Automobile whoopie-coooshin

I think the last place this guy needs to be is behind the wheel of an automobile.

Anyones' a pro with a shotgun after a couple boxes of shells. One of the simplest firearms to use and damn near the most effective thing for crowd control, opening doors, and rendering automobiles un-drivable. Where is this, Cypress, China, Brazil or East Timor?

*quality german automobile, the Audi Quattro is one of my dream cars.

Edsel has to be one of the coolest names ever-My dad worked as a car salesman at a Ford dealership in 1960 and couldn't sell the automobile after the namesake to save his job! Total hipster car today and hard to come by one cheap.
https://www.google.com/search?q=edsel&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi
&ei=ZN3tUJjAM6Wf2QXH4YGIDw&biw=1600&bih=821&sei=wN3tULrcN6Lw2gW8_4HYBA

Recent history teaches in the U.S., Russia, China, central Europe, that peeps without guns get slowly (or quickly) fucked by the people they think they elected or believe to be sovereign or otherwise appointed by God. All of these man-created entities, societies, governments, all mutate, collapse, etc.-What is the ultimate end of everyone being armed? Who cares. There will never be a time when this is true.

Look, it's real simple for me. Wealth and power and the abuse of both have brought humanity to the brink before-The fucks who have bankrupted the United States would that nobody looked their way for payback, would that their children (fuck everyone elses) will inherit their influence and power and wealth, and that this machine will continue until power is consolidated into the hands of a few-This shit hasn't changed for thousands of years-Walls protect from invasion, sharp sticks puncture eyeballs of the guy with a rock in his hand.
The negative externalities of there being a shitload of guns in a country?? What, these children being shot by a whack job? Again, address the cause of the cancer don't simply bombard the body with radiation.
You will never be able to guess when someone will snap in our society but there are definite warning signs to clue the somewhat lucid in, and NONE of that shit has to do with why Johnny should or shouldn't be able to have a weapon. Anything may be used as a weapon, including automobiles, but you don't see everyone up in arms to ban cars whenever a CRAZY FUCK, careens through a crowd of peeps on Rodeo Drive.

Historically, the worst atrocities with firearms are perpetrated by governments gone bad, now mine is inching again towards taking mine away??
Again sir, fuck that shit.

Volvo has always been the brick-shithouse of automobiles-Wonder if that driver was sore after all this??
You'd think that Volvos' would be barred world-wide from entering demolition derbys...

The NRA talking points are an excellent vehicle for the study of logical fallacy in political propaganda. Let me know if I left any out.

1. Strawman - Banning ALL guns is not the answer.

2. False Dichotomy - Instead of talking about gun regulation, let's talk about mental health.

3. Appeal to Authority - Check out this study I didn't read or verify that was written by two conservative think tank employees in a private student published newsletter with "Harvard" in it's name that is not sanctioned by Harvard University proper. http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/about/

4. Argument from ignorance - if only the teachers had been armed, this tragedy would have been averted.

5. Denying the Antecedent - Existing laws did not prevent this tragedy, therefore, new laws cannot prevent future tragedies.

6. Fallacy of Composition: You will never be able to stop all gun crime, therefore we shouldn't try to stop some gun crime.

7. Red Herring: More people are killed in automobile accidents than are killed by gun enthusiasts. Should we ban cars too?

Let's take things in stride here.
1. Al Gore has the highest electricity useage in the entire country in Tennessee. That kinda tells you all you need to know about what he says and does.

2. Super Storm Sandy doesn't mean anything is necessarily happening anymore than the fact that California hasn't had any major earthquakes or storms for approximately 5 years. The south aka Katrina and such largest storms were in CA and the East got almost nothing

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0211/Behind-mid-Atlantic-snowstorms-a-rare-weather-pattern

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/index.html

Please realize there are many other articles out there that point this pattern out.

None of that means that we shouldn't be good stewards of the land and such. However, Mr. Chomsky and anyone over the age of 40 has been alive for the death by heat in the 60's, the ice age of the 70's, the Sagan predictions of over population death of us all, to the Al Gore death of climate change heat, to the newly recognized studies put out in Europe about how the temperature actually declining and the high's were 13 years ago.

The simple fact of the matter is this: We have many more safeguards in place and to say that our rivers, streams, automobiles hell, even airplanes don't burn cleaner and more efficiently is just plain not paying attention.

>> ^bareboards2:

One word.
Kids.
This guy is an idiot to have his guns unsecured.
@radx just sent me a link -- http://www.technologyreview.com/
news/506466/given-tablets-but-no-teachers-ethiopian-children-teach-themselves/
This thing would not stop a kid.


Who said he had kids? WTF is wrong with you people? He likes guns. He probably enjoys collecting guns, (one of the points @deathcow was making that, apparently, flew right over several of your heads). Maybe he even enjoys shooting them. So what? You don't like guns? Fine. Don't buy them. JFC, so many paranoid leaps of logic here.

@spoco2
Guns can kill when people USE them to kill. It's a childish argument to claim that all guns are inherently dangerous. The vast, VAST majority of gun owners are responsible gun owners. Unless you're claiming this guy is a killer, or, as @L0cky lamely implied, wants to use them to justify the money he spent. Maybe he's a terrorist! There are about 350 million guns in this country and about 250 million vehicles, yet the number of fatalities for each is about the same each year (and over half of the gun fatalities are suicides). Why are you so worried about guns? I won't even mention alcohol, electricity, bathtubs, McDonald's, and icy sidewalks. Just because something isn't "designed to kill people" doesn't mean it isn't "inherently dangerous". Hunting rifles aren't "designed to kill people". Are they safe for kids? And what is the deal with using a red herring like kids? Using kids playing with loaded guns as the nails in your soapbox is almost as silly as decrying automobiles because they are dangerous for kids to play in with the engine running. And, again, WHO SAID HE HAD KIDS?

I don't own guns. I don't like to shoot guns. They don't do anything for me, although I would consider getting one some day if SHTF began to seem inevitable. I'm definitely not a fan of guns, but some of you people are just ridiculous.

>> ^PancakeMaster:

So the land development, building and fueling/mining of a nuclear power plant is free of emissions? What about waste disposal and decommissioning? Bremnet speaks the truth, albeit in a markedly sarcastic way. Car emissions come from energy production. Electric cars simply have their energy production out-sourced. Things become interesting at a local level with electric transport because you can potentially choose how your energy is produced. But you'd better believe that coal and oil is still powering all things electric in the majority of households, including recharging batteries.
I am a huge proponent of nuclear power, though I really wish LFTR's would come into production especially considering it's organic safety features and relative fuel abundance.
Since we're on the subject of electric cars, don't forget that the production of batteries and electric motors is very expensive. I'm not necessarily talking about monetary costs, but rather cost in resources and energy. Again, I support the development and usage of electric vehicles but dare not ignore their true cost.
>It seems the only answer that comes up is carbon credits and absolute emission limits.
You have so much more power to control your resource usage than the government. Don't rely on them for a solution. You can choose what you eat (agriculture is a huge resource spender), how you travel (walk or take public transport), what and why you buy (industry is another big spender), and your home resource usage. Don't pass the buck and blindly empower the government when it's our responsibility.
Now if only the planet was run on pancake power. Then, surely, I would be the true master of Earth.
edit
BTW, great video and awesome car. Would love to give it a go (as with all Audi Rx cars
>> ^bcglorf:
Well, nuclear is there to make electricity and vehicles emission free. If the greens hadn't worked so hard to ensure that nuclear power was stopped the 41% for electricity and whatever chunk of transportation is vehicles would all be gone.
But fine, is you wanna be sarcastic how about you chime in with a better solution. You hear plenty of chicken little's running around crying it's time to panic. You hear plenty of talk about reducing our emissions. You don't hear nearly so much about how to do that. It seems the only answer that comes up is carbon credits and absolute emission limits. Without nuclear power for electricity production and switching large parts of transportation over to electricity, what is left? Are we just to stop using transportation and electricity all together I suppose?
>> ^bremnet:
Yes, so true. Just look at all of the countries signing up for new nuclear power plants. Oh, and of course, those who generate their electricity today with that peskily cheaper natural gas from shale gas will likely just shut that down. Forgot to ask, how do we generate the electricity to charge our batteries? If you say anything that involves rubbing balloons in ones hair, well that's just too clever! Let's see - in 2009, 41% of global CO2 emissions were from the generation of electricity and heat, and only 23% for transport per the IEA report (that's all transport - cars, trucks, buses, seagoing vessels, trains, planes) so let's call your 30% a rounding error. By 2015, it is estimated that the total CO2 emissions from seagoing vessels will surpass that for all land based automobiles, so can we get a video of an electric cargo ship instead of this car? Pretty sure they have those, right? If we have electric vehicles, and have to generate more electricity ummm... (head explodes). Top marks for enthusiasm, but I'm afraid we're going to have to keep you back for another year to re-teach math and energy balance.




But just how much can you realistically reduce your emissions by through changed behaviour? I doubt even 50% is realistic. Now, how about getting our entire society to do the same, are people gonna voluntarily give up everything they need to drop 50%? Not a chance.

If electric cars can be improved enough to be desirable over gas, then a switch over to nuclear for electricity production can drop emissions nearly 50%. More importantly, it happens by consumers buying something new because they simply want to, and government/corporations making money off selling nuclear energy to run everyone's new cars.

Short of putting guns to peoples heads and telling them what they can and can not eat, how far they are allowed to travel in a year, and enforcing that across the globe, emissions ARE NOT going to be lowered. Electric cars and nuclear power are the only viable options out there and they are either ready now(nuclear) or will be very, very soon(electric cars).

So the land development, building and fueling/mining of a nuclear power plant is free of emissions? What about waste disposal and decommissioning? Bremnet speaks the truth, albeit in a markedly sarcastic way. Car emissions come from energy production. Electric cars simply have their energy production out-sourced. Things become interesting at a local level with electric transport because you can potentially choose how your energy is produced. But you'd better believe that coal and oil is still powering all things electric in the majority of households, including recharging batteries.

I am a huge proponent of nuclear power, though I really wish LFTR's would come into production especially considering it's organic safety features and relative fuel abundance.

Since we're on the subject of electric cars, don't forget that the production of batteries and electric motors is very expensive. I'm not necessarily talking about monetary costs, but rather cost in resources and energy. Again, I support the development and usage of electric vehicles but dare not ignore their true cost.

>It seems the only answer that comes up is carbon credits and absolute emission limits.

You have so much more power to control your resource usage than the government. Don't rely on them for a solution. You can choose what you eat (agriculture is a huge resource spender), how you travel (walk or take public transport), what and why you buy (industry is another big spender), and your home resource usage. Don't pass the buck and blindly empower the government when it's our responsibility.

Now if only the planet was run on pancake power. Then, surely, I would be the true master of Earth.

*edit*

BTW, great video and awesome car. Would love to give it a go (as with all Audi Rx cars

>> ^bcglorf:

Well, nuclear is there to make electricity and vehicles emission free. If the greens hadn't worked so hard to ensure that nuclear power was stopped the 41% for electricity and whatever chunk of transportation is vehicles would all be gone.
But fine, is you wanna be sarcastic how about you chime in with a better solution. You hear plenty of chicken little's running around crying it's time to panic. You hear plenty of talk about reducing our emissions. You don't hear nearly so much about how to do that. It seems the only answer that comes up is carbon credits and absolute emission limits. Without nuclear power for electricity production and switching large parts of transportation over to electricity, what is left? Are we just to stop using transportation and electricity all together I suppose?

>> ^bremnet:
Yes, so true. Just look at all of the countries signing up for new nuclear power plants. Oh, and of course, those who generate their electricity today with that peskily cheaper natural gas from shale gas will likely just shut that down. Forgot to ask, how do we generate the electricity to charge our batteries? If you say anything that involves rubbing balloons in ones hair, well that's just too clever! Let's see - in 2009, 41% of global CO2 emissions were from the generation of electricity and heat, and only 23% for transport per the IEA report (that's all transport - cars, trucks, buses, seagoing vessels, trains, planes) so let's call your 30% a rounding error. By 2015, it is estimated that the total CO2 emissions from seagoing vessels will surpass that for all land based automobiles, so can we get a video of an electric cargo ship instead of this car? Pretty sure they have those, right? If we have electric vehicles, and have to generate more electricity ummm... (head explodes). Top marks for enthusiasm, but I'm afraid we're going to have to keep you back for another year to re-teach math and energy balance.

Well, nuclear is there to make electricity and vehicles emission free. If the greens hadn't worked so hard to ensure that nuclear power was stopped the 41% for electricity and whatever chunk of transportation is vehicles would all be gone.

But fine, is you wanna be sarcastic how about you chime in with a better solution. You hear plenty of chicken little's running around crying it's time to panic. You hear plenty of talk about reducing our emissions. You don't hear nearly so much about how to do that. It seems the only answer that comes up is carbon credits and absolute emission limits. Without nuclear power for electricity production and switching large parts of transportation over to electricity, what is left? Are we just to stop using transportation and electricity all together I suppose?


>> ^bremnet:

Yes, so true. Just look at all of the countries signing up for new nuclear power plants. Oh, and of course, those who generate their electricity today with that peskily cheaper natural gas from shale gas will likely just shut that down. Forgot to ask, how do we generate the electricity to charge our batteries? If you say anything that involves rubbing balloons in ones hair, well that's just too clever! Let's see - in 2009, 41% of global CO2 emissions were from the generation of electricity and heat, and only 23% for transport per the IEA report (that's all transport - cars, trucks, buses, seagoing vessels, trains, planes) so let's call your 30% a rounding error. By 2015, it is estimated that the total CO2 emissions from seagoing vessels will surpass that for all land based automobiles, so can we get a video of an electric cargo ship instead of this car? Pretty sure they have those, right? If we have electric vehicles, and have to generate more electricity ummm... (head explodes). Top marks for enthusiasm, but I'm afraid we're going to have to keep you back for another year to re-teach math and energy balance.

>> ^Sagemind:

The pedestrian didn't even turn his head in the direction of the oncoming traffic.
Typical of what I hate about pedestrian law in Canada (and the US?) In 99% of cases the pedestrian has the right of way. If the car had hit him or other traffic. The driver would have been at fault.
This is mostly because the pedestrian would be long gone or because pedestrians don't have insurance so there is no one to sue for damages.


I think it's more likely because the driver is in a big, heavy vehicle that moves really fast. In most cases, the presumption is going to be that the driver owes a duty to take care not to injure anyone due to the potential danger of operating a motor vehicle, and has more ability to avoid incidents due to the speed of the vehicle. After all, you have to get a license to drive. You don't have to get one to walk. Unless you have a dashcam or other documentation to prove that liability is on the pedestrian, or unless the pedestrian admits fault, these other factors are probably going to carry the day.

Many, if not most, pedestrians do have liability insurance that might apply in the case of being found at fault for this kind of thing--homeowner's or renter's insurance. Most policies come with liability coverage that applies whether you're on the property or not--it's mainly used for things like dog bites, people injuring themselves on your property, etc., but depending on the policy it might apply to this sort of incident.

Also, if the pedestrian has insurance on their own automobile, in most states one can get medical coverage or personal injury protection coverage that applies regardless of whether you are in your vehicle or not--it just has to be a car accident of some kind.