Alcohol, high emotions, stress, crazy: all these negate any safety training and pretty much all are available in spades on a college campus.
Then perhaps those are issues worth addressing...
Frankly our liquor laws make no sense... Germans can serve beer to 14 year olds with parents present, 16 without, or so I understand...
Do Germans have the drunk driving problem that America has? Do college kids in Germany have drinking problems that US college kids have?
I'd be happier if I wasn't surrounded by armed students all day long on the off chance some complete nutter who is not a student decides to rampage.
How far would he get if he was surrounded by gun carrying students? Or more to the point, would he even try, knowing that?
Finally, when I send my daughter to college, I want her to be able to carry a gun, her biggest risk is not campus shootings, it is rape. A far bigger real concern than being, is being raped.
You'd think so, but there are still lots of people who want to ban guns. Remove the "well regulated milita" which doesn't mean what a lot of people think it means (words were different 200 years ago), and make it clear and obvious what the intent is.
It would also override and ban all the local and state laws on gun ownership. All of DC's and Chicago and CA's rules and limits on guns would go away.
Your right to a gun would be the same in Texas as it would be in California.
None of that is going to happen of course, I'm simply pointing out what the left could give the right, in return for universal background checks. The mistake the left is making is demanding it without offering something in return.
This is flat out wrong. High school kids should not be able to access automatic firearms for which you should have specialized training to use in the first place.
Your comment implies a lack of understanding about guns in general.
I have found, not always, but often, that anti-gunners don't actually know that much about guns.
Your "automatic firearms" comment is a bit of an issue... Do you mean "select-fire" weapons? Semi-automatic weapons? What?
And what "specialized training" is required to use an AR-15 rifle vs. a hunting rifle vs. a handgun vs a shotgun?
If I knew I was going to be shot, I'd much rather be shot by an AR-15 than by most hunting rifles. The single round from a hunting rifle is likely to drop me dead to the floor, while I could survive most 5.56mm rounds that don't hit a vital organ.
BTW, I owned a gun in high school, a.22 rifle that I owned since I was 8 years old when I was given it for my birthday. I've been shooting since then, having learned first at summer camp then at gun ranges later on.
My 9 year old son has his own rifle already and my daughter has one waiting for them. There is nothing scary or dangerous about that, because they respect the weapons and have seen what they do and have a respect for life that too many people lack these days.
And yes, both rifles are locked up, they can't get them out when they want to of course, but they are theirs to use at the range and to take with them when they leave home.
But there were armed people on campus, despite being "gun free". They're called campus police.
Yes, but they are easy to spot and watch for generally.
If the school has three thousand students and 2 armed guards, you can simply start by shooting them first, with the bonus of having more guns to use.
It is the ones you don't know about that is the real trick, which is why Federal Sky Marshals are not uniformed. If they were, a hijacker would just kill them first.
I wouldn't want to work where any yahoo could wander in packing and I'd have to worry about whether they had any screws loose.
Except, you do and you're just kidding yourself...
Someone with screws loose who intends to shoot people don't tend to care about "no guns allowed" rules...
The campus has its own police force who have guns and are trained to use them.
When seconds count, the police are just minutes away. Why is it that anytime there is a shooting, the first thing the unarmed people do is call people with guns?
Of all the rules at the university where I work, no-guns is among the most sensible.
Nonsense, all it does is tell me that if I bring a gun there, I'm more likely to be the only person with a gun there. It is a stupid rule. If you really want to be a gun free zone, you need the sort of protections that airports and courtrooms have. That is the only way for it to mean anything.
I understand you were likely making the statement tongue-in-cheek
No, I was not. But you might have misunderstood what I meant.
but how would you allow for students who wanted to opt out
I'm not saying they have to shoot guns, own guns, or even like guns, but a whole lot of people know nothing about them other than what the media tells them. I have found plenty of people who are afraid of guns due to a lack of knowledge.
I'm suggesting that we have classes on the safe handling and use of guns, what responsible gun ownership looks like, and to drill in the point that responsible gun use is always defensive in nature, never offensive.
The goal is to teach responsible knowledge and respect for guns and to instill in society that using guns for attack is evil, but using them for defense of innocent people is good, and that guns are just a tool.
Frankly I would not use a firearm if my life depended on it
I respect that, it is your right to feel that way, I'd never dare try and take it away from you.
The flip side is that I'd ask you don't try and do the same from me.
In Texas, I have the legal right to shoot someone who is stealing my property. That isn't true in every state, but it is here. That being said, I wouldn't do it. I personally don't believe in killing another person over "stuff". That being said, if someone was trying to hurt my family, my wife or kids, I would have no moral issues with shooting them. That is because my point of view is they did it to themselves by trying to hurt me or my family. I didn't put them there, they did. So it isn't my responsibility, it is theirs.
Not everyone feels that way and that is ok, I wouldn't suggest trying to require it of anyone. But I'll defend my right to do it all day long.
The culture and rhetoric around US citizen firearm rights and mass violence has long since passed into the realm of ridiculousness.
To some extent, yes... but you also have to look at the history of guns in the US and why we have a 2nd amendment in the first place. It wasn't put there by accident or for "hunting".
governments that wished to compel military service.
Well then you'll love me... I consider compulsory military service to be the same thing as slavery. It is forced service to the state via pain of violence. If the state can't convince people to sign up willingly, then perhaps the cause isn't that just.
And I also get that "non-military service in support of the state during war" is not much better, you're still being forced to support the economy in war. If you're against violence in all its forms, then I can see how even that is not acceptable. As long as you're not hurting anyone, you should be left alone.
A lot of them sure are... schools seem to attract mass shootings, all of which are supposed to be "gun free zones".
Even the various military recruiting points that have had shootings were gun free zones, the military had banned service members from carrying guns there.
This part of your post is wrong. More guns, less guns, won't make any difference, has nothing to do with the issue. It is just a sideshow.
NO, the answer is health care. Plenty of other countries have more guns per capita than the US and don't suffer these issues. You know why? Because people are looked after and get the help they need, rather than some nonsense ridiculous purely free market approach.
This is where you're correct.
I'm a far-left "you can have my guns when you take them from my cold, dead hands" type...
However, it is embarrassing that we don't have a free national health care system. We can afford 11 nuclear aircraft carriers, the largest most powerful military in the world, yet we have a horrible patchwork health system that does a crap job taking care of people in general.
You'd be a complete fool to try and return fire against a target that you have not identified in a crowd. You're just as likely to add to the problem as to solve it, and even might end up being mistaken for the active shooter yourself.
I have many guns, I sometimes carry a gun (I have a CHL in Texas). I would never, ever, ever draw my gun and fire at someone unless I had a clear and open line of fire, I was 100% sure of my target, and I was directly saving lives by stopping someone who was clearly intent on killing innocent people.
If there are other people either in front of or behind him, around him, or I'm unsure of the situation, I would not draw and fire.
I'm both legally and morally responsible for every round I put downrange, I would never wish to place an innocent in harms way.
I own and carry guns responsibly, I am not "Rambo", and real life is NOT a movie.
The sad thing is there is no reasonable discussion or compromise on either side of gun control. The NRA is one of the largest lobbyists in Washington, but not everything they argue for is good, but they fight everything because the gun-control lobby also will give no ground.
So both sides dig their heals in and give nothing.
This is sad and a mistake. One common argument is the "gun show loophole". It is misnamed, because gun dealers have to do background checks, even at gun shows. All it means is that private citizens can buy and sell guns without background checks within the same state, yet they can do this inside or outside of a gun show.
The fear of all gun transfers being "background checked" and thus having documentation is that sooner or later the US Government will pull an Australia and seize guns, and having records will make that much easier. Right or wrong, that is the fear from gun freedom groups.
A compromise might be, "amending the constitution to make clear that the ownership and possession of guns by private citizens is a natural god given right that may only be taken away in individual cases by a court of law that rules someone mentally incompetent." In return, all gun transfers get a background check.
I'm sure some people on both sides would not like even that compromise, but it would be a start. Both sides have to give something, or nothing will happen. We don't live in a nation where one side gets everything and the other side goes home empty handed. Or perhaps we do which is why nothing changes.
---
The other issue is that the government doesn't do very much to show that it respects the rights of citizens. Everything about guns is always about more bans, more restrictions. Want to impress the gun freedom side? Perhaps repealing the 1986 ban on select-fire weapons, in return for required background checks on every transfer might be something. It would show a give and take on the issue and that citizens do have rights.
Another thing they could give would be national concealed/open carry laws, respecting the right of the population to be armed, but in return, require training and safely classes for all gun owners.
---
These are ideas and attempts to find a reasonable middle ground, to offer something to both sides and to do something that would actually fix the problem, rather than paper it over with "guns are evil/guns are wonderful" arguments which accomplish nothing.
This situation will never really be fixed until the US wakes up to the fact that it is the only modern nation in the world that doesn't have a proper public healthcare system with guaranteed access to all, regardless of ability to pay.
Those of you who know me, know that I'm a far-right conservative, "they can take my gun from me from my cold, dead hands" type.
That being said, it is time for a national single payer health care system for everyone from birth to death, with no signups, memberships, co-pays, or anything else. Take all the money from medicare, medicaid, social security, etc. and put it into a national health service.
We have police and fire paid for by taxes, we have roads and airports paid for by taxes, we have a military, public education, and a hundred other things paid for by taxes. We have LONG since past the time of small government, yet we don't provide for the health of our citizens.
I would repeal ObamaCare and replace it with a national single payer health system. That isn't a popular idea among far-right conservatives, but it is time to do it.
People who have mental health issues need to be able to seek treatment. That is the only thing that is going to stop this sort of thing, we have people who are unstable who roam the streets and are untreated. They do something like this and everyone screams about guns.
It isn't about guns, it is about mental health care and access to it.
What about the rights of the 100's of thousands of people that have been murdered by gun in America - what about them?
What about my right to keep and bear arms?
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
The solution is not banning guns, the solution is a proper public health system and a respect for mental health, and being willing to lock up the mentally ill for treatment.
Finland has guns, but little gun crime. I suspect Finland has neither a melting pot of people that the US has and that it has a much better public health system for the poor and disadvantaged than the US does.
The United States doesn't lock up its crazy people and doesn't provide a reasonable option for their mental health treatment.
Perhaps it means that the law says "no guns allowed, unless you're a criminal and don't care about the law".
Notice all these shootings seem to be happening in "gun free zones"?
Frankly, college students are adults, they should be able to have guns on campus. Why not just make safe gun use and storage one of the first required classes? Rather than try and ban something that isn't going away, teach safe use and respect for guns and life.
For what it is worth, I do try and listen. My replacement of all my bulbs in my house with LED is directly related to a post on SlashDot. Someone took the time to explain it using non-harsh words and posted the math of the payback and energy used.
I read it and a lightbulb went off in my head (pun intended).
Within a month I had them all replaced.
I'm open and willing to listen to other points of view, if presented in a reasonable way that doesn't involve something rammed down my throat.
It is possible that I'm guilty of that from time to time, words on a web forum don't convey context or tone, what one person takes harshly was intended lightheartly, and so on.
---
I'm not against the concept of EVs, I'm against what the Model S is today being the future of EVs. The Model 3 might be it, if it really does launch in 2 years, it really does have 200 miles of range, and it really does cost $35K before any credits or rebates, then I'll give it a look.
It may still not be right for me then, but if they can build that, then they could build a pickup truck version for $55K with similar range I'd think, and I would imagine they would sell some of those too.
Slashdot Mirror
Alcohol, high emotions, stress, crazy: all these negate any safety training and pretty much all are available in spades on a college campus.
Then perhaps those are issues worth addressing...
Frankly our liquor laws make no sense... Germans can serve beer to 14 year olds with parents present, 16 without, or so I understand...
Do Germans have the drunk driving problem that America has? Do college kids in Germany have drinking problems that US college kids have?
I'd be happier if I wasn't surrounded by armed students all day long on the off chance some complete nutter who is not a student decides to rampage.
How far would he get if he was surrounded by gun carrying students? Or more to the point, would he even try, knowing that?
Finally, when I send my daughter to college, I want her to be able to carry a gun, her biggest risk is not campus shootings, it is rape. A far bigger real concern than being, is being raped.
I had been hoping Amazon Prime video would be added to AppleTV. Guess this means pretty much no way that's going to happen.
Or perhaps this is Amazon's way of getting it added... AppleTV can come back to Amazon as soon as PrimeVideo is added to AppleTV.
which is pretty much already the case...
You'd think so, but there are still lots of people who want to ban guns. Remove the "well regulated milita" which doesn't mean what a lot of people think it means (words were different 200 years ago), and make it clear and obvious what the intent is.
It would also override and ban all the local and state laws on gun ownership. All of DC's and Chicago and CA's rules and limits on guns would go away.
Your right to a gun would be the same in Texas as it would be in California.
None of that is going to happen of course, I'm simply pointing out what the left could give the right, in return for universal background checks. The mistake the left is making is demanding it without offering something in return.
I would agree with that...
Not all college students are mature enough to own a gun responsibly.
Then why do we let them drive?
Why do we let them join the military?
Why can they drink, smoke pot, etc.?
Why do we let them take out credit, buy a house, and have kids?
This is flat out wrong. High school kids should not be able to access automatic firearms for which you should have specialized training to use in the first place.
Your comment implies a lack of understanding about guns in general.
I have found, not always, but often, that anti-gunners don't actually know that much about guns.
Your "automatic firearms" comment is a bit of an issue... Do you mean "select-fire" weapons? Semi-automatic weapons? What?
And what "specialized training" is required to use an AR-15 rifle vs. a hunting rifle vs. a handgun vs a shotgun?
If I knew I was going to be shot, I'd much rather be shot by an AR-15 than by most hunting rifles. The single round from a hunting rifle is likely to drop me dead to the floor, while I could survive most 5.56mm rounds that don't hit a vital organ.
BTW, I owned a gun in high school, a .22 rifle that I owned since I was 8 years old when I was given it for my birthday. I've been shooting since then, having learned first at summer camp then at gun ranges later on.
My 9 year old son has his own rifle already and my daughter has one waiting for them. There is nothing scary or dangerous about that, because they respect the weapons and have seen what they do and have a respect for life that too many people lack these days.
And yes, both rifles are locked up, they can't get them out when they want to of course, but they are theirs to use at the range and to take with them when they leave home.
Murder is an action, a gun is not, it is a tool, not an event.
A shooting is an action...
I can use my car to murder, maybe we should ban all of them?
But there were armed people on campus, despite being "gun free". They're called campus police.
Yes, but they are easy to spot and watch for generally.
If the school has three thousand students and 2 armed guards, you can simply start by shooting them first, with the bonus of having more guns to use.
It is the ones you don't know about that is the real trick, which is why Federal Sky Marshals are not uniformed. If they were, a hijacker would just kill them first.
I wouldn't want to work where any yahoo could wander in packing and I'd have to worry about whether they had any screws loose.
Except, you do and you're just kidding yourself...
Someone with screws loose who intends to shoot people don't tend to care about "no guns allowed" rules...
The campus has its own police force who have guns and are trained to use them.
When seconds count, the police are just minutes away. Why is it that anytime there is a shooting, the first thing the unarmed people do is call people with guns?
Of all the rules at the university where I work, no-guns is among the most sensible.
Nonsense, all it does is tell me that if I bring a gun there, I'm more likely to be the only person with a gun there. It is a stupid rule. If you really want to be a gun free zone, you need the sort of protections that airports and courtrooms have. That is the only way for it to mean anything.
You'll never get rid of all of it. Even Finland had a mass shooting not that long ago where a bunch of people died.
Crap happens sometimes.
It happens more when people are left untreated. The odds of good treatment in the US are lower than in Japan and Finland.
The well regulated militia part was about private citizens being able to form their own armed groups for mutual defense.
It had nothing to do with the police, national guard, or anything government run.
Even the SCOTUS has ruled on this.
It's not public property, so the owners are allowed to prohibit guns. Even a public college is allowed to control access.
True, but they don't have unlimited rights. They can't discriminate for example...
Perhaps guns deserve to be in the same position, businesses and public places can't ban them the way they can't say "no blacks".
I understand you were likely making the statement tongue-in-cheek
No, I was not. But you might have misunderstood what I meant.
but how would you allow for students who wanted to opt out
I'm not saying they have to shoot guns, own guns, or even like guns, but a whole lot of people know nothing about them other than what the media tells them. I have found plenty of people who are afraid of guns due to a lack of knowledge.
I'm suggesting that we have classes on the safe handling and use of guns, what responsible gun ownership looks like, and to drill in the point that responsible gun use is always defensive in nature, never offensive.
The goal is to teach responsible knowledge and respect for guns and to instill in society that using guns for attack is evil, but using them for defense of innocent people is good, and that guns are just a tool.
Frankly I would not use a firearm if my life depended on it
I respect that, it is your right to feel that way, I'd never dare try and take it away from you.
The flip side is that I'd ask you don't try and do the same from me.
In Texas, I have the legal right to shoot someone who is stealing my property. That isn't true in every state, but it is here. That being said, I wouldn't do it. I personally don't believe in killing another person over "stuff". That being said, if someone was trying to hurt my family, my wife or kids, I would have no moral issues with shooting them. That is because my point of view is they did it to themselves by trying to hurt me or my family. I didn't put them there, they did. So it isn't my responsibility, it is theirs.
Not everyone feels that way and that is ok, I wouldn't suggest trying to require it of anyone. But I'll defend my right to do it all day long.
The culture and rhetoric around US citizen firearm rights and mass violence has long since passed into the realm of ridiculousness.
To some extent, yes... but you also have to look at the history of guns in the US and why we have a 2nd amendment in the first place. It wasn't put there by accident or for "hunting".
governments that wished to compel military service.
Well then you'll love me... I consider compulsory military service to be the same thing as slavery. It is forced service to the state via pain of violence. If the state can't convince people to sign up willingly, then perhaps the cause isn't that just.
And I also get that "non-military service in support of the state during war" is not much better, you're still being forced to support the economy in war. If you're against violence in all its forms, then I can see how even that is not acceptable. As long as you're not hurting anyone, you should be left alone.
A lot of them sure are... schools seem to attract mass shootings, all of which are supposed to be "gun free zones".
Even the various military recruiting points that have had shootings were gun free zones, the military had banned service members from carrying guns there.
The answer is less guns, not more.
This part of your post is wrong. More guns, less guns, won't make any difference, has nothing to do with the issue. It is just a sideshow.
NO, the answer is health care. Plenty of other countries have more guns per capita than the US and don't suffer these issues. You know why? Because people are looked after and get the help they need, rather than some nonsense ridiculous purely free market approach.
This is where you're correct.
I'm a far-left "you can have my guns when you take them from my cold, dead hands" type...
However, it is embarrassing that we don't have a free national health care system. We can afford 11 nuclear aircraft carriers, the largest most powerful military in the world, yet we have a horrible patchwork health system that does a crap job taking care of people in general.
Exercised restraint due to the large crowd.
This is a good point that gets overlooked a lot.
You'd be a complete fool to try and return fire against a target that you have not identified in a crowd. You're just as likely to add to the problem as to solve it, and even might end up being mistaken for the active shooter yourself.
I have many guns, I sometimes carry a gun (I have a CHL in Texas). I would never, ever, ever draw my gun and fire at someone unless I had a clear and open line of fire, I was 100% sure of my target, and I was directly saving lives by stopping someone who was clearly intent on killing innocent people.
If there are other people either in front of or behind him, around him, or I'm unsure of the situation, I would not draw and fire.
I'm both legally and morally responsible for every round I put downrange, I would never wish to place an innocent in harms way.
I own and carry guns responsibly, I am not "Rambo", and real life is NOT a movie.
The sad thing is there is no reasonable discussion or compromise on either side of gun control. The NRA is one of the largest lobbyists in Washington, but not everything they argue for is good, but they fight everything because the gun-control lobby also will give no ground.
So both sides dig their heals in and give nothing.
This is sad and a mistake. One common argument is the "gun show loophole". It is misnamed, because gun dealers have to do background checks, even at gun shows. All it means is that private citizens can buy and sell guns without background checks within the same state, yet they can do this inside or outside of a gun show.
The fear of all gun transfers being "background checked" and thus having documentation is that sooner or later the US Government will pull an Australia and seize guns, and having records will make that much easier. Right or wrong, that is the fear from gun freedom groups.
A compromise might be, "amending the constitution to make clear that the ownership and possession of guns by private citizens is a natural god given right that may only be taken away in individual cases by a court of law that rules someone mentally incompetent." In return, all gun transfers get a background check.
I'm sure some people on both sides would not like even that compromise, but it would be a start. Both sides have to give something, or nothing will happen. We don't live in a nation where one side gets everything and the other side goes home empty handed. Or perhaps we do which is why nothing changes.
---
The other issue is that the government doesn't do very much to show that it respects the rights of citizens. Everything about guns is always about more bans, more restrictions. Want to impress the gun freedom side? Perhaps repealing the 1986 ban on select-fire weapons, in return for required background checks on every transfer might be something. It would show a give and take on the issue and that citizens do have rights.
Another thing they could give would be national concealed/open carry laws, respecting the right of the population to be armed, but in return, require training and safely classes for all gun owners.
---
These are ideas and attempts to find a reasonable middle ground, to offer something to both sides and to do something that would actually fix the problem, rather than paper it over with "guns are evil/guns are wonderful" arguments which accomplish nothing.
This situation will never really be fixed until the US wakes up to the fact that it is the only modern nation in the world that doesn't have a proper public healthcare system with guaranteed access to all, regardless of ability to pay.
Those of you who know me, know that I'm a far-right conservative, "they can take my gun from me from my cold, dead hands" type.
That being said, it is time for a national single payer health care system for everyone from birth to death, with no signups, memberships, co-pays, or anything else. Take all the money from medicare, medicaid, social security, etc. and put it into a national health service.
We have police and fire paid for by taxes, we have roads and airports paid for by taxes, we have a military, public education, and a hundred other things paid for by taxes. We have LONG since past the time of small government, yet we don't provide for the health of our citizens.
I would repeal ObamaCare and replace it with a national single payer health system. That isn't a popular idea among far-right conservatives, but it is time to do it.
People who have mental health issues need to be able to seek treatment. That is the only thing that is going to stop this sort of thing, we have people who are unstable who roam the streets and are untreated. They do something like this and everyone screams about guns.
It isn't about guns, it is about mental health care and access to it.
What about the rights of the 100's of thousands of people that have been murdered by gun in America - what about them?
What about my right to keep and bear arms?
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
The solution is not banning guns, the solution is a proper public health system and a respect for mental health, and being willing to lock up the mentally ill for treatment.
Anti gun lobbyists will say this is because of guns.
It isn't, it is because someone was a nutjob and decided to go out in a blaze of something-or-other...
Pro gun lobbyists will say this is because there weren't enough guns
Sadly that isn't likely true either, other than the shooter might have not tried it at all if he knew there were armed people on campus.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
Finland has guns, but little gun crime. I suspect Finland has neither a melting pot of people that the US has and that it has a much better public health system for the poor and disadvantaged than the US does.
The United States doesn't lock up its crazy people and doesn't provide a reasonable option for their mental health treatment.
What is the description of the shooter? Male? Female Black? Muslim? Mexican? Citizen? Legal Immigrant? Illegal Immigrant?
I would use the description "Criminal", but that's just me.
Maybe scumbag, dirtbag, douchebag, or asshole might be better options...
Pile of wormridden filth works for me too...
Perhaps it means that the law says "no guns allowed, unless you're a criminal and don't care about the law".
Notice all these shootings seem to be happening in "gun free zones"?
Frankly, college students are adults, they should be able to have guns on campus. Why not just make safe gun use and storage one of the first required classes? Rather than try and ban something that isn't going away, teach safe use and respect for guns and life.
My wife looked at the CLA, it is a nice car if you're in the market for a Mercedes.
It is still expensive compared to other options on the market.
Look at a nice Nissan Maxima by comparison, about the same price when nicely equipped, yet more power, more features, and more space.
What it is missing is that emblem on the front that says, "I'm special". :)
Historically, that does not happen.
No, but that is because nothing has been a serious contender for gas cars either.
If 50% of vehicles really were replaced tomorrow by EVs, I think you'd see the price of gas down at a dollar or so per gallon.
Supply and demand, there is nothing about gas that says it has to be X price, it is just a S/D curve.
We shall see, there are a lot of chess pieces still on the board and calling it this early is a big challenge. :)
For what it is worth, I do try and listen. My replacement of all my bulbs in my house with LED is directly related to a post on SlashDot. Someone took the time to explain it using non-harsh words and posted the math of the payback and energy used.
I read it and a lightbulb went off in my head (pun intended).
Within a month I had them all replaced.
I'm open and willing to listen to other points of view, if presented in a reasonable way that doesn't involve something rammed down my throat.
It is possible that I'm guilty of that from time to time, words on a web forum don't convey context or tone, what one person takes harshly was intended lightheartly, and so on.
---
I'm not against the concept of EVs, I'm against what the Model S is today being the future of EVs. The Model 3 might be it, if it really does launch in 2 years, it really does have 200 miles of range, and it really does cost $35K before any credits or rebates, then I'll give it a look.
It may still not be right for me then, but if they can build that, then they could build a pickup truck version for $55K with similar range I'd think, and I would imagine they would sell some of those too.
The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. :)