Uber Says No Guns In Cars

lol, i read this title as "Uber bans gum in cars"....lol I was like wtf.
 
Which is a horrible event, but its luckily extremely uncommon (like getting hit with lightning after winning the lottery) and who ended up saving the day? A good law abiding citizen with a firearm. Again, think about how many good people there are compared to mass murders... we are talking millions upon millions to one. Mass murderers wield so much power because they usually go for soft targets where there are a lot of unarmed defenseless people.

Mass murders tend not to be too successful at the gun range or gun store or police station, since after shooting someone they'd have twenty guns pointed at them.

Seagull-Free-Zones.jpg
 
I think we are going on a tangent ... almost all of the constitutional protections apply to the USA government and not corporations ... Corporations or business should be allowed to do whatever they want and ban whatever they want, as long as they don't violate another law ... corporations control freedom of speech, right to bear arms, freedom to associate and many other things because they legally can (and it is not our place or the government's place to question those rules, most of the time) ... if it is good for business it should be legal since that is the basis of capitalism
 

Ok, as usual - it's not meant as ALL gun owners :rolleyes:. Nothing is absolute, especially talking about humans. In general, which is not the whole, people that are going to commit a crime don't do things through legitimate channels.

Some people and their thinking.... All rich people are slimy tax evading assholes. All Republican's are Christian, anti-gay, racist white people. All gun owners are like Rambo and want to shoot someone. No. That's not how it goes. There is no ALL, there is no one size fits all. There is a some, or most. That part is implied and should be for anything when talking about people. Even liberals - not all of them are gun hating, gay loving, abortion giving, coffee drinking vegans. Some love guns, meat, and aren't for abortion. Some don't agree with homosexuality, either.
 
Which is a horrible event, but its luckily extremely uncommon (like getting hit with lightning after winning the lottery) and who ended up saving the day? A good law abiding citizen with a firearm. Again, think about how many good people there are compared to mass murders... we are talking millions upon millions to one. Mass murderers wield so much power because they usually go for soft targets where there are a lot of unarmed defenseless people.

Mass murders tend not to be too successful at the gun range or gun store or police station, since after shooting someone they'd have twenty guns pointed at them.

Even look at those people who did "mass stabbings". The same concept applies there. Mass murderers choose targets that can have the most effect for the least amount of resistance.
 
I think we are going on a tangent ... almost all of the constitutional protections apply to the USA government and not corporations ... Corporations or business should be allowed to do whatever they want and ban whatever they want, as long as they don't violate another law ... corporations control freedom of speech, right to bear arms, freedom to associate and many other things because they legally can (and it is not our place or the government's place to question those rules, most of the time) ... if it is good for business it should be legal since that is the basis of capitalism

Yes, they should. That's up to them. But, like everything else, it can have consequences. In this case, pissing off a large group of people that are boycotting Uber. There won't be lawsuits to change the policy. They aren't infringing on your rights. That's just their rules. Private property. They control what happens there.

Although, as it's private property, it should be up to the vehicle owner, not Uber.
 
All rich people are slimy tax evading assholes. All Republican's are Christian, anti-gay, racist white people. All gun owners are like Rambo and want to shoot someone.

Pretty much.
 
I think we are going on a tangent ... almost all of the constitutional protections apply to the USA government and not corporations ... Corporations or business should be allowed to do whatever they want and ban whatever they want, as long as they don't violate another law ... corporations control freedom of speech, right to bear arms, freedom to associate and many other things because they legally can (and it is not our place or the government's place to question those rules, most of the time) ... if it is good for business it should be legal since that is the basis of capitalism
No one is confused or going on tangents, we're talking about stupidity and facts... constitutional rights somehow applying to corporations were never brought up once.

People have a moral obligation IMO to speak up with big corporations make unfair rules that sacrifice the safety of their employees. If I were asked to pick up random strangers all day every day all hours of the night for years, you're damn straight I would want to be able to protect myself. Its not a constitutional right, but it is a basic human right that Uber should hopefully get public pressure to reverse. New policies can be unmade as fast as they were made.
 

What you're assuming is that there will still be people who own firearms that can cause a disparity. If we ban all aspects production/sale/ownership/use and then send law enforcement into homes to search and seize, plus implement broad monitoring programs on the population, we can remove that disparity among the civil population. With current technology along with adequate monitoring, we can dramatically reduce the number of firearms and turn their metal into something useful like butterflies or additional roadside cameras to automatically measure speed and revoke drivers licenses. It won't totally solve the problem because there will always be people out there who will circumvent controls (which means drastic and harsh punishments for violations) but it will reduce availability.
 
What you're assuming is that there will still be people who own firearms that can cause a disparity. If we ban all aspects production/sale/ownership/use and then send law enforcement into homes to search and seize, plus implement broad monitoring programs on the population, we can remove that disparity among the civil population. With current technology along with adequate monitoring, we can dramatically reduce the number of firearms and turn their metal into something useful like butterflies or additional roadside cameras to automatically measure speed and revoke drivers licenses. It won't totally solve the problem because there will always be people out there who will circumvent controls (which means drastic and harsh punishments for violations) but it will reduce availability.

:confused: Some of your trolling sounds pretty authentic if you were to hang out in Seattle or California.

Aside from the trolling, if this were to happen like that, it would be the start of a revolution. It'd be eliminating the constitution in more ways than one, and a lot of people (even liberals) would be against it.
 
What you're assuming is that there will still be people who own firearms that can cause a disparity. If we ban all aspects production/sale/ownership/use and then send law enforcement into homes to search and seize, plus implement broad monitoring programs on the population, we can remove that disparity among the civil population. With current technology along with adequate monitoring, we can dramatically reduce the number of firearms and turn their metal into something useful like butterflies or additional roadside cameras to automatically measure speed and revoke drivers licenses. It won't totally solve the problem because there will always be people out there who will circumvent controls (which means drastic and harsh punishments for violations) but it will reduce availability.
1) Can't, constitution, and its in the constitution for a reason as one of the checks&balances in government by design.
2) Its insanely easy to manufacture smooth bore firearms like a shotgun, never mind that we'll soon see a 3D printing revolution as those become as common as household printers.
3) There are over 10 million, MILLION, illegal aliens in the United States. It is a hell of a lot harder to sneak 20 people over the border than it is 20 pistols. All you would affect is that black market gun prices would go up a bit, but not by all that much considering we have such a huge border with pressure from neo-liberals and libertarians to relax policing it.

Its simply impossible and undesirable to attempt to uninvent firearm technology in the United States, so all that ends up being accomplished is that the criminals are empowered by having a drastic arms advantage over a defenseless mass of people, with cops just 15 mins away... there with fresh chalk and rape kits.
 
No one is confused or going on tangents, we're talking about stupidity and facts... constitutional rights somehow applying to corporations were never brought up once.

People have a moral obligation IMO to speak up with big corporations make unfair rules that sacrifice the safety of their employees. If I were asked to pick up random strangers all day every day all hours of the night for years, you're damn straight I would want to be able to protect myself. Its not a constitutional right, but it is a basic human right that Uber should hopefully get public pressure to reverse. New policies can be unmade as fast as they were made.

If the ultimate goal is protection for Uber (they have zero responsibility for their drivers but some responsibility for their customers) then maybe an alternative is that both drivers and users sign a waiver at the time they sign up with the service that absolves Uber of all legal responsibility for anything that happens ... personally I couldn't care less whether the drivers are armed or prohibited from being armed but I am not a big fan of corporate liability where none should exist
 
What you're assuming is that there will still be people who own firearms that can cause a disparity. If we ban all aspects production/sale/ownership/use and then send law enforcement into homes to search and seize, plus implement broad monitoring programs on the population, we can remove that disparity among the civil population. With current technology along with adequate monitoring, we can dramatically reduce the number of firearms and turn their metal into something useful like butterflies or additional roadside cameras to automatically measure speed and revoke drivers licenses. It won't totally solve the problem because there will always be people out there who will circumvent controls (which means drastic and harsh punishments for violations) but it will reduce availability.

You think those trusted officials are going to go into gangland and take their guns too? How about drug groups that can import their guns via illegal methods?

Seriously, it's the same BS thinking that you can take from those who should so that those who shouldn't, can't.

I don't want to live in your world where the government controls your every move just to prevent you from hurting yourself or others.

You can just up the punishments and have a significant effect rather than turn the US into the EU.
 
If Uber does not own the cars how can they prohibit one from carrying their own legal property in another piece of their own property?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

13th worst in the world, between Mexico and Argentina. All the countries with the lowest numbers have the strongest gun control laws. I'm not saying that it's the only thing going on, but the correlation is pretty obvious. The only way to know for sure would be to copy Hong Kong's gun laws for a few years to see if it makes a difference.

We all know that's never going to happen and I'm not saying I think it's a good idea, but the USA is the only first-world country with very lax gun control and it's the only first-world country near the top of that gun crimes per capita list.

Why not compare the total homicide rate? Switzerland has a lower murder rate than Sweden despite having lax firearm laws (much less restrictions on firearm type than the US) and similar firearm ownership rates as the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Only .6 per 100K compared to Sweden's .7. Or Australia's 1.1, which has some of the toughest firearm laws for a western country.

In Canada you can walk into a gas station and buy a semi automatic rifle and walk out the same day, yet they only score 1.6. You do need a license, but all you need to do is pass a written test if I recall.

On the other hand Brazil has 25.2; a country in which firearm ownership is essentially outlawed for the average person. Venezuela is at 53.7. Again, extremely strict laws.

Lots of factors matter a whole lot more than firearm ownership rates.
 
You think those trusted officials are going to go into gangland and take their guns too? How about drug groups that can import their guns via illegal methods?

Seriously, it's the same BS thinking that you can take from those who should so that those who shouldn't, can't.

I don't want to live in your world where the government controls your every move just to prevent you from hurting yourself or others.

You can just up the punishments and have a significant effect rather than turn the US into the EU.

I have no problems supporting that kinda government. In fact, it's just the kind of world I'd like to live in where people are all monitored pretty closely and if something goes wrong, the right intervention is automatically sent (medical support, police, fire, whatever else). That only happens if citizens are watched closely so that deviant thinkers can be weeded out and cordoned off someplace where they can't hurt anyone or themselves.
 
If Uber does not own the cars how can they prohibit one from carrying their own legal property in another piece of their own property?



Why not compare the total homicide rate? Switzerland has a lower murder rate than Sweden despite having lax firearm laws (much less restrictions on firearm type than the US) and similar firearm ownership rates as the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Only .6 per 100K compared to Sweden's .7. Or Australia's 1.1, which has some of the toughest firearm laws for a western country.

In Canada you can walk into a gas station and buy a semi automatic rifle and walk out the same day, yet they only score 1.6. You do need a license, but all you need to do is pass a written test if I recall.

On the other hand Brazil has 25.2; a country in which firearm ownership is essentially outlawed for the average person. Venezuela is at 53.7. Again, extremely strict laws.

Lots of factors matter a whole lot more than firearm ownership rates.

Doesn't Switzerland also have mandatory military service (like a lot of countries) ... I think every country that requires their citizens to serve in the military is going to have better performance on gun violence ... the argument could be (especially given the military demands the USA has) that we require all 18-20 year old men and women who aren't enrolled in college to serve (if they are enrolled in college they would complete their enrollment after they graduate)
 
Doesn't Switzerland also have mandatory military service (like a lot of countries) ... I think every country that requires their citizens to serve in the military is going to have better performance on gun violence ... the argument could be (especially given the military demands the USA has) that we require all 18-20 year old men and women who aren't enrolled in college to serve (if they are enrolled in college they would complete their enrollment after they graduate)

As someone who has been out of the military less than a year, the last thing the military needs is people that don't want to be there. Not to mention, we're trying to downsize our military right now.
 
Doesn't Switzerland also have mandatory military service (like a lot of countries) ... I think every country that requires their citizens to serve in the military is going to have better performance on gun violence ... the argument could be (especially given the military demands the USA has) that we require all 18-20 year old men and women who aren't enrolled in college to serve (if they are enrolled in college they would complete their enrollment after they graduate)

Are you actually suggesting that the masses be forced into responsibility? You mean they should actually serve the country that so many take from, and contribute nothing to?

Heresy!
 
Lots of factors matter a whole lot more than firearm ownership rates.
Its really about criminals.

A normal law abiding citizen when given a gun doesn't suddenly change who he or she is as a person and grab a ski mask to rob a liquor store. That is something that criminals with a totally different mindset do, and if they don't have a gun then they wave a machete in your face with a friend there to help.

Since Uber doesn't do background checks as far as I know, allowing them to have CHLs would actually BE the background check that they don't do, and the most thorough one that I am aware the government does for regular citizens.

So if Uber looked at the facts and wanted to improve driver and passenger safety, they would recruit as many CHL holders as possible.
 
Doesn't Switzerland also have mandatory military service (like a lot of countries) ... I think every country that requires their citizens to serve in the military is going to have better performance on gun violence ... the argument could be (especially given the military demands the USA has) that we require all 18-20 year old men and women who aren't enrolled in college to serve (if they are enrolled in college they would complete their enrollment after they graduate)

That'd be way too expensive and there's probably not enough for all of those people to be like gainfully employed in military service. It's better to just take 18-20 year old men and lock them in large prison cities for two years if they're not going to be in college. It'll keep us safe from them at least.
 
Also forgot to add that people seem to assume a firearm is the only way to commit mass murder when talking about lone killers. Aside from the outlier of the Port Aurthur massacre, mass killings in Australia seem to have similar death rates after strict gun laws passed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders

Fires have killed up to 15, and up to 8 with a knife. The average mass killing with a firearm in that country seems to be around 5.

Doesn't seem like the strict gun laws have changed much, aside from what weapons are used.

Doesn't Switzerland also have mandatory military service (like a lot of countries) ... I think every country that requires their citizens to serve in the military is going to have better performance on gun violence ... the argument could be (especially given the military demands the USA has) that we require all 18-20 year old men and women who aren't enrolled in college to serve (if they are enrolled in college they would complete their enrollment after they graduate)

From what I understand, you go in for a few months then get out. Until around 40 you must report for training a couple of times are year with your issued rifle. The current being a fully automatic SG-550 which you must store at home. When you're done you can buy it for around $100, which is cheap, seeing as they go for ~$4000 in the US. :eek:

But I am not a fan of such a system or a draft.
 
What you're assuming is that there will still be people who own firearms that can cause a disparity. If we ban all aspects production/sale/ownership/use and then send law enforcement into homes to search and seize, plus implement broad monitoring programs on the population, we can remove that disparity among the civil population. With current technology along with adequate monitoring, we can dramatically reduce the number of firearms and turn their metal into something useful like butterflies or additional roadside cameras to automatically measure speed and revoke drivers licenses. It won't totally solve the problem because there will always be people out there who will circumvent controls (which means drastic and harsh punishments for violations) but it will reduce availability.

You're advocating totalitarianism. Forced searches and seizures were the tactics employed by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and every other despot to control their population. If you think government being the only ones that have guns, I might remind you that before Hitler massacred over 6 millions Jews, God knows how many Poles and Czechs, and brought his blitzkrieg across Europe, he banned private gun ownership. 20 million dissidents were massacred under Stalin, and 60 million under Mao. I'm sure the population of North Korea can't own firearms either. Ask them how wonderful their lives are with the government having all the guns.

Right now, in America, you CANNOT ban manufacture and ownership, and you CANNOT send law enforcement into homes for search and seizure because to do so is against the law. The only way you could do this would be to overturn the 2nd and 4th amendments to the Constitution, which is not going to happen, or else to violate the constitution. If you do that it would result in a civil war/armed revolt, and the government would lose because the government is vastly, VERY vastly outnumbered by the armed population of the country. That was the intent of the founders when they drafted the Bill of Rights because they remembered what King George had done to the population - outlawed gun ownership, conducted forcible searches and seizures, and forced the housing and quartering of British soldiers on the colonial populace. They did not want the populace to have to deal with that again. A government that is of the people, by the people, and for the people has nothing to fear from an armed society, but a government that turns tyrannical has everything to fear.

The same goes for criminals. Unarmed criminals do not attack armed civilians. Armed criminals readily attack unarmed civilians. If you outlaw gun ownership among the population then someone, somewhere will still make them - out of the country, whatever, people will find a way to get them, and in every nation that's disarmed their citizenry, the criminals still get weapons because they do not obey the law. That includes people in the government that are willing to run guns, or abuse their positions of authority. A completely weapon free world is a utopian pipe dream that's never going to happen without something on the level of divine intervention. The only instance I know of where that's pronounced is in the Bible when it says Christ will return, and then people will beat their swords into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks, and will learn war no more. You want a gun-free world? Pray for Christ's return and hope the Bible is right. Otherwise, man's not changing his behavior any time soon.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a world where nobody needed weapons or felt they needed them, but as long as one person seeks gain by harming another, there will be a need for people to defend themselves and to defend those weaker than themselves from those who would seek to harm them. As long as the need for defense exists, the need for the tools of defense will exist, be it clubs, swords, or in the modern day, guns. Denying the common man the ability to protect himself and his family is standing in support of criminal violence and the oppression of the common man by tyrannical governments. Consider that very carefully when making your ideological pronouncements.
 
Also forgot to add that people seem to assume a firearm is the only way to commit mass murder when talking about lone killers. Aside from the outlier of the Port Aurthur massacre, mass killings in Australia seem to have similar death rates after strict gun laws passed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders

Fires have killed up to 15, and up to 8 with a knife. The average mass killing with a firearm in that country seems to be around 5.

Doesn't seem like the strict gun laws have changed much, aside from what weapons are used.

This is why I am not a big fan of gun bans ... crazy people will find a way to kill and given the ease of making a bomb these days they would just switch to other weapons of mass destruction ... if we want to really violate people's rights I would be more in favor of genetic testing (if we could figure out genetically what makes people crazy enough to kill)
 
Oh, and I must agree that this is a dumb decision by Uber for every reason Ducman69 has stated. I know what's required for someone to go through a background check to get a CCW permit. The only more exhaustive background check is to apply for a permit to own a Class III weapon. That's either a machinegun, or short-barreled rifle (rifle or shotgun with barrel less than 16" that has an attached buttstock) for the uneducated. CCW permit holders are pretty much the safest and most responsible people around or they couldn't pass the background check. It's a guarantee the person is not a convicted felon, has no history of domestic abuse, and is not a drug addict.
 
One question, the article mentioned that Lyft already had this policy and no one seemed to care then ... is Lyft that small a competitor compared to Uber that it is the Uber policy that sets the sun on fire :confused:
 
You're advocating totalitarianism.

I know what I'm advocating. The present system is pretty ineffective (as many, many people on this forum demonstrate daily by complaining about the world they live in) so we may as well try something different to see if we can build a better future instead of doing nothing at all to stop all the people who live here from shooting each other. Equating it to every single negative thing you can think of doesn't remove the value in doing it. Sure, the average American isn't accustomed to it, but I think they'd grow used to it over time if they had no choice but to give up their weapons. It'd be sorta Stockholm Syndrome-ish, but it'd be workable.

It's a guarantee the person is not a convicted felon, has no history of domestic abuse, and is not a drug addict.

Yet...they're not that way yet. It only takes pulling a trigger once to change that and selling them the means to do it does bring them one step closer to being able to commit a gun crime.
 
I have no problems supporting that kinda government. In fact, it's just the kind of world I'd like to live in where people are all monitored pretty closely and if something goes wrong, the right intervention is automatically sent (medical support, police, fire, whatever else). That only happens if citizens are watched closely so that deviant thinkers can be weeded out and cordoned off someplace where they can't hurt anyone or themselves.

There is something mentally wrong with you, I seriously hope you don't own any firearms.
 

Using this graph why do you feel the need to arm yourself is so few deaths are a result of mass shootings or murders in general? You are protecting yourself against the .0001%?

As far as who gets guns and who doesnt, if criminals can so easily obtain a firearm then how come all crimes arent committed with firearms? I mean what guy would just to break into a house armed with a knife and crowbar instead of the easily available 9mm he supposedly can just pick up from the local crack dealer on the block?

Gun availability isnt the problem, it's people being consistently armed. Having your CWP doesnt do you much good unless you actually use it. And if you think this country is ready for 100% of law abiding citizens to walk around armed you're out of your mind. This aint the wild west anymore. Today's society simply isnt mature enough to be trusted with the power to mark people for death. When you have people frothing at the mouth against political opponents, people who genuinely hate others based upon nothing more than who they voted for then you have proven you arent ready yet for that level of responsibility.
 
There is something mentally wrong with you, I seriously hope you don't own any firearms.

Do you frequent the front page news forum often? Check the post history for CreepyUncleGoogle. He trolls like this hard all the time.
 
There is something mentally wrong with you, I seriously hope you don't own any firearms.

No, I don't own firearms, but I don't see what's wrong with being supportive of the idea that people who are dangerous to society are put somewhere that makes it difficult or impossible to hurt other people. Mental institutions and prisons are modern examples of such places that we already use in society on a daily basis. Stop light cameras, police patrols, speed traps, vehicle searches, and citizen report hotlines are ways we already closely monitor the activities of one another. What's mentally wrong with supporting those things in pursuit of a safer, more peaceful society?
 
I have no problems supporting that kinda government. In fact, it's just the kind of world I'd like to live in where people are all monitored pretty closely and if something goes wrong, the right intervention is automatically sent (medical support, police, fire, whatever else). That only happens if citizens are watched closely so that deviant thinkers can be weeded out and cordoned off someplace where they can't hurt anyone or themselves.

I have to think you are being sarcastic. No right minded/critical thinking person would subscribe to such a notion.
 
Do you frequent the front page news forum often? Check the post history for CreepyUncleGoogle. He trolls like this hard all the time.

Ah, this makes sense then. I was having a hard time believing someone could be so naive.

I do hate trolls though. Someone needs to find a better form of entertainment than purposefully causing grief and arguments.
 
I have to think you are being sarcastic. No right minded/critical thinking person would subscribe to such a notion.

One post up from yours is where you can test whether or not a person capable of critical thinking is supporting such a notion. I'd argue since the nation has prisons and support the idea of having emergency response organizations, most of us already think in those terms. There's nothing scary about that.
 
Using this graph why do you feel the need to arm yourself is so few deaths are a result of mass shootings or murders in general? You are protecting yourself against the .0001%?

As far as who gets guns and who doesnt, if criminals can so easily obtain a firearm then how come all crimes arent committed with firearms? I mean what guy would just to break into a house armed with a knife and crowbar instead of the easily available 9mm he supposedly can just pick up from the local crack dealer on the block?

Gun availability isnt the problem, it's people being consistently armed. Having your CWP doesnt do you much good unless you actually use it. And if you think this country is ready for 100% of law abiding citizens to walk around armed you're out of your mind. This aint the wild west anymore. Today's society simply isnt mature enough to be trusted with the power to mark people for death. When you have people frothing at the mouth against political opponents, people who genuinely hate others based upon nothing more than who they voted for then you have proven you arent ready yet for that level of responsibility.

Not all crimes that would require deadly force are murders. As far as the CWP not doing much good how do you figure? Do you know most instances a person with a concealed weapon simply draws it and that is the end of the confrontation ? Take the shooting in Oregon's Lloyd center mall for example. The guy was shooting the place up with an AR, someone drew their concealed weapon. The shooter fled and ended his own life. Seems pretty effective use of a concealed weapon to me.
http://www.kgw.com/story/news/2014/07/24/12405148/
 
that is the death kneel of a company. Someone who gives rides away on nights of drunken parties but then expects you paint a target on everyone getting out of one of their drivers's car... lol so much for that service.
 
Back
Top