough, buy a large parcel of property, build an entirely private road or track or paved field on it and have someone build a 100 foot long vehicle of me to drive on my land. I can put a web cam on a car, too. It will just sit there. But that is irrelevant as regards the argument for regulating ownership and usage of cars. But cars ownership isn't all that regulated. About the only thing is that the car is registered and thats primarily for tax purposes and to combat theft, rather then for safety reasons. Ownership of guns is regulated sometimes quite heavily. Also people aren't arguing that cars are killers, that cars are so inherently dangerous that they should be banned. Even though guns kill less people, some people do make the argument that guns are so inherently dangerous that they should be banned. If people start making that argument about cars than I would welcome the car web came site. Tim