Buy a SUV and support terrorism

[vat_man]

Originally posted by Sludge Slide
Well, we know the truth mate - Honda can't come anywhere near making a car that can match Subarus all wheel drive system. I hope Holden adopt the 50/50 torque split for the SSX, imagine the grip and stability in the wet!

Well, I doubt you'll see something as serious as the set-up that was under that thing at the Sydney Motor Show (centre diff plus diffs at both ends ala WRX) but I imagine they'll be running a centre diff with variable split at the very least.

Once the AWD Magna's out I might sneak down and try one out.

 

[Gil]

YOu guys all have "real" reasons for not like the Honda SUV and the Gi-normous SUV's. My issue is that by choice I drive a small, semi-sporty, FWD car. That vacant woman on her cell phone, putting on her make-up, in the fast lane, in her Suburban gets on my last nerve 'cause she's driving too slow to be in the fast lane, too fast to pass without pissing off the KHP,
AND I CAN'T SEE AROUND HER!
And she definitely is paying me and my Escort no mind. Nor is she paying attention to much else on the road. Driving a "tank" is no reason to abdicate from being in control of your vehicle.
Now I know a woman who drives a CRV because it's safer than her old car. And she can see over traffic. I have no grudge with her. But, one person in a Suburban, Expedition, and the like irks me.
If you're gonna kill me, with your inabilty to see me, and your overall ability to crush me could you scale down and at least give me a fighting chance to survive?

 

[vat_man]

I have a similar thing with Land Rover Discoverys - I used to live in Balmain,which is about 4km from the Sydney CBD. The place was crawling with them, mostly diesels with water air intakes, none of which had actually been on dirt. They were all driven by fat men in their 40s and 50s, all on mobile phones, and they all drove like arseholes - cut you off, pull out in front of you, cut in at the last minute to take the empty spot at the front row of the lights, that sort of stuff.

Jeep Grand Cherokees seemed to be the choice for the ladys there - driven with three screaming, fighting kids and some enormous dog hanging its head out the side - while she's on the phone. Fantastic.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by advanR

m5power. even if it is 1 in 4, which i think is a conservative estimation. that 1 suv is polluting 1.5 (or 1.4, whatever you think) times more than a car in its place would. thats 12.5% more pollution than there would be with less or no suvs. again i think those numbers are conservative. Where i live it is atleast 1 in 3 or more. But i dont understand how you think 12.5% will "even out" with anything.

Okay, since you use no capital letters, I'll take that as an estimation of your brainpower and put this in simpler terms:
- There ARE eleven times more cars than SUV's (the number is greatly reduced when factoring in trucks and vans). Oddly, that's a statistic. I don't care where you live, this is a statistic based on other statistics throughout the entire country.
- Even if SUV's polluted ELEVEN TIMES more than cars, the fact that there's eleven times of the amount of cars on the road would make the fraction reduce to one when it (amount x pollution) is multiplied. That "evens out" with something.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by The Vanishing Boy
In fact I do agree that those big stupid SUV's gobbles a lot gas, I strongly agree that those enviro groups. Just think, that most of our gas/diesel/propane/Natgas at the pump came from Arab countries, well most of them are rich shieks that hates US and support Bin Laden & Co. These big, gas guzzling vehicles must go, or by the time we know it, Saddam & the gang will pour us some Bio-Chem weapons here (in the US).

Alternative fuel sources are the only way to beat terrorism.

I assume you're being sarcastic, right?

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Gil
To add fuel to the fire;

You realize that we produce our own oil, but are using up the resources of some other kitty litter box?

SUV's are getting better mileage than the YENKO Camaros, SS 454 Chevelles, 429 Mustangs, etc. of my youth. We are not supporting terrorism by buying them. We are supporting the offspring of Louis and Gaston, and Henry.
My dad's 1970 Ford Wagon got 9-11 mpg. My T-bird got 9 mpg.
A new Suburban gets nearly 20 mpg. My wife's new Venture van that seats eight gets 22 mpg. My Escort that seats 4 gets 27 mpg. IF you do the math, it's cheaper to take the family in the van rather than make multiple trips in the 'Scort.
I suppose you think the president and the United States treasury service support terrorism too.
The president's limo is an out sized gas pig. The Secret Service uses Suburbans as their 'chase' vehicles.

Before you get freaked out about how much gas is being "burnt up" by the gas pig SUV's do some research.


Alternative fuel sources will beat environmental decay.
Alternative fuel sources may provide new and different employment in the energy market place.
Alternative fuel sources may heat our homes and cook our food.
Alternative fuel sources will not beat terrorism...unless we gather the terrorists in a large bucket, pour alternative fuel on them and set them afire.

Here's a virtual nickel, buy a clue.

This is a great post. Everyone take note.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by advanR
an suvs gas mileage should be compared against current cars, comparing it to a 20 year old car is useless.

All right, good point. Let's do some comparing. Let's take an SUV -- maybe an RX300, or an MDX. Both have healthy 3.0-litre V-6's and are fairly large (the MDX is huge, for the segment). Not only do they get better gas mileage than every minivan you can buy, but they also get better mileage than the Ford Taurus wagon, Mercury Sable wagon, Volvo V70, Subaru Outback H6, and Audi Allroad. Incredible, isn't it? Do research first. Speak later.

also, let me point out my main argument against suvs. sure some cars have as bad a gas mileage as suvs, but the gas mileage in other cars is sacrificed for something else. a muscle car can haul much more ass than an suv. some faster cars need more gas, we know that. a pickup truck has a huge bed to haul stuff with. and most truck owners use them for work, to haul stuff with, etc. a limo has a use that no other car can fill, no doubt.

[/b]

They've sold 26 million Ford F-series trucks, and about 20 million Silverados, as well as 10 million or so Dodge Rams. The next time you take a ride, check out the 60 million domestic fullsize trucks and make a note of how many have full beds. And I know you're going to come back into this thread and say 'all of them,' but in truth, it's nowhere close. Not even a quarter.

i dont hate suvs, i hate it when the WRONG people buy suvs. an suv has a certain utility. it can go offroad, it can tow boats, it can carry a lot of people. the problem i have is when they are marketed to the masses. i can guarantee none of my neighboors use the suv they own for any of these things. THEY BOUGHT IT BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO "GOOD" FOR A MINIVAN. they need room for people but want the suv because they look better.

Real quick: If I want something that's safe, is as big as an SUV (i.e. cargo area), gets good mileage, is powerful, and can carry at least five and loads of stuff wherever I need (including off-road and in town), what do I buy? A station wagon? The only two with decent mileage and offroad prowess are the Outback H6 and V70 XC, but they're both at least $5000 more than my SUV was. Additionally, they're not as powerful and not as large for cargo. A minivan? Slow, average-looking, and with no offroad ability. The SUV has replaced the station wagon -- I'm sorry to say.

 

[Sludge Slide]

Originally posted by Gil
...AND I CAN'T SEE AROUND HER!...

...which is another reason that I don't drive the Patrol around town. It's a very wide and high vehicle and I'm sure that anyone behind me would have bugger all chance of seeing past me. I hate driving behind oversize vehicles around town so why should I annoy others who feel the same way as I do?

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by vat_man
SUVs in the US already benefit from easier CAFE standards than motor vehicles (CAFE standard of 27.5 mpg for cars and light trucks - i.e. SUVs, 20.7 mpg), even though we all know the light truck issue is for commercial and agriculture usage, NOT PICKING UP YOUR DAMN KIDS FROM SCHOOL!

It's the same nonsense here that sees a Honda CR-V in Australia qualify for lower tariffs because it's a 4WD, even though my Subaru Legacy/Liberty RX sedan spends more time in 4WD on a 15km trip to the shops than a CR-V does in its lifetime.

I think you'll also find that SUV/Light Truck safety laws in the US are less stringent than for cars - although that is changing in the face of the recent Ford Explorer debacle.

To suggest that cars need more regulation is absurd - they already are.

I'm not suggesting or implying anything like that. But if you're going to criticize one, you should know that cars suffer the same problems as SUV's, and that just because something is marginally bigger does not mean it's a million times worse.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by TAFJonathan
Dear God, that is some of the most skewed logic that I have ever heard.

Explain why, and I'll let you have it.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by advanR
my honest opinion is that bush is a hot-headed texan hellbent on getting revenge on someone that tried to have his father killed.

Make a statement like this and get called on it.

My honest opinion is that you are blindly liberal and were raised in a home where your parents were blindly liberal. Since you have naive views on politics, you never chose to even consider the possibility of another way to look at life. And then you have the gaul to come in and insult a man -- without facts -- on the ground that he's a hot-headed Texan? He's from Connecticut, you know.

Also -- what kind of car do you/your parents own?

 

[advanR]

Okay, since you use no capital letters, I'll take that as an estimation of your brainpower and put this in simpler terms.

my god. thanks for the cheapshot. because i decide i dont want to take the effort to hit shift i must be some kind of moron. nice logic. this statement sums yourself up perfectly.

- Even if SUV's polluted ELEVEN TIMES more than cars, the fact that there's eleven times of the amount of cars on the road would make the fraction reduce to one when it (amount x pollution) is multiplied. That "evens out" with something.

I dont understand what you think "evens out". If an SUV pollutes more than another vehicle, THEN IT DOES, PERIOD. I dont see how you can take the fact that they do, and try to justify it by comparing it to something else. this makes no sense.

All right, good point. Let's do some comparing. Let's take an SUV -- maybe an RX300, or an MDX. Both have healthy 3.0-litre V-6's and are fairly large (the MDX is huge, for the segment). Not only do they get better gas mileage than every minivan you can buy, but they also get better mileage than the Ford Taurus wagon, Mercury Sable wagon, Volvo V70, Subaru Outback H6, and Audi Allroad. Incredible, isn't it? Do research first. Speak later.

I already said some other vehicles pollute more than SUVs. you are wasting energy throwing an odd example at me. The fact is *most* SUVs pollute and use more gas than cars.

They've sold 26 million Ford F-series trucks, and about 20 million Silverados, as well as 10 million or so Dodge Rams. The next time you take a ride, check out the 60 million domestic fullsize trucks and make a note of how many have full beds. And I know you're going to come back into this thread and say 'all of them,' but in truth, it's nowhere close. Not even a quarter.

I dont really care about the kinds of beds in trucks. I think you are crazy for pointing this out, whatever your point was.............

Real quick: If I want something that's safe, is as big as an SUV (i.e. cargo area), gets good mileage, is powerful, and can carry at least five and loads of stuff wherever I need (including off-road and in town), what do I buy? A station wagon? The only two with decent mileage and offroad prowess are the Outback H6 and V70 XC, but they're both at least $5000 more than my SUV was. Additionally, they're not as powerful and not as large for cargo. A minivan? Slow, average-looking, and with no offroad ability. The SUV has replaced the station wagon -- I'm sorry to say.

THEN YOU NEED ONE!!! you pretty much described my description of the ideal use of an SUV. reread my posts. I said i will try and sway people that dont actually need an SUV to think about buying something else. Im not trying to force anything on anyone. you are way too defensive.

Make a statement like this and get called on it.

My honest opinion is that you are blindly liberal and were raised in a home where your parents were blindly liberal. Since you have naive views on politics, you never chose to even consider the possibility of another way to look at life. And then you have the gaul to come in and insult a man -- without facts -- on the ground that he's a hot-headed Texan? He's from Connecticut, you know.

Also -- what kind of car do you/your parents own?

an opinion is an opinion. i did not try and state that as fact. my parents happen to be democrats by the way, because they arent crazy.

I own an 88 E30 M3 (cost ME $12k. easily worth it to me as I love motorsports). My father owns a mercedes-benz S500 (needs to have a car he can use to take clients out to lunch with. another detail, he started his own company 11 years ago and has worked hard to make it what it is today. he decided to buy it as a reward.). My mother bought a 1993 Audi 100S a year ago for $6k. I dont know why you want to know my parents cars though. I have little influence over what they buy.

I lost all respect for you after i read your last few posts. use better logic and dont make personal attacks on message boards. pm me if you wish to take this further.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by advanR
my god. thanks for the cheapshot. because i decide i dont want to take the effort to hit shift i must be some kind of moron. nice logic. this statement sums yourself up perfectly.

Because you're lazy (also defined by the fact that you don't research what you're saying) you find that I should be giving you some sort of credibility? I'm willing to give this topic effort and research, because it's something I feel very strongly about. If you don't, then I shouldn't waste my own time arguing with you.

I dont understand what you think "evens out". If an SUV pollutes more than another vehicle, THEN IT DOES, PERIOD. I dont see how you can take the fact that they do, and try to justify it by comparing it to something else. this makes no sense.

But you miss the point: SUV's pollute more, but there are more cars on the road. As a whole, cars produce more emissions than SUV's. On average, SUV's emit more, but you can't take the average, since I could always quote, say, a 1976 Impala versus a new Honda CR-V as an example. Unfair, yes, but anything else is generalising. After all, what is an 'average' SUV and what is an 'average' car?

I already said some other vehicles pollute more than SUVs. you are wasting energy throwing an odd example at me. The fact is *most* SUVs pollute and use more gas than cars.

Every minivan and all midsize station wagons is not an odd example -- it's a pattern. The bottom line is that SUV's I quoted (as well as most SUV's of similar size and all SUV's of a smaller size) are more economical than any car-based alternative.

I dont really care about the kinds of beds in trucks. I think you are crazy for pointing this out, whatever your point was.............

If you think people don't use their SUV's, consider who uses their pickup trucks. You said that most truck owners use their trucks for work. Not a chance.

THEN YOU NEED ONE!!! you pretty much described my description of the ideal use of an SUV. reread my posts. I said i will try and sway people that dont actually need an SUV to think about buying something else. Im not trying to force anything on anyone. you are way too defensive.

Nah -- I'm not being defensive. My point is that every single person with an SUV faces the exact decision I just stated. There is not one person who has purchased the kind of SUV's that you're targeting who made a decision based on anything other than what I said. Nobody buys an SUV to drive their one child to school. There's much more to it than that.

an opinion is an opinion. i did not try and state that as fact. my parents happen to be democrats by the way, because they arent crazy.

Incredible.

I own an 88 E30 M3 (cost ME $12k. easily worth it to me as I love motorsports). My father owns a mercedes-benz S500 (needs to have a car he can use to take clients out to lunch with. another detail, he started his own company 11 years ago and has worked hard to make it what it is today. he decided to buy it as a reward.). My mother bought a 1993 Audi 100S a year ago for $6k. I dont know why you want to know my parents cars though. I have little influence over what they buy.

Nothing, it's just a stereotype I've been trying to develop recently.

I lost all respect for you after i read your last few posts. use better logic and dont make personal attacks on message boards. pm me if you wish to take this further.

Do you believe you do use capital letters? Evidently you have a skewed logic of what a capital letter is. If you don't believe use of proper spelling is a good measure of brainpower, then I'm forced to concur with what I've stated in the past. Do you believe that your political views are complex with a statement like 'my parents are democrats... because they aren't crazy?' That sounds to me like an attack to every single political party other than Democrat, and it sounds like you're calling me crazy. And that's personal.

 

[Joey D]

Well it looks like I opened up one hot topic.

Anyways I think it is stupid if you are trying to tell me that SUVs are bad. If they were so bad why do they sell so well? I'll tell you why, people want a auto that makes them feel safe. A SUV is the perfect way to feel safe (even though they aren't that safe). But like I said its up to the people shelling out there money.

 

[1X83Z]

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=405674#post405674

Hooligan rules. Another perfect usage of that post.

 

[Joey D]

Hmm well ok there is another thread on it

 

[1X83Z]

No, that's on another topic. I just wanted to reference that post because it's always topical, no matter what the topic. Everyone can learn from it.

 

[Joey D]

Ah ok well at least we've got a good debate going on here even though there shouldn't be.

 

[Hooligan]

Originally posted by M5Power
- Even if SUV's polluted ELEVEN TIMES more than cars, the fact that there's eleven times of the amount of cars on the road would make the fraction reduce to one when it (amount x pollution) is multiplied. That "evens out" with something.

I don't think that evens out much. It's not comparing apples to apples. Compare one car to one SUV. It's not as if one SUV takes the place of eleven cars. If that were true, then you could say that things balance out. For example, the crosstown bus sure as heck pollutes many more times than one car, but since it's just one bus doing the work of the same number of cars needed to carry those people, the total sum of pollution is the same. Just nit-picking one little point there....

 

[frestkd]

Originally posted by The Vanishing Boy
In fact I do agree that those big stupid SUV's gobbles a lot gas, I strongly agree that those enviro groups. Just think, that most of our gas/diesel/propane/Natgas at the pump came from Arab countries, well most of them are rich shieks that hates US and support Bin Laden & Co. These big, gas guzzling vehicles must go, or by the time we know it, Saddam & the gang will pour us some Bio-Chem weapons here (in the US).

Alternative fuel sources are the only way to beat terrorism.

I have on word for ya "MONEY"

 

[Hooligan]

Originally posted by advanR
-okay, when i saw a picture of it i saw a small connecting walkway, i thought that would be too little to class it as one tower.

The bases are connected, thus the same building....

-that "last straw" imo would definately be enough reason to search out bin laden and perhaps go after the tali ban, but i dont see how a last straw perpitrated by bin ladens network would warrant us aggression on iraq. as they were not the attacking party.

Not the attacking party? Not even after al Qaeda operatives claimed responsibility?

-I dont know where your information about hussein and bin laden came from, but i have no proof of that. nevertheless, if bin laden kills 3,500 americans and knocks down 2 towers, it doesnt mean you go take out frusteration on iraq.

Let's consider Iraq a separate topic altogether: Iraq is rumoured to be building up a mass-destruction arsenal. Knowing Saddam's previous aggressive actions, the UN (spearheaded by the US) asks to have a look-see around Iraq. Saddam says no...then maybe...then yes. The UN snoops around, and they find suspicious bits & pieces. No real smoking gun, but darn close. Are you telling me that you would give Saddam the benefit of the doubt and let him be? That's like letting the school bully pass through the school with brass knuckles half-sticking out of his back pocket.

I targeted the suv drivers that can find a more efficient car to suit their lives well, because the driver of an m5/amg55/911 would have little reason to switch to a honda civic. the civic would obviously not be as quick or fun to drive.

First of all, what constitutes "fun to drive" is different from person to person. That means while I think the WRX is the best thing to drive in the US, someone else thinks the Land Rover Discovery is the best thing. That's one of the reasons I am loathe to leave the US: total freedom of choice.

but i think ATLEAST 1/3 of SUV drivers would be fine with something else.

So do I, and I push all new-car buyers to something more of my own taste (which most everyone would do). But they'll go with whatever they want. Freedom of choice....

how bad do i think it is? i never said anything about how bad i think it is. I am not green eyed. i dont think everyone should buy hybrid hondas. but if someone can buy a more efficient vehicle than an suv i am for it. and my opinion is that there are quite a few people that choose to buy suvs when they could easily buy somethingelse and not miss anything. (you are correct, i am 18 by the way. but i have thought this way my whole life.

(You do know that when I said "green-eyed", I meant "tree hugging", right?) When you're 18, you're "whole life" 's opinions really only exist back to age 10. When you have kids (or at least watch other kids grow up), you'll realize what...children they all are.

one thing i am for is higher taxes on cars that pollute more or have a higher fuel consumption.

Unfortunately, the US won't go like that. It'd be an even tax across the board. When it comes to the automotive industry, the government either favors it as a whole, or is against it as a whole.

 

[frestkd]

Originally posted by advanR
this is what i mean. you think like 90% of people. the only consideration when buying a vehicle shouldnt be the cost. you should think of adverse affects. suvs DO pollute more than other cars. you are very wrong for saying they dont. people need to take responsibilty for this.

you are young i know, so i will look past some of your ignorance. but when you get older i hope like hell you smarten up.

EDIT: this was directed to streetracers comments.

So a BMW X5 pollutes more than a Chevy Monte Carlo? Remember the X5 has either 3.0 liter DOHC I6 or 4.4/4.6 liter DOHC V8. The Monte Carlo has a 3.8 Liter OHV V6?

 

[frestkd]

I have learned on thing in this thread. People like to blame other people and objects for their own problems. People blame guns for crime when have you seen a gun hold up a store or fly around shooting people. Washington DC nobody can legally own any firearm, but did it stop the DC snipers? In the U.K. thier citizens can only own single shot shotguns, pellet/bb guns, and have no right for self defense. Their overall crimerate is higher than the U.S. People sue the cigerette companies for getting cancer and everyone knows that the Human Body needs Oxygen to work not the stuff in cigerettes. People blame SUV for polluting the Earth when the U.S. has better air quality than any other nation in the world. What happens if some Tyrannt like Saddam Hussain get a cargo ship puts a Thermal Nuke in the ship and sails it into New York Harbor it can happen. If we have the means to prevent it? should we, or should we wait until it happens?

Kristof

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by frestkd
I have learned on thing in this thread. People like to blame other people and objects for their own problems. People blame guns for crime when have you seen a gun hold up a store or fly around shooting people. Washington DC nobody can legally own any firearm, but did it stop the DC snipers? In the U.K. thier citizens can only own single shot shotguns, pellet/bb guns, and have no right for self defense. Their overall crimerate is higher than the U.S.

My digital camera has about an hour left for charging, so I'm going to rip into this post because it's easy. First off, the DC sniper: The gun they were using was purchased in either Alabama or New Jersey, not Washington DC, making your "point" moot. If every state had anti-gun laws, there would be no gun crimes. Canada has, much like other civilised countries, fierce anti-gun laws. In 2001, there was one gun murder in the whole of Ontario, and it was when a man from Detroit took a gun from Detroit to Canada and shot his ex-girlfriend. Canada has no gun problem. None. They only let people have guns for the right purposes. Hawaii also has no gun problems, because Hawaii's citizens have worked extremely hard for reform. In 2000 in Hawaii, there were eight gun murders all on the same day with the same gun.

So is Britain's crime rate higher? Yes. Is Britain's murder rate higher? By far, no. Would you rather have your home burglarised or would you rather be killed? Your pick.

People sue the cigerette companies for getting cancer and everyone knows that the Human Body needs Oxygen to work not the stuff in cigerettes.

For years (and probably before you were born), cigarette companies refused to admit that their products were addictive and could cause any problems to your body. The United States government and every state sued the cigarette companies in order to find out the truth, and it worked splendidly.

On the whole, I agree with your point, just your logic is misguided.

 

[Gil]

I have to disagree on the gun thing. I don't own a gun. But that is because I have a passel of children in my home. I DO have a sturdy hickory axe handle and a strong working knowledge of human anatomy on my side. (Walk in to my home with the intention of doing me or mine harm...be carried out.)
But I will always believe that when/if guns are outlawed only criminals will have access to guns.
Further, I believe that with only illegal guns out there, and criminals knowing that the populace is unarmed. The crime rate will go up.

As far as murder: It takes a week of waiting to get a handgun in this country. However, you can go right down to Wal-mart and pick up a chainsaw, drill, axe, etc. and take it home today.

If you look at most of the "successful" mass murderers/serial killers in history, they all favored quiet weapons such as edged weapons (Jack the Ripper, The Manson "Family"). Bare hands and Bludgeons (Ted Bundy). Heck, the Al-queda, used friggin' airplanes.
A person or persons commited to killing another will find a way to do it. Access to a firearm is not neccesarily going to increase the likelihood of a violent crime occuring.
Again, on principle I don't own a fire-arm. However, I am trained in their use.
I also believe strongly that purchasers of firearms should be REQUIRED to go through training, Such as Massad Ayoob's Course at LFI (Lethal Force Institute), before taking the weapon home. Mr. Ayoob covers the legal use of lethal force and the applicable laws related to the use of lethal force.

 

[Sludge Slide]

Originally posted by M5Power
... If every state had anti-gun laws, there would be no gun crimes...

I can tell you right now that you're wrong. Firearm regulations only stop people from purchasing firearms legally. Here, in Australia, we have very strict firearm regulations but that wouldnt stop me from going out this afternoon, buying an illegal semi-automatic or fully-automatic firearm and shooting 30 people. Anything that is banned or outlawed can always be purchased, there are far too few controls in place to stop this.

Back on topic eh fellas?

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Sludge Slide
I can tell you right now that you're wrong. Firearm regulations only stop people from purchasing firearms legally. Here, in Australia, we have very strict firearm regulations but that wouldnt stop me from going out this afternoon, buying an illegal semi-automatic or fully-automatic firearm and shooting 30 people. Anything that is banned or outlawed can always be purchased, there are far too few controls in place to stop this.

Back on topic eh fellas?

Where would you buy such a gun? I assume from an underground dealer. And where do you think he would get such a gun?

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Gil

If you look at most of the "successful" mass murderers/serial killers in history, they all favored quiet weapons such as edged weapons (Jack the Ripper, The Manson "Family"). Bare hands and Bludgeons (Ted Bundy). Heck, the Al-queda, used friggin' airplanes.
A person or persons commited to killing another will find a way to do it. Access to a firearm is not neccesarily going to increase the likelihood of a violent crime occuring.
Again, on principle I don't own a fire-arm. However, I am trained in their use.
I also believe strongly that purchasers of firearms should be REQUIRED to go through training, Such as Massad Ayoob's Course at LFI (Lethal Force Institute), before taking the weapon home. Mr. Ayoob covers the legal use of lethal force and the applicable laws related to the use of lethal force.

Most murders committed in this country are gun murders. That statistic is true nowhere else in the civilised world. I understand what you're saying, Gil, but I am guaranteeing to you - the murder rate WOULD sharply decline if we were to see guns outlawed (not that I'm seriously pushing for it -- I don't see it as a large threat to myself or my loved ones, and even if most murders commited are gun murders, that's still a hugely small number compared to the number of those who own guns).

 

[frestkd]

Go to this website and be enlightened www.flashbunny.org...Yes its pro-gun open yer mind. Anybody that drives a car that uses products made from oil is supporting terrorism. That means ALL cars, even electric powered cars. Most of our electric powerplants use oil to make electricity. Plastics are made from oil. So if you want to fight TERROR ride a bicycle and use synthectic oil to lube the chain.

Kristof

 

[Joey D]

Dude that flashbunny site is great!!!!

Anyways I agree with frest along with anyone else who has half a brain and knows that SUV's don't support terror