I would call myself a liberal but I don't wanna associate with these people
6Reply
deleted
· 6 years ago
I don't agree with a total ban but more pedestrian only zones might help especially if they make it as close to impossible for a vehicle to get into the area as they can
What Iblazel said. Besides, do you know how difficult it is to make any more car-less space in a city? Densely packed cities are already building up because they don't have the space to build out, and all of those people have cars because a lot of them do need them...for work, to tote around kids, to do shopping. You can't just say 'hey, all you people on this block here, no more cars in this area.'
Also... What do we have in pedestrians-only zones? Bakeries, shops, restaurants.... How do you think they're gonna get their deliveries if not by motorized vehicles? How about ambulances? Police? You can't just totally block those zones for vehicles.
Or, oooooor, oRrR....we could start putting some of that tax money into places that are less densely populated, build them up a bit, and encourage all the people crammed into the teeny-tiny major cities to move OUTWARD, where they can establish more green space, pedestrian-only areas, and healthier living spaces. You know, get more jobs outside of cities, give lower-income people actual options to get to places with lower living expenses. Spread people out in general, stop confining so many people into one place for lack of opportunity anywhere else. It's a little harder to go careening down a street murdering people with a car when there are fewer people on it and it's more spaced out.
As a representative of a rural area I would just like to point out what y’all did to the cities and respectfully decline your offer to move out here. We like our space.
In Europe most big cities are struggling so much with traffic that they start to make it extremely unpleasant to commute by car. They're advertising to rather use public transport or the bike and it works out.
In places like Shanghai or Seoul car almost disappeared from the streets.
So of course it is bs to ban cars for terrorism reasons, but environmental impact and the overall living quality improves significantly.
So from a slightly different angle which is not comparing the more than necessary gun control with a car ban from big cities, it pretty much makes sense.
"In places like Shanghai cars almost disappeared from the streets" O_O Have you ever been to Shanghai actually ? Because I was there 2 weeks ago and got mad at the traffic jam they've got there...
One dude doesn't represent all liberals. "They" didn't say it, one dude and whatever nutcase wrote the article did.
It wasn't related to terrorist attacks either. It was about all the car accidents caused by city traffic. I think the article is trying to say that perhaps public transport or bikes would be smarter for a city environment. You really shouldn't need cars in a big city. It suggests an outright ban (ridiculous). Instead, ask to use less cars. It could take down emissions and car accidents. It makes a lot of sense. Obviously we still need police cars, and delivery vehicles, but it would be really helpful.
• Guns kill people, ban guns.
• People started using knifes to stab. Certain types of knives and sizes are banned, others are heavily regulated, to include kitchen knives. Transporting kitchen knives could actually get you in trouble there.
• People were beaten with sports equipment and they took an unironic, serious look at regulating some and banning other forms of sports equipment.
I think it failed becasue in the case that sparked the inquiry, it was... no joke, a 9 Iron was used. Becasue the type of people that golf often enough that this would be a problem for, the sort that have their own clubs, are the people that paid to put people in the legislature in the first place, so of course it failed.
I have my own golf clubs. How much of a fucking nanny statist do you need to be to ban sports equipment? Every exec at the construction company I work at golfs in leagues. They’re not out “buying legislators”. They’re drinking beer and bragging about 42 on the front nine (and not mentioning the 52 on the back 8 beers in). The birthplace of revolution seems to have grown into a monster.
Yeah fuck off and stop using a few people to represent an entire political view. The same could easily be done for conservatives. Tell me you're not that fucking stupid.
deleted
· 6 years ago
It's the vocal part that we insult.
I see tons upon tons of "I'm a liberal but" comments in conservative videos. Not too many in Alt-Right cuck videos.
Considering the amount of guns around and the rate of shootings...not hard enough
1
deleted
· 6 years ago
Did you know that if you are guilty of even a simple assault, you lose your guns?
Suicidal? You lose your guns.
You're a cop and you lost your guns? You can't have your guns.
Restraining order? No guns.
Drug addicts? Not even a pistol.
Living in the same house as a felon? No guns.
Not a citizen? No guns.
Bank fraud? No guns.
Got kicked out of the military? Nope, sorry. No bang-bangs for you.
This also mean that if these happened BEFORE you tried to get guns, you'd still unable to get a gun.
Military, cop, FBI, DHS, ICE, or ANY other state or federal agancy where you are armed and you lose your right to firearms? You lose your job. For the military, its a dishonerable discharge too.
I appreciate that there are odds to legally own a gun, but fact is that firstly in a country where there are more firearms than citizens the black market prizes are ridiculously low and that secondly the US are suffering from more than 30.000 deaths caused by firearms, which is approx 90 people per day. That is a uniquely high number in the so called first world. And given these facts makes going on as always the wrong way imho. But I appreciate as well that we are touching significant cultural differences, which probably would lead to a discussion with no end.
As a matter of fact, firearms are supporting suicides, as it is a pretty easy, fast and safe way.
And Ok, out of 33.000 killed by guns in 2016, around 15.000 were suicides. Remaining 18.000, which is 49 people per day. Plus around 30.000 injured by firearms in a country without a proper healthcare system. In any other country this would be called civil war, you call it freedom. But anyway, I said that we're touching cultural differences, which are not explainable to me. Luckily it's none of my business, as the US are far enough away from me.
You’re blaming the tool. People are going to kill themselves regardless, they can choose the quick painless option or the slow bleed out or the spasms of nausea or the crushed by a vehicle or the no chute BASE jump; it is not my fault you are dead. Hell there’s a huge euthanasia movement in the country, eventually you might be able to rent a room with a gun and one bullet.
Thing is, the gas suicide problem in Britain doesn't bear that out. When gas ceased being the common form of energy/heating, the gas suicides died down and were not statistically replaced with other forms of suicide. People didn't just hang themselves instead.
Comments
In places like Shanghai or Seoul car almost disappeared from the streets.
So of course it is bs to ban cars for terrorism reasons, but environmental impact and the overall living quality improves significantly.
So from a slightly different angle which is not comparing the more than necessary gun control with a car ban from big cities, it pretty much makes sense.
It wasn't related to terrorist attacks either. It was about all the car accidents caused by city traffic. I think the article is trying to say that perhaps public transport or bikes would be smarter for a city environment. You really shouldn't need cars in a big city. It suggests an outright ban (ridiculous). Instead, ask to use less cars. It could take down emissions and car accidents. It makes a lot of sense. Obviously we still need police cars, and delivery vehicles, but it would be really helpful.
• Guns kill people, ban guns.
• People started using knifes to stab. Certain types of knives and sizes are banned, others are heavily regulated, to include kitchen knives. Transporting kitchen knives could actually get you in trouble there.
• People were beaten with sports equipment and they took an unironic, serious look at regulating some and banning other forms of sports equipment.
I think it failed becasue in the case that sparked the inquiry, it was... no joke, a 9 Iron was used. Becasue the type of people that golf often enough that this would be a problem for, the sort that have their own clubs, are the people that paid to put people in the legislature in the first place, so of course it failed.
The birthplace of freedom is also where it goes to die.
I see tons upon tons of "I'm a liberal but" comments in conservative videos. Not too many in Alt-Right cuck videos.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/06/us/texas-church-shooting/index.html
Also no banning of guns, he got that illegally.
Suicidal? You lose your guns.
You're a cop and you lost your guns? You can't have your guns.
Restraining order? No guns.
Drug addicts? Not even a pistol.
Living in the same house as a felon? No guns.
Not a citizen? No guns.
Bank fraud? No guns.
Got kicked out of the military? Nope, sorry. No bang-bangs for you.
This also mean that if these happened BEFORE you tried to get guns, you'd still unable to get a gun.
And Ok, out of 33.000 killed by guns in 2016, around 15.000 were suicides. Remaining 18.000, which is 49 people per day. Plus around 30.000 injured by firearms in a country without a proper healthcare system. In any other country this would be called civil war, you call it freedom. But anyway, I said that we're touching cultural differences, which are not explainable to me. Luckily it's none of my business, as the US are far enough away from me.