...I'm told there are towns where car ownership is essential. Prior to hearing DR Jose's tales of the non-city city, I would have thought Los Angeles was one such place....
This is news, that Los Angeles is a "town". Given that Los Angeles County contains two of the largest cities in the nation, Long Beach being the second, and that Long Beach is larger than Atlanta...
The term is "megalopolis." It refers to an unbroken stretch of urban area, formerly consisting of several smaller urban areas that have since joined physically, if not as a single political entity. Los Angeles is one such area. New York City is the center of another megalopolis. Each has serious problems with congestion, pollution, importation of goods (such as potable water, food, other consumables) and exportation of those goods after they've been used (a.k.a. garbage). The NYC megalopolis is still dependent upon motor transport for the goods, adding to that citys congestion problems. (How often have you seen deliveries of food being made to grocery stores via public transportation, after all? Or clothing from wholesaler to retailer?)
I'm just amazed by how little the people who dwell in these megalopolises (megalopoli?) understand the infrastructure of their own environments.
But the real problem is (cars) frequently kill people. Or injure people. Amazingly frequently. Everybody I know thinks they're a good driver. They may be dead wrong.
I quit driving over two decades ago, because I was a terrible driver. I know several people who will not drive at night, because they don't trust their night vision. Good drivers know their limits.
And I don't see the sense in blaming the vehicle for the actions of a bad driver. Cars are tools, machines, and most people that I know regard them as such. They are not sentient, and do not act of their own accord.
I think it's interesting that we require a license for drivers and not gun-owners. You'd think passing some sort of competancy test would be more important for guns. The only purpose of a gun is to kill; that's what they're meant to do. Cars have the higher purpose of transportation, and the cost we pay in human lives... well, it's awfully high.
To a degree, I agree with you here. In an
urban area, there should be stricter controls on gun usage, including the licencing of the users.
However, in a
rural setting, where there is more variety of life forms than human, the use of guns can be more practical than the use of the word "kill" suggests. What is being "killed" can be food. Amazingly, there are still people in this nation who rely on their skills as hunters to help provide for their families. I have relatives nearby who fit in that catagory. They also fish, and farm. Yes, they grow their own food. Not everything they eat comes frozen and ready to be nuked.
What is being "killed" can also be predators, natural beasts of prey that are targeting livestock.
I've noticed a similar macho bravado about gun ownership and car ownership. Many men seem to think they're things of beauty. I disagree. I think they're ugly, and dangerous, and cars, in certain parts of the world, are a necessary evil. Nothing more, nothing less.
A machine of any type, well maintained and cared for, can indeed become a thing of beauty, made with craftsmanship and respect. I also know many women who care and maintain their cars as well as the menfolk do. This is not a "macho" trait at all. I find it the mark of someone, regardless of sex, who respects their tools and abilities and is knowledgable about how they interact with their environment. If this is "bravado," at least there is nothing false about it.
