‘Ban Cars to Stop Terror’ Says Sweden’s Best-Selling Newspaper After Stockholm Attack

"Cars and other vehicles “have turned into deadly weapons”, and should be banished from cities to stop attacks like the one in Stockholm from happening in future, according to Aftonbladet editorialist Eva Franchell"

What does this have to do with gun control?....I think it's a perfect example of that kind of thinking.


Source:http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/04/11/ban-cars-newspaper-stockholm-attack/

 

Remember that country that banned cars? LOL

 

Yeah, that'll stop terrorism.

 

I thought banning lorries of peace was a joke??

 

Huh ???

 

My point exactly. No one has banned cars. It can't be done and have a modern successful country. Now banning guns HAS been done

 

Countries like Sweden, and England etc have small towns where much is within walking distance, Cities like N.Y.C. have huge traffic jams, due to people that refuse to walk a few blocks.
I do not believe in banning cars, however with good planning and efficiency, many needless car trips can be reduced.

 

More proof of how much the left hates freedom.

 

Funny, as a cyclist who cycles more than I drive (more than 7k mi/year) often challenged by vehicles on the road, after living in the Netherlands for a bit, can see benefit in the reduction of motorized vehicles and developing better infrastructure in our cities that supports that. But, I won't hold my breath.

However, there is an alternative

 

Only ban needed is for Muslims.

Boot em out. Problem solved.

 

There's that thing called the constitution....lol

 

Ban objects so a moral issue can be addressed? To solve a behavior issue ban an object. What happens when trains, buses or aircraft become the weapon of choice? Doc Savage is right liberalism is a mental disorder.

 

Ban liberals and the problem is stopped on a dime.

 

Uh...we already ban some objects so a moral issue can be addressed

 

Such as?

 

Run down to the store and pick up some Saron Gas for me.

 

That is an inevitability argument. There may be very good arguments against banning cars but this is not one of them.

"There is another type of defensive position that forms the basis of this article, collectively referred to as 'Inevitability Arguments.' These arguments attempt to challenge the efficacy of a proposal by claiming that the problem in question is inevitable. A debater, for example, might argue, 'global warming is inevitable because of Chinese pollution, so a carbon tax in the United States is misguided,' or 'free trade and globalization are inevitable, so protectionist policies in the short-term are untenable.' And so on....These arguments are very weak, even if they may be persuasive. Weak in what sense? Weak in that they don’t offer positive evidence to support or challenge a proposal, but merely question the extent to which policy might be efficacious. Argument is as much a science as it is an art, and logic dictates that even an probabilistically small chance that we can avert a large consequence is enough to try."
https://www.armedwithreason.com/the...ove-it-and-why-thats-just-the-way-things-are/

 

Unsuccessfully in many cases.

 

It would be much worse if we didn't.

 

Run down and pick up some heroin for me.

 

Would making heroin legal make addiction problems better or worse?

 

Once again, the point escapes you.
Banning objects does not fix moral issues.

 

I don't live near the Nazi supply store. Nerve agents are pesticides on steroids. By taking away an object you simply challenge the determined to adjust their strategy and tactics. Liberals haven't figured out that you can't take away free will by legislation. If you could no one would ever speed in a motor vehicle again...because it is illegal. That's the zaniness in today's gun control. It targets the citizen right and not the criminal behavior.

 

So you would like all this stuff legalized. This would make society better? Interesting.

 

And yet we ban them TO REDUCE HARM