Lol, if only that were true.
Silly me. How could I have forgotten
.
More than a whiff of āguns donāt kill people, people kill peopleā and we know how reductionist and very silly that take is.
1 Like
Not much more than a whiff.
Guns: Physical harm, threatened or actual (Iām not counting competitve sport or fashion accessory), is their only purpose. People are killed far too often when guns fall into the hands of children/the mentally unstable/the intoxicated. A 100% functional life is possible without a gun so it is entirely practical to consider eliminating, or at least very seriously restricting, gun ownership/use.
Cars: Getting from A to B is overwhelmingly their purpose, not harm. Harm is a quite serious side-effect but a good deal of effort is being made to minimise that by practically everyone (OK, not the Westminster Bridge terrorist). Most of that harm is not carried out by people who shouldnāt have a car in the first place. For many people there is, on occasion, no acceptable alternative to a car. Eliminating or very seriously restricting car ownership would not be practical.
Guns. Cars. Really not the same thing (as Iām sure you know).
The car problem is not caused by the car. Itās caused by the lack of an alternative or, if you like, by first-world residentsā reluctance to change their lifestyles so radically that living without a car becomes even practical, never mind rewarding. Itās in the same category as imposing mass vegetarianism i.e. capable of serious harm reduction and not strictly forbidden by any law of physics, but so unattractive that it would be electoral suicide. I note the article ends:
If elected, Labour should use this experience to adopt similar measures for the whole of the UK, and show the same courage Drakeford has done. By bringing together these ideas and presenting them as a narrative ā an updated version of John Majorās bicycling grannies ā perhaps even the diehard antis might be won overā¦
By John Majorās bicycling grannies ? What has he been smoking ?.
1 Like
The point I was making is that the gun-person is indivisible for the sake of the argument being made, as is the car-person. To make a trite point that the car is an inanimate object therefore not responsible for its actions is sub Daily Mail rhetoric.
Certainly didnāt need 7 fucking paragraphs on the functional difference between a gun and car.
2 Likes
Yeah it was a bit light on the old paragraphs I am disappointed and want more.
4 Likes
7 Sunak paragraphs?
Then why didnāt you say that instead of trying to conflate my point with the barely-related one about guns ?.
I was criticising Wolmarās argument. He was the one who separated āpeopleā, by which he meant āsome peopleā, from āmotoristsā and he then went on to link the latter to cars dominating āourā lives (presumably the āweā are his people).
You and I have cars. Do they dominate our lives ? Mine sits out of sight until I need it. Then itās bloody helpful to my life. Wolmar makes no mention of the people (sorry āmotoristsā - I keep forgetting theyāre not to be counted among the people) whose lives are only made workable by their cars.
Given the sub-Utopian reality we live in I regard cars as a necessary evil. Mostly I walk. I used to ride a bike a lot and despite having the scars I will again. When I can I take the bus or train. Iām the dom (sorry, @dom) in this relationship. The carās definitely the sub (no Bob, not that sub !).
2 Likes
How do you mean?
Car good
Gun bad.
Obvious wedge issue is obvious.
I guess it depends on how many people can see past āmuh car!ā 
I will be forever grateful to Mr Sunak for the opportunity to drive to an out of town shopping centre at 30mph in a gas-guzzling turbo-charged penis extension.
Finally we have a leader with vison, who speaks the language of the common man, that understands the meaning of freedom and has the courage to stand up to the local council do-gooders who are determined to ruin our traditional British way of life on the flimsy pretext that it might save the life of a child. I salute you Mr Sunak.
5 Likes
I went to Milton Keynes centre last night. Parked the car at a charger, and had a five minute walk to the theatre.
The streets were dark, with some very dark underpasses under roads. Claire commented that she wouldnāt have been entirely happy were she on her own.
There were some places designated as crossing points, but with signs saying āpedestrians do no have priorityā. Why the fuck not? Why not make it a zebra crossing? Why make people dodge 30mph traffic?
It struck me as a real outlier in the UK, and much closer to parts of the USA where you have to drive from one shopping area to the next. Is this what we want for the future? I donāt!
IIRC, Milton Keynes, like lots of mid 20th century new towns was designed around the car. I think the current government lacks the ambition to build new houses never mind new towns but if they were so inclined, Iād imagine that a 21st century new town would be much more pedestrian and āactive travelā oriented.
Yes, YES, fcuk you and the wankpanzer you rode in on!
And I hadnāt realised that Paris is already going to try it.
2 Likes
Well Paris has voted for it, albeit on a supremely Gallic shrug of a 5% turnout.
Holy shit, that makes Westminster parking rates look cheap.
The move triples parking rates for cars weighing 1.6 tonnes or more to ā¬18 (Ā£16; $20) an hour in inner Paris.
1 Like