From the San Francisco Chronicle:

And????

Three days ago some women got into a fight outside a bar on the eastside. One of the women got into her car drove up on the sidewalk and tried to run the other women down.

Yesterday somebody shot and killed a cop a few blocks north of here.

So why do I care what happens in Peking?

Well, someone from China's Hebei province might read this. One never knows.

Well, an automobile was the weapon that a man chose to use to attack a group of children, and the automobile may have had an automatic transmission.

So, I'm waiting for someone to promote automobile control, such as eliminating automatic transmissions.

After all, if a weapon is to blame for whatever crime it is used for, then automobile control is logical in light of what happened in China.

Dodo, did this happen on the south side of Hebei province? Automatic transmissions may be banned there.

it never ceases to amaze me how these people who in some warp minded fashion martyr themselves to a cause and yet wind up creating more of an atrocity than that which they feel they are rebelling against and in turn make themselves out to be worse than the original monster..it seems that all logic has been over taken by their loss or grief...or they're just a dumb azz...

That's just terrible! All over the world, there's always something going on. It sadden me to see these people lost their mind and take innocent kid's life away or harm them. I wish everyone could leave in peace and hormony...

Can you confirm that it was a fully automatic transmission? If so, then we maybe we can get someone to promote eliminating automatic transmissions.

If wishes were horses we would all ride. Reality on the other hand has most of us walking, or crawling along at best.

not really

its not designed as a weapon,,,,its designed as transportation

and because of this, the use of that particular item is regular and usually NON HARMFUL


unlike GUNS, designed as weapons, not used nearly as often, because they are for the purpose of HARMING

Whether it is designed as a weapon or not, it can still be deadly.
Especially the 4 and 6 speed automatics. Dead is still dead. We have to get control on these types of killers.

I'd love it if they banned automatic transmissions in automobiles.

Then people would concentrate on their driving instead of their cell phones and egg mc muffins.

They should also teach children at the age of five how to handle sub machine guns and small artillery pieces so we can all be prepared when the alien invasion comes.

We should be getting a new update from Hebei province soon.

How is it coming from there Dodo?

ANYTHING used improperly can be deadly. THats why we hold people accountable when they use them improperly and it results in death.

WE cant avoid deaths, we can do more to avoid intentional deaths when there are tools designed specifically to aid that purpose in the hands of those predisposed to such behavior

a bullets PROPER use is to harm or kill. ITs one instrument that we can PROACTIVELY regulate to keep out of the hands of people who would use them for their PURPOSE on others in intentional homicides and themselves in suicides

Bows and swords were specifically designed to kill…Should they be banned?

Switchblade knives were NOT designed for killing (they were invented for seamstresses), so can we legalize them everywhere that they are currently banned?

Dynamite & ammonium phosphate fertilizer were NOT designed for killing, so why can't I buy all I want? Why are they banned for sale to the average consumer? Do I have to be licensed to buy them? Why? I don't need a drivers licence to buy a car.

If you can ban the indiscriminate sale of dynamite & ammonium phosphate because they CAN cause harm and kill, then why not place similar restrictions on the sale of automobiles? It's already been amply demonstrated that they can be and are used as deadly weapons, even though they are not designed for the purpose.

yet again

I w ouldnt care if bows and swords were banned, I dont know that they are or that they are used too often in mass killings or if they cause bystander deaths when they are used

switchblades also dont give me the same concern as guns

technically, you do need a license to buy a car, because to keep it you have to have it registered and insured,,w hich require a license


I hope you would have to have some license or obligation to show the non fatal reason to posess dynamite and fertilizer

dynamite is for destruction and demolition

again, quite a different purpose than transportation,,,


these things that have the potential for death and certainly MASS death, should be reasonably regulated to at least attempt to keep them out of the hands of those who potentially behave impulsively and anxious,,,

I have no problem with trained, responsible, citizens having WEAPONS

the discussion is about WEAPONS, not things that can be used as weapons


the arguments given are like saying ,, why do we disallow grown men from marrying little girls,,because marriage doesnt mean they will have sex,, and those that want to have sex will anyway,,,


or, why ban anything? lets just have chaos and make it perfectly acceptable and simple for any and every full out nutcase or simply potential nutcase have an arsenal of dangerous weapons?


that may make sense to some, but not to me,,,,,and no amount of terribly unrealistic comparisons to non weapon items , because they can be 'deadly' wont make it make sense either,,,,

False. You might only need those things to drive on the public roads. A ten-year old kid with no licence or registration can buy a car if he has the money for it. He can even drive it if he has a private road or driveway & "Daddy" says it's OK.



What if I can buy it for peanuts and sell it for a profit? Should I have to be licensed to buy & sell stuff?



It has a legitimate non-lethal purpose, just like a car does.What does being designed for transportation have to do with it?



I take it you mean the mentally unstable and the criminal. I couldn't agree more, but what about the regular citizen? Why can't he just walk in and buy some? Should the presumption be that he's a competent adult or an incompetent, childlike creature who needs to be cared for by "society"?



The discussion is about a car (designed for driving fro A to B) being USED as a lethal weapon. Isn't ANY car driver capable of using his car for that purpose? How can we keep car drivers from intentionally killing people with their cars?



Considering the alternative of suspecting everyone of thought crimes, I'd say that's a winner. The chaos would soon settle down as the nut cases would be eliminated from the gene pool rather quickly.



Oh well…It was just a thought.

a ten year old cannot buy a car, they are not legally able to enter into a contract. (they can buy one ILLEGALLY, just like anyone can find a way to break laws)


,,,yes, you should have to be licensed to buy and sell things INTENDED for dangerous use,,,


dynamite has a purpose that is DESTRUCTIVE, therefore by definition dangerous, a car has no DESTRUCTIVE purpose


noone knows who a 'regular' citizen is until they CHECK their information and if they are indeed a 'regular' citizen they still should have training required to obtain the weapon


we cant keep people from intentionally killing people, thats not the point, as is repeated often,, laws dont stop people from doing things but they do deter many who may have otherwise considered it,, just like I dont smoke weed,, mainly because its illegal,, if it was legal, I may consider it

and it being illegal still doesnt stop those who want to take the risk from doing it,,,but it does deter others who dont feel its worth it


banning a car bans peoples ability to be mobile, depending upon where they live and what family/friends/income they have, and what their schedules are

I would be extremely restricted in my movement if not for a car, the busses dont run regular and the bus stops are magnets for danger in the evenings , I have children and if there is an illness or accident, waiting around on the bus and taking the long trip to the hospital is likely not gonna work for me,, nor is asking an ambulance which will later add thousands of debt to my finances

I have no serious restriction or inconvenience on my life by not having a gun,,,



its as asinine to suspect EVERYONE of thought crimes as it is to ignore the scores of violence in our culture that is so much more likely to end in death (not just of 'nut cases' either) when guns are in the picture,,,,

a ten year old cannot buy a car, they are not legally able to enter into a contract. (they can buy one ILLEGALLY, just like anyone can find a way to break laws)


,,,yes, you should have to be licensed to buy and sell things INTENDED for dangerous use,,,


dynamite has a purpose that is DESTRUCTIVE, therefore by definition dangerous, a car has no DESTRUCTIVE purpose


noone knows who a 'regular' citizen is until they CHECK their information and if they are indeed a 'regular' citizen they still should have training required to obtain the weapon


we cant keep people from intentionally killing people, thats not the point, as is repeated often,, laws dont stop people from doing things but they do deter many who may have otherwise considered it,, just like I dont smoke weed,, mainly because its illegal,, if it was legal, I may consider it

and it being illegal still doesnt stop those who want to take the risk from doing it,,,but it does deter others who dont feel its worth it


banning a car bans peoples ability to be mobile, depending upon where they live and what family/friends/income they have, and what their schedules are

I would be extremely restricted in my movement if not for a car, the busses dont run regular and the bus stops are magnets for danger in the evenings , I have children and if there is an illness or accident, waiting around on the bus and taking the long trip to the hospital is likely not gonna work for me,, nor is asking an ambulance which will later add thousands of debt to my finances

I have no serious restriction or inconvenience on my life by not having a gun,,,



its as asinine to suspect EVERYONE of thought crimes as it is to ignore the scores of violence in our culture that is so much more likely to end in death (not just of 'nut cases' either) when guns are in the picture,,,,

I would be extremely restricted in my ability to defend myself without a gun. In fact if the gun has less capability than the weapon they person who is trying to kill me than the law has restricted my ability to defend myself.

No one needs a car until they need to get from point a to point b swiftly, no one needs a gun until faced with an attacker who has the ability to harm or kill you.

None of your arguments change these facts. The relationship between these two topics is quite cogent despite your nonsense rebuttals.

Amend the constitution until then the gun is an individuals right to BEAR, as in carry!