The EPA is seeking to ban the freedom of individuals within the USA to convert street cars into race cars.
WUWT reader Wolfpack987 writes:
Another example of government abuse of power, the EPA is seeking to remove more freedoms from American citizens in the name of the environment, by prohibiting the act of converting street cars into race cars. The sheer ridiculousness of this move to can be measured by how little of an impact it will have on the environment, given how little the number of cars converted into racecars per year.
Story:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a regulation to prohibit conversion of vehicles originally designed for on-road use into racecars. The regulation would also make the sale of certain products for use on such vehicles illegal. The proposed regulation was contained within a non-related proposed regulation entitled “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2.”
The regulation would impact all vehicle types, including the sports cars, sedans and hatch-backs commonly converted strictly for use at the track. While the Clean Air Act prohibits certain modifications to motor vehicles, it is clear that vehicles built or modified for racing, and not used on the streets, are not the “motor vehicles” that Congress intended to regulate.
“This proposed regulation represents overreaching by the agency, runs contrary to the law and defies decades of racing activity where EPA has acknowledged and allowed conversion of vehicles,” said SEMA President and CEO Chris Kersting. “Congress did not intend the original Clean Air Act to extend to vehicles modified for racing and has re-enforced that intent on more than one occasion.”
SEMA submitted comments in opposition to the regulation and met with the EPA to confirm the agency’s intentions. The EPA indicated that the regulation would prohibit conversion of vehicles into racecars and make the sale of certain emissions-related parts for use on converted vehicles illegal. Working with other affected organizations, including those representing legions of professional and hobbyist racers and fans, SEMA will continue to oppose the regulation through the administrative process and will seek congressional support and judicial intervention as necessary.
The EPA has indicated it expects to publish final regulations by July 2016.
https://www.sema.org/news/2016/02/08/epa-seeks-to-prohibit-conversion-of-vehicles-into-racecars
This is truly insane, the amount of emissions produced by race cars on any given day is miniscule in comparison to the total amount of cars and emissions in the USA every day. They are making a ham-handed attempt at solving a non-existent problem.
![number-of-vehicles-in-the-united-states-since-1990[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/number-of-vehicles-in-the-united-states-since-19901.png?quality=75)
This is what happens when bureaucracy runs out of things to do, they up the ante, completely unaware of how ridiculous they look or how pointless the idea is.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
They will not stop until every action that could be taken by an American citizen receives an approval permit.
Did YOU get YOUR APPROVAL PERMIT to use the energy required to place THAT POST on THIS SUBJECT? NO???
IT IS VERBOTEN
American citizen’s will receive a lifetime energy use permit, that will be closley monitored by the department of human activity. Upon reaching said limit you will report to the department of reassessment, euthanized with low a low Co2 process, you and your cold dead hands will be turned into soil ant green!
. Soylent green.
The Authoritarians are cancer, constantly growing and endangering healthy normal life. Unless stopped they kill healthy normal life.
And a tax/fee/license…
As the most successful president of my lifetime, Obama is guided by the core belief that the US represents evil white imperialism. His success in addressing reparations is nothing short of miraculous.
He has placed revenuers between Americans and their doctors. The IRS, OSHA, ATF, EPA, Justice, etc- via regulation- have created a growing chasm between a small business and profit, and consequently FT hiring. The EPA literally has the power to regulate your breathing, family size and living conditions. He has added $10 trillion in debt while funneling hundreds of billions to bundlers/unions/UN re-distributers via CAGW.
He has removed the US presence needed to maintain stability in the ME- empowering a radical muslim multi-country state of butchers and engulfing (white) Europe in a wave of islamic social destruction. Meanwhile, he has guaranteed nuclear weapons and hundreds of billions to the world’s largest financier of islamic terror. He has turned the US southern border, and 300 US cities, into social/financial time bombs…
Were it not for 7 years of zero rates and the incredible power of US ingenuity, most notably the energy industry, we’d already be toast.
My buddy’s 69′ Chevelle is the least of our worries.
When was there stability in the ME?
“When was there stability in the ME?”
Certainly not in the past 4,000 years.
And probably not then.
[The Orks and the Ents tend to disturb the stability of Middle Earth. .mod]
Especially the Ents, if they all gathered together on one side, it might capsize.
“They will not stop until every action that could be taken by an American citizen receives an approval permit.”
They seem to be going after people who “cling to their bibles and guns” first.
Essentially they’re becoming “revenuers”, not a healthy job as I recall.
These are more good reasons that Trump is way out in front and stands a very good chance of becoming our President. When Trump gets done there may not be an EPA to abuse their powers
Word
Everything not explicitly permitted, is forbidden.
That’s how socialists think.
And nothing you do is a right, it is a privilege, and any possession you have is what they allow you to keep.
The opposite of the Constitution.
bingo we have a winner
Yup. Let’s throw out English Common Law which is, or was, the basis of all our freedoms and bring in by stealth, the Napoleonic Code. God, or I should say, Allah help us!
Private aviation, private power boats, luxury motor yachts, Winnebago’s etc. all need to be banned!
We want you all at home using Social Media where control is easy.
Time for a Revolution!
Next it will be our lawn-mowers!
But have no fear, the US federal government will subsidize the purchase of goats, lambs and clippers to keep our lawns neat and trim.
Aix – “Next it will be our lawn-mowers!”
I’ve watched lawn-mower racing in the UK. I wasn’t sure if the US was into it but I checked and it is!
http://www.letsmow.com/
So, your remark might have started out as comic hyperbole but maybe it’ll turn out to be entirely true.
You got your permit to EXHALE yet… after all we all spew CO2 in the procvess of breathing
Shsh, the EPA doesn’t know that yet. Now they’ll ban breathing for sure.
A change is in the wind.
Although I distrust the EPA, as I do any overlarge bureaucracy, but I thought it would be interesting to insert the reaction of Road and Track Magazine here.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsports/news/a28135/heres-what-the-epas-track-car-proposal-actually-means/
Concerning the huge number of issues and nuances that go into definitions (Look up the definition of “Stationary Engine” sometime, which has multiple facets and is extremely easy to misinterpret), I find the EPA’s reply unpersuasive. I think what we need is a universal Willis rule. Quote exactly what the problem is.
I have enough federal regulations to read without having to search through huge sections of documents to find a small quotation.
I used to be an avid reader of R&T but I haven’t picked one up in years and your link reminds me why. Call me suspicious but this EPA is guided by this WH and they’re both composed of people who absolutely hate seeing common people possessing personal transport. And, to them, a racing car is the vulgar representation of that. The R&T I remembered would’ve recognized that fact and not been quite so conciliatory.
Sort of, but the way these ‘people’ work is much more puritan than that and based totally on the ‘I don’t like or do that so it is wrong’.
Hence the I don’t smoke so you mustn’t. I don’t drive 4x4s or fast cars so it’s wrong. I don’t enjoy a drink so you shouldn’t have one…….. and on and on until you become a perfect little clone of their pathetic narrow views.
The control of others freedom somehow appeals to this self-righteous smug little group and they will apply whatever rationale is the flavour of the day.
Paradoxically they usually seem to call themselves ‘left-liberal’ which is the only funny aspect to the whole thing.
welcome to Australia.
1984 has arrived…and we voted for it.
Some of us didn’t! 🙂
Those that didn’t vote voted by default for it.
“Those that didn’t vote voted by default for it.”
No. Those who participated in a completely broken, self-protecting system voted for it. Doesn’t matter who you voted for.
What’s to vote for? Congress under control of either party continues to fund the EPA.
Anyone who doesn’t vote gets the government they deserve
and anybody who pays income tax is an accomplice to every crime done by the thugs they hired and they have no right to complain.
collaborators are sine qua non for a tyranny.
let’s hear the excuses – ‘if i didn’t, somebody else would have’, ‘i was just following orders’, ‘i thought i could save a few’
once there were men and the tea went in the bay.
now there are only hobags dickering on the price and pretending they’re victims.
usurbrain: You are assuming that the Republican alternative would have made much of a difference.
At best McCain would have done the same stuff, just a little bit slower.
MarkW,
I don’t like McCain, but IMO an administration of his would have been significantly different from Obama’s.
No Obama, no Obamacare. It barely passed and only by means of hook and crook. Pelosi and Reid on their own couldn’t have done with a president willing to join 100% of his GOP former congressional colleagues in opposing the monstrosity.
Also, the US wouldn’t have pulled precipitously out of Iraq, but instead gotten a status of forces agreement, even out of the Iranian puppet regime. He campaigned on leaving 30,000 US troops in Iraq indefinitely, and an unstated number of contractors. With even a fraction of that force, ISIS couldn’t have taken Fallujah, Ramadi and Mosul.
Gloateus: There would have been no ObamaCare, but McCain was committed to fixing the health care “problem”. There would have been something else with a different name, but just as damaging.
McCain is as much a global warming warrior as Obama, the difference there would have been he would have had more leverage to force the Republicans in congress to go along with the Democrats.
Gloateus Maximus February 9, 2016 at 2:28 pm
I tend to agree with you.
Now for those who decide not to vote. For what ever reason. No problem. I and those like me are perfectly happy to make the decisions regarding your life for you. Of course if there are more people who like me vote but side with the other firm we are kind of hosed.
But make no mistake, no vote, no say. Others will dictate to you. In the past I have had this conversation. I would offer a “voter registration form” to a non and state as I have above, decide for yourself or I truly will.
michael
>…for those who decide not to vote…
I need something to vote -for-, and if I’m not for anything that’s presented, and especially if I have lost all confidence in the system to ever work in anyone’s favor but the looting class, I have better things to do with my time.
Don’t discount the psychological effect of a significant majority of the voting-eligible population sitting out an election. That’s a very real threat to the legitimacy of any government. That’s why we’re hearing about mandatory voting all of a sudden, they know the winds are changing.
I can’t vote for anyone who honestly believes that gods exist, and can’t vote for anyone who wants to beat us with CAGW. So I can’t vote.
Sorry, Mark, but I can’t agree. Whatever McCain came up with, if anything, would have been along the lines of GOP proposals, which were actually about providing better health care at lower cost, rather than grabbing control of 14% of the economy and more say over people’s lives.
@ur momisugly MarkW February 9, 2016 at 2:20 pm
As I have often said, based on the current national leadership of the GOP, the only difference between them and the Democrats is the speed of the handcart, not its final destination.
It used to be said: In the USA, everything is allowed except that which is forbidden; in Europe, everything is forbidden except that which is allowed; and in Russia, everything is forbidden, even that which is allowed.
Perhaps the EPA is taking a leaf out of Russia’s book.
I heard the actual quote as:
“In the USA, everything is allowed except that which is forbidden; in Germany, everything is forbidden except that which is allowed; in Russia, everything is forbidden, even that which is allowed;and in Italy, everything is permitted, including that which is prohibited.”
Quote attributed to Newton N Minnow, former FCC commissioner and law professor.
Alternatively.
“In England, what is permitted, is permitted, and what is prohibited, is prohibited. In America everything is permitted except for what is prohibited. In Germany everything is prohibited except for what is permitted. In France everything is permitted, even what is prohibited. In the USSR everything is prohibited, even what is permitted.”
http://communistjokes.tumblr.com/post/6509242210/q-what-is-permitted-and-what-is-prohibited-a
I think the original quote was: “Everything not forbidden is compulsory”, the old totalitarian principle which I first heard in the 60’s.
I aways though the US had fascist tendencies, but the present situation makes you think that heaven fordid, Trump might be the only choice to put a stop to the US’s headlong dash into a totalitarian state. All under the banner of: , we know what’s best for you. Sad end for a great nation…
REJ- I liked the advice I got before driving in France. Road rules are optional. Mere suggestions.
I remember “Everything not forbidden is compulsory” as being from Merlin’s ants, Messor Barabus, in T H White’s classic tale Sword in the Stone. As far as I can tell just about everything is illegal in the UK if you read the small print of 1000 years, but since they did away with the rack, anything requiring proof can be gotten away with so long as you do not willingly confess.
I recall some Moscow teenagers being arrested and being charged with ‘mischievously exercising a right’.
“The terrible tyranny of the majority.”
― Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
……Or at least self-declared mandates that presuppose to be the majority
If you aren’t a citizen, or an illegal alien, you were not allowed to vote for it.
I didn’t.
g
co2islife. Not all of us did. I often have crazy daydreams that there was a way to make only those who voted for Obama pay for all his crazy schemes and all the deficits, rising costs, etc..
But its chance of coming true is about as likely that the climate radicals can predict the mean annual global temperature to less than a degree in 2100. But it is a nice daydream.
We need to put anyone other than a democrat in the White House.
Considering that the largest portion of those supporting our clown-in-chief are among the 47% who don’t pay federal income tax, that’s a fantasy that died aborning.
It’s not “Anyone who doesn’t vote gets the government they deserve”, its “Anyone who votes gets the government they deserve”
Actually anyone who doesn’t vote bears no responsibility for voting imbeciles into government. Put another way, if you voted, IT’S YOUR FAULT.
Alx commented: “…Actually anyone who doesn’t vote bears no responsibility for voting imbeciles into government. Put another way, if you voted, IT’S YOUR FAULT…”
So no voters = nobody’s fault? Failed logic. How about if you didn’t vote you may be responsible for keeping someone out of office that wasn’t an imbecile and should have won? I do agree that if you didn’t vote you have no room to complain about government.
@markl
I’ve always held that the act of voting is the renewal of your license to bitch. If you didn’t vote, I’m not interested in listening.
Not all of us voted for it.
Tar. Feathers. Rinse. Repeat. Cheers –
you can skip the rinse part.
Agreed.
My first thought too. I actually thought that when my eyes reached the word ‘rinse’.
Best wishes to you, sir!
Forget the feathers. Use matches instead.
But that would cause more global warming! No, freeze them all to death. It will be -20 below zero here in three days!
If you don’t vote then you are throwing”Democracy”into the the “Dustbin”and there-fore are condoning what Obama and the “Dimocrats and Rinos”have done.
Check some dictionaries for the definition of “Tyranny”.
Are we there yet?
This video clip captures it well:
https://youtu.be/QowL2BiGK7o?t=1h4m16s
I much prefer the one on the street outside the Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences, or whatever it is at the U of Aridzona. It is my laptop wallpaper, just so’s I don’t forget.
g
There are two things not to mess with when it comes to American culture: cars and guns. I thought the EPA would have more common sense.
Remember who they work for. It has never inhibited Obama in the past.
“From my cold, dead hands …”
“America’s smartest woman” thinks anti-gun will win the White House.
“America’s smartest criminal” anyway, since she remains at large. For now.
I can understand the wish to own a gun (by the way, I live in England), but the US does have a ‘gun problem’, What are you going to do about it?
You had 13,286 people killed by guns in 2015.
You have as many killed by guns, as by car accidents.
Almost 70% of homicide victims are by guns.
27 people were shot (and killed) in the US on Xmas day alone.
In 2015, there were 355 ‘mass shootings’.
In the past 47 years, guns have killed more people than have died fighting wars…in all American history.
Our (UK) death rate by guns is 0.2 (per 100,000). Yours is 10.2. Your rate is 25 times higher than other high-income countries.
The US is seen as a violent country. Guns are not protecting you, they are killing you. I’m not smart enough to know the solution, but as someone has has long admired your country (despite its obvious flaws, and its international meddling), you have a problem. It’s an extremely serious problem. All of the above may already be known to you. But the problem is so severe, that it’s worth repeating over and over. You (the people of the US) seem to be concerned about terrorism, Russia threat, North Korean ambitions, even natural incidents, yet you are killing each other and not coming up with a solution to tackle it.
Baz,
Gangsters are killing each other.
Gun deaths occur mainly in two groups: young, urban minority males killing each other and old, rural white males killing themselves. In counties with the most guns, but few urban minority youths, the homicide rate is lower than most European countries. Guns actually save more lives than they take every year, as armed citizens protect themselves, their homes and families with firearms.
Take away the drug trade and its turf wars, and the murder rate would plummet. Old men intent on suicide will do it by other means if they’re willing to use a gun, the surest method.
Dear Baz,
1. Are those in the U.K. and Canada safer in their homes? No.
— The rate of home burglary and armed robbery is much higher where citizens are known to be unarmed.
— Crime rates in general are higher where citizens do not have guns, the equalizer of society, to defend themselves with.
2. The homicide rate, not the weapon-of-choice rate, is the key. In the U.K. , knives, broken glass, clubs, etc… make excellent murder weapons.
3. A large % of those killed by guns were themselves opening fire on others and or involved in gang violence.
4. Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens does nothing to stop criminals from getting guns. Check out the crime statistics anywhere and you will see that crime rates go UP after guns are taken away from citizens.
5. I do not give a DARN what the situation is in other countries when it comes to my U. S. Constitutional Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms. I was not given that right by the government: I (and you, too, were) was born with it. The 2nd Amendment did not create that right; it merely codified it. It is the birthright of every human being on earth to defend themselves using effective means.
Sincerely yours,
Janice
Card Carrying Member of the NRA
I can’t reply to Baz directly, so here’s the best I can do:
Equating the legality of gun ownership to homicide rates works only slightly better than equating CO2 emissions to global warming.
How can I say that? Simple. If there was a direct correlation, then not only should all countries with legal firearm ownership have high firearm homicide rate be high, but all countries with strict gun control should have low gun crime.
Reality? Many countries with strict gun control have low homicide rates, but they are generally countries that had low homicide rates before they implemented strict gun control. For example, the UK (0.06 per 100k), France (0.21), Germany (0.07).
Many countries with lax gun control laws have high homicide rates, such as the US (3.55).
However, there are also many countries that have high homicide rates AND strict gun control, such as Venezuela (39.0), Mexico (6.34), and Russia (5.6).
And then, there are the countries with lax gun control laws and low homicide rates, like Switzerland (0.23) and Finland (0.32).
In fact, in many countries, the homicide rate using firearms has gone up since implementation of nearly complete bans on guns (UK, Australia, Venezuela).
The reality remains, there is no simple solution, and to force one causes more problems than it solves. It appears that gun violence is based more on culture than on legality of guns. That means, simply banning guns will cause more deaths than leaving them legal. And, this doesn’t even touch on the subject of democide, where over 150 million people were slaughtered by their own governments in the 20th century alone. Banning guns will not solve that problem, either.
And….this isn’t the place for gun debates.
I’m just pointing out that the same, simplistic “one factor” attitude pervades the gun problem as it does global warming. It is far, far more complex than that.
Baz,
If you’re scared, stay in England. The fact is, firearm violence in America has declined steadily, and that decline accelerated as states adopted “concealed carry” laws.
Back when Democrats were normal, President Kennedy said that Americans should be armed.
The trade-off is this: In a population of 315 million, there will be some firearm deaths. That’s the obvious downside. But the hidden downside is that confiscating firearms from law abiding citizens opens the door to real tyranny. It’s no accident that the Plan by commmuninst Saul Alinsky is being implemented:
1) Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people.
2) Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
3) Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
4) Gun Control – Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.
5) Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).
6) Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school.
7) Religion – Remove the belief in God from the Government and schools.
8) Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.
No one is calling for the confiscation of automobiles, which kill as many people as firearms. Furthermore, if you take the ten largest Democrat-controlled cities out of the statistics, America has one of the lowest death rates from firearms in the Western Hemisphere.
I just read somewhere that firearm felonies by people who possess a concealed carry license are much lower than off-duty firearm crimes comitted by police officers. But we don’t tell the police they can’t have a firearm off-duty.
Doesn’t it seem a little strange that this Administration is so desperate to disarm American citizens? Firearm violence has been declining steadily for decades. The problem is getting smaller. Why the desperation? And don’t you think being able to defend yoursef is a necessary adjunct to a 9-1-1 call? I pity your countrymen there. You’ve given up too much self-respect when you surrendered your best means of self defense.
George Washington wrote:
Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.
That “evil interference” is happening right now. Those perpetrating it are the same ones who demand that citizens must surrender their protection.
The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it’s good-bye to the Bill of Rights.
— H.L. Mencken
Second in the Bill of Rights is the right to bear arms.
Bains365 – Worlds smartest “ALLEGED” criminal – rule of law, she’s been accused but not convicted, so at the moment it’s just an allegation – mods can you note this on Brains posting because as it is its defamatory – obviously you missed it
We dont have a gun problem Baz we have a gang problem. The vast majority of those gun deaths a gang members killing each other. Paris proved that if a criminal wants a gun all they need is money. Eurpoe is awash in illegal guns form the former soviet block. You just dont see them because your criminal element is controlled and not killing each other in the street. Ironically the ease of acquiring soviet block military weaponry in Europe is one of the reasons the peace is kept between rival criminal elements in Europe. It is literally a case of mutually assured destruction.
@Baz
The framers of our constitution created the second amendment as a deterrent to the abuse of government, our own, not yours. (it worked against yours too.)
We have unprecedented freedoms in the USA and those freedoms carry some risk, but most Americans judge the risks warranted. On the whole it has worked well for us. What will you do when ISIS comes after you and your family in your home?
In WWII Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, among many reasons, dismissed an attack on the US mainland because “They will be shooting at us from behind every blade of grass”, a reference to the prominence of gun ownership among the general population.
To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin “Those who would sacrifice freedom for security will have neither”.
Baz-
Your opening statement is flawed and you repeat the error throughout your rant. “…people killed by guns…”
Like a friend said, “my guns have never jumped up and killed anyone.”
One thing you may not have noticed is that gun and ammo sales during the Obama years have set records, repeatedly. Actions such as this from Obama’s EPA and his executive orders against individual rights are a driving factor in that increase.
Your numbers are also blatantly flawed. Here’s a link for well- researched info that cuts through a lot of the misleading statistics about gun crimes, etc:
https://reason.com/archives/2016/01/05/you-know-less-than-you-think-a/
Ps Some might say that a “Redcoat” telling Americans that we can’t have guns is laughable.
Pss You Brits have reduced your premature Winter deaths to ~25,000 old folks a year?
Bloody good show. i.e. take the log out of your own eye…
well, gee – since laws work so well- why don’t they just make homicide illegal and there won’t be any!
“”””……
Janice Moore
February 9, 2016 at 1:21 pm
Dear Baz,
1. Are those in the U.K. and Canada safer in their homes? No. …..”””””
You go get ’em Annie.
More specifically, the ” Second Amendment ” is an order/instruction/warning to GOVERNMENT that they are not to INFRINGE on the absolute right of …. THE PEOPLE … to defend themselves and have the means for doing that.
And that means the same PEOPLE who have a right to free speech, a free press, freedom of religion, and freedom of peaceable assembly and to petition the GOVERNMENT for redress of grievances; such as for example infringement of their right to have the means to defend themselves.
Read ” More Guns, Less Crime ” and also ” Why everything you have Heard about Guns is Wrong ” by John Lott; an economist and statistician who set out to find the cost to the US economy, of private gun ownership, and ended up proving (with actual numbers) that private gun ownership by law abiding citizens saves the US economy millions of dollars a year.
And in MOST cases, it is without having to actually use that means of self defense. Just having it usually suffices.
ALL of the mass shootings that have happened in the USA in recent years have happened in designated gun free zones.
We have plenty of gun control laws. We don’t have much control over the disposition of misuse cases.
The Police do not, and will not defend any law abiding citizen against a violent criminal act. They just clean up the mess afterwards.
When seconds count, the police are just minutes away. And cars DO kill far more people in the USA than guns
g
Baz, we don’t have a gun problem, we have a criminal problem.
The US’s gun violence rate is about in the middle of all countries.
There are many countries with much stricter gun laws that have even more gun violence.
There are countries with much looser gun laws, that have less gun violence.
It’s not the guns, it’s the criminals.
Exclude 3 or 4 cities from the numbers, and the US drops to one of the lowest gun violence countries, and those cities have amongst the toughest gun laws in the US.
It’s not the guns, it’s the criminals.
When you compare demographics, IE, like to like, the US has one of the lowest gun violence rates in the world.
It’s not the guns, it’s the criminals.
Of course, certain people don’t bother thinking through the whole issue.
George: Like the old saying goes.
When seconds matter, the police are just minutes away.
The majority of gun deaths are suicides, about 60%, but suicide rates are much higher in many countries that limit or forbid gun ownership. Hey, BAZ, what was your point again?
Don’t know where your getting your numbers but I would suggest you change sources. Official numbers usually run 2 years behind, this February the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration only has an estimate of automotive deaths for the first 9 months of 2015.
The final total for 2015 will likely be north of 34,000 which is not even close to the 13,286 you dug up from somewhere.
Which says nothing about the rate of shooting per population.
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Frequency-of-Mass-Public-Shootings-in-Europe-and-US-2009-to-2015.jpg
And the death rate:
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Annual-Death-Rate-from-MPS-Europe-and-US-2009-to-2015.jpg
The bottom line is, when you take population into account, there isn’t a meaningful correlation between gun ownership and mass shootings.
As a final note, this doesn’t include mass killings by other means such as the 2004 commuter train bombings in Spain which killed 191.
Baz, you started your rant with:
“You had 13,286 people killed by guns in 2015.
You have as many killed by guns, as by car accidents.”
I stopped there because it is obvious your are either so ignorant that you have no idea what you are talking about, or you are a liar.
Baz, why don’t you use Switzerland as an example, every male between the age of 18 and 55 has a government issued firearm in the house. Tell us about their homocide rate. In the U.S.A. 47% of the murders are committed by 15% of the population. Guess which racial profile they fit. Give you a clue, Obama won’t being targeting that group.
@ur momisugly Baz
Gang-bangers killing gang-bangers. What’s not to like? Give ‘um bigger guns and more ammo and a ‘safe space’ to kill each other. You can stand in a gun free zone and watch. I’ll be packing heat but don’t worry, I’ll not display it should it be necessary for your behalf as it would offend you.
Well, I’m afraid that I sat here and read that with a smile on my face. I was hoping for cogent replies, but what I got was, in the large part and with an odd exception, puerile, knuckle-dragging, and that old favourite, defensive diversion:
“Your father’s an idiot.”
“My father! What about your father?”
You have a problem that will persist as long as you ignore it – as you do above. You have to address problems, hit them face on. If you don’t, then they are not beaten. I despair the way the US is going. And you are all walking into it, blind – as you demonstrate above. Well, that’s for you. We here (in Britain) have our own set of problems ready to go pop. But as I said, that’s a different discussion, and I was writing about the US. I don’t want to see it go the way that South Africa has, but you should talk to South Africans to see just how you may end up!
I wish you all well.
@ur momisugly Baz
Not sure where you got the “your father’s an idiot” from. I didn’t see it except in your comment. Link please as I may have missed it.
Sir, I don’t care about South Africa of the UK for that matter. I don’t even respect your opinion in this matter but support your right to express it. The UK disarmed their populace a couple of decades ago. That’s their business. If they need help and time allows you can call the bobbies. Good luck with that.
You write: “…You have to address problems, hit them face on. If you don’t, then they are not beaten. …” Well sir, you can bet your ass that I will address the problem “face on” if necessary.
Granted the US has some problems but it is not with gun ownership. Thugs and gangs are a primary issue. If I find myself in a critical situation and no time to cry for help I will diffuse or eliminate the threat/situation as necessary and rely on the police to file the report or other measures as necessary. But you can rest assured (I doubt that you will) that I refuse to be a victim. I would bet that were you to become a victim we may see you on the TV crying that someone needs to do something for you because you were robbed and beaten and no one was there to help.
Anyway, in closing I’ll toss in what you might consider to be in a mild ad hominem attack just for you : “You must be a liberal.” You may think of that as a badge of honor but then it may not meet your narrative. A liberal’s narrative must always be one of being a victim in some vague sense if the imagination.
@ur momisugly Baz
While you sit in your perch in the UK and state that the US could end up like South Africa while you try to dictate policy in the US I respectfully ask you to tell us about South Africa that we in the US should be afraid of. Please keep on the topic of your previous comment (Baz
February 9, 2016 at 12:42 pm) and the related follow-up comments in this sub-thread that compelled you to comment.
Baz,
I agree with you but only under certain conditions. You see, I would support gun control, but only if it was more ambitious. First, we should start with the military: Disarm them. Next, the Secret Service: Disarm them. No guns for either of those services. But, I’m not finished. Let’s also ban guns for [and that includes Father Pfleger’s and Mayor Bloomberg’s (look those names up)] bodyguards. And finally, no guns for the police.
Now, I know what you’re thinking: Doesn’t the military need guns to defend us? Well, we’ll just ban them for all militaries throughout the world. Then no armed forces would have need for them. I think we can all agree that the world would be a better place if no army, navy, or air force anywhere in the world possessed weapons with which to kill people. The same thinking that instructs the above would also apply to the police. Just, simply get rid of all guns, everywhere, and the police won’t need them either, will they? And, think of it; there’ll be no disputed shootings by police, no lawsuits, no controversy.
Ok, I’ll defer to reality and concede that maybe the police should keep their guns since, after all, there’s dangerous people out there. But, can’t Diane Feinstein give up her concealed carry permit, and both her and Barack Obama give up their armed bodyguards, and rely on the police like the rest of us are supposed to? Are their lives worth more than ours? Are they in more danger than a woman trying to escape an abusive boyfriend or an elderly person living in a high crime area?
Unless someone’s willing to take gun control to its ultimate logical conclusion then don’t be telling certain people that they don’t have a right to defend themselves. Ok?
Baz, I love the way you ignore the many cogent responses to your post and dismiss all of the factual information given to you.
Your inability to deal with the facts presented to you and to just declare that we are ignoring the problem says more about you, and none of it good.
@ur momisugly Tom Judd
You make very good points. Baz may not grasp the idea. He lives in the UK where there is apparantly no issue with criminal elements. The UK is like a raw egg. Perhaps some shell defense on the outside border but soft inside. What will he be saying when the ISIS exploits this extreme weakness and there is little resistance within? It may well be “Brits, get on your knees and pray to Allah”. Baz can lead the prayer group 5 times a day.
Now let that same scenario play out in rural USA and there will be no need for the police. The locals will handle the job. The US has its strength within our borders. It’s the external borders that lack strength. Kind of like a hard boiled egg with no shell using the above analogy.
What’s amusing (and it’s evident that it passed you by, eyesonu) is that ‘defensive diversion’. Let me give you an enlarged example to the one I have already provided. When someone attacks you, verbally, it’s a human trait to use defensive diversion. What one does, is to try and deflect the attack by bouncing it back. So someone says, “Your father’s an idiot”. Rather than dealing with the statement head on and either refuting the statement or agreeing with it, people tend to try and bounce it back. So you say, “My father? What about your father?”. So you successfully fail to deal with the attack (because you are unable) and divert their attention to your counter attack. I will say to my wife, “You’ve left your shoes and handbag on the hall floor again”. To which she will say to me, “My stuff? What about your stuff on the bedroom floor?” Do you see now?
When I attacked gun problems in the US, I got a lot of other stuff which wasn’t relevant to the argument and didn’t deal with my point (that you have a gun problem). Saying, “The US? What about England’s problems?” (or whatever) doesn’t deal with the issue, it tries to bounce it back.
What I despair about, is the amazing blindness shown by people of the US. It’s tempting to let gangs get on with it and kill each other. What sort of society will that result in? You WILL end up like South Africa if you don’t deal with your gun problem. And with all due respect, you should already know about South Africa without me educating you. If not, read up, it isn’t my job. Suffice to say, it’s a hell of a place, and is going one way.
By the way, I’m not a Liberal. I can’t stand Liberalism. I’m actually just to the right in British politics.
MarkW. I did acknowledge there was the odd exception, but you went and missed what I said. Your eyesight problem, not mine.
Baz commented: “…When I attacked gun problems in the US, I got a lot of other stuff…”
You are a victim of the same MSM that supports AGW. It’s propaganda designed to shape public sentiment against guns so they can remove them. Several pointed out that gangs, suicide, and might I add mental health are at the root of the problem. Guns are outlawed in Mexico and Central America yet they are ubiquitous and their death rates by guns are off the chart due to gang violence. Do you see headlines in those countries decrying gun violence or gang violence? Why the sanctimonious “America can’t control guns” from countries that have had the right to bear arms taken from them? We live with it because it’s a right we chose to retain when we founded our country.
@ur momisugly Baz February 12, 2016 at 12:43 am
I have seldom read such a rambling bunch of BS as you have presented in your comment. Perhaps I should ask “Is your father’s son an idiot”?
Please tell us about your version of South Africa’s problems that the US will experience. I must admit that I need to be informed and educated on this most pressing issue that you understand so clearly.
No!
Fast cars, FAST WOMEN and guns! 🙂
BTW I, a female, used to hot rod old cars and trucks for fun but now I am a geezer so I just hobnob with guys doing this for run. I bet they will be very pissed when they read this story today, I am passing it on to them all.
@Baz, please forgive intrusion emsnews.
Baz your offhanded remark about US invading countries is also misleading.
If you look at Map 3 in the following link you will see that the UK has invaded the vast majority of all countries in the world.
http://twistedsifter.com/2013/08/maps-that-will-help-you-make-sense-of-the-world/
I posted this tidbit BEFORE you guys did your stuff. Sheesh.
Leonard, (as Willis would like to say) please stick to what I said. I didn’t say anything about the US invading other countries, and neither was I talking about my own country (that’s an entirely different debate – and termed ‘defensive diversion’). I said about the US international meddling. If you read some of the intelligence agency stuff that is available on the net, you might see the sort of things the US gets up to. We have no idea what’s going on inside Langley, their policies toward the Ukraine, etc. And don’t get me started on the Middle East. And yes, we, the Brits, have done our own fair share of meddling, and found to our cost that it was a mistake. The US hasn’t yet learned from our mistakes, just as the EU hasn’t learned about the Soviet empire. But as I said, a different debate, sir.
The correct word (to NOT do) is … INFRINGE ….
And notice that ” infringe ” duzz NOT mean the same as ” abridge “.
” Abridge ” means to take ” War and Peace ” and turn it into the Classic Comic.
” Infringe ” means to (even) mess around in the neighborhood (of).
# 1 says ” Don’t abridge ” (in essence); # 2 says ” Don’t infringe ” (specifically).
So get offa our turf.
g
Making it difficult to use what you have a perfect right to have, would constitute infringement.
Googlebuggy is just the first step to ” infringe ” on one’s freedom of mobility.
Experimental evidence proves that self driving cars only work if there is no ” self ” driving ANY car.
A self driving car, was the first thing fired at the moon with humans inside. Luckily for them, one of those selfs was a better driver than the self driving car.
Maybe we should remind the present administration that our undocumented, irregularly immigrated guests from Cuba, Mexico and Central America Dearly love custom cars as much if not more than us WASPs.
If we have to limit CO2, what is the answer? None seem very good. Everyone emits CO2 and the priorities and value vary tremendously from person to person. Do you stop hobby race cars, but allow global tourism? How about fireworks? Many activities as subgroups might not aggregate to the same magnitude as electricity. But I feel most for the elderly on pensions suffering through increased costs there. It seems wrong that they are forced to get their already meager “footprint” lower while “cigarette” boat owners escape similar burdens.
Yup, all the drug smugglers will listen to the ecofreaks.
PE, you are bringing rtional logical thought to an illogical political debate. Just wont do!
@aplanning, That is what they are after a complete world wide economic collapse! ( And hey why this now? Didn’t M Obama get booed at a NASCAR event? Revenge?)
How long before millions of vintage “pre-smog” vehicles lose exempt status WRT emissions? EPA is running headlong into a collision with America’s gearhead and collector car culture.
If they were really serious they would ban the massive yachts, private jets and the like that are so favored by the Rolls Royce environmentalists like Al Gore, Leo DeCaprio, David Suzuki, James Cameron etc, etc.
Ridiculous since these machines represent even less of the total emission. Ban the poor’s vehicles first.
The guy in his garage dares to imitate the bespoke racer?
Know your place, peasants.
Obama did just that with ‘Cash for Clunkers’. That sharply curtailed the number of reliable lower cost (< $5ooo) cars available. Remember that only those who could afford a new car could participate and they were in most cases happy with the one that was traded in and destroyed. There were few that could have been honestly described as a clunker. Anyone voting for that bill should be in prison. It was as bad as Obamacare.
They (by which I mean Congress and the government) already tried that.
They established a rich tax on yachts and private planes, in the typical Democratic reasoning that all it would impact was the rich. What actually happened was the “rich” decided there were other things they could spend their money on and this pretty much gutted the private aircraft companies and boat builders. Guess who suffers when that happens? That middle class politicians are supposedly so fond of.
Funny how socialists keep repeating that same mistake over and over again.
Everything they do now is an overreach of power. They fulfilled their purpose between 1975-1992, and now they are simply inventing reasons for their existence. Bureaucrats can’t help it, there must always be a problem that needs regulated or a social issue that needs a law. We’ve gone from a single document comprising the law of this country to an entire library, and now those libraries are becoming too small.
I was watching the film “The Way We Were” the other day, filmed in Hollywood at the peak of the smog crisis in LA, when many days you literally couldn’t see a city block. The film’s street scenes are real howlers. EPA did need to do something about urban air quality, and they did. But it will cost 100 times more to improve air quality an additional 1% than it took to gain the original 90%. “Diminishing returns” is not in EPA’s glossary.
I believe California took care of that problem; not the EPA.
This type of policy, if successfully enacted, will eventually be the downfall for the whole silly AGW movement. Sooner or later, there will be a backlash and the polling booth will have the final say. Just seems to be taking a long time!
Even if you’re an enviro keener, none of this stuff makes any sense. Obama stopped the Keystone pipeline when the CO2 footprint of Canada as a whole is less that 2% of the world’s. Meanwhile, the oil continues to flow south via railcars with an even bigger footprint and a greater safety risk. Brilliant!
Railcars owned by Obama guy-pal and Berkshire Hathaway CEO, Warren Buffett. Follow the money.
http://www.bnsf.com/about-bnsf/financial-information/
http://www.bnsf.com/about-bnsf/our-railroad/
The same Warren Buffett used to go around proclaiming that his tax rate was lower than his secretary’s.
What he forgot to mention was that his secretary makes well into 6 figures. You don’t hire a minimum wage secretary for a billionaire.
Beyond that, Warren’s company makes a lot of money advising rich people in how to avoid taxes. If tax rates go up, more people will make use of Warren’s services and he’ll get even richer.
This is like hiring an inventory clerk at $32K per year to control an office supply inventory with an annual spend of $10K. Dumb, but not atypical for EPA.
Digging their own grave at the behest of the environmentalists who are s-l-o-w-l-y becoming recognized for their animosity towards the human race. How long will it take for people to realize the true goals of the environmentalist movement? Their ‘burn down the village to save it’ philosophy is coming home to roost.
markl
The built-in obsolescence of the power-mad: they always take it just one step too far.
“Life Is a Highway” — “Cars” movie scenes
(youtube)
LOL! The average hot rod enthusiast is not known for docile cooperation with legal technicalities. “Safe for conditions” is their credo. Can’t make/sell/buy mod parts in the U.S.? Go to Mexico… or wherever. Or…… make them in the backwoods of Tennessee….. or any other of the 50 United States…. . Those good ol’ gearhead/motorhead boys (and some gals) will get ‘er done. Don’t let their who-cares attire and down home accents fool you — you will find among them some of the world’s finest engineers.
And from the popularity of the movie “Cars” you can take heart! Love of racing IS. And as long as there are children-at-heart, it always will be.
ALL OVER THE WORLD!
*****************************************
Yo, EPA! Go ahead, pass that anti-car industry reg….. make — my — day.
VaaaarrrrRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOMMMMMM!!!! (that’s the sound of a Republican accelerating toward the White House in January, 2017)
#(:))
(Janice, a 10-year-old in a very good disguise)
For some reason I expected you to make a few comments on this particular thread. BTW: Do you notice a certain kind of similarity between the way these two appear; NASCAR and NRA?
My softspot, however, is road racing up at Elkhart Lake, Wisconsin – Road America. Still dreamin’ ’bout a drag race though. Best wishes Janice.
Tom
Of all the many outrages (unanswered in the main) EPA has inflicted on Americans, this will finally be their Waterloo. The power of NASCAR will not be denied.
NASCAR not likely to help, they are not affected by this. The millions of NASCAR fans are another story.
The power of NASCAR.
NASCAR does not convert cars anymore, they build them from scratch.
This has nothing to do with solving problems, real or non-existent. It is solely concerned with pure, naked power.
They hate NASCAR. And I was a custom car racer once upon a time long, long ago and hang out today with guys I taught when they were in high school. Boy, will they all be pissed off tomorrow.
They do hate NASCAR, but nothing in this regulation will impact them.
In all due respect Marcus I soundly disagree. They’re taking slices out of the Bologna. It’s just a matter of time.
Sorry, MarkW. I didn’t mean Marcus.
Nutters ……. the EU virus is spreading The only cure available it seems is Trump
Trump? Would that be the guy who used to brag about how he got rich by buying favors from politicians?
Would that be the guy who got the local govt to condemn and buy acres of homes so that he could acquire the land for cheap in order to build his casino?
Is that the full list of Ted Cruz Talking Points, or did he give you any more?
Notice how the acolytes don’t even bother trying to refute the facts.
Kind of reminds me of Baz and guns.
It’s not worth the time to argue with you about something you seem pretty set on.
Another acolyte who refuses to talk to anyone who isn’t also an acolyte.
There’s a libertarian mole in the EPA. Can’t think of a policy more likely to get the Eco fascist’s butt kicked in the coming election. If they think gun nuts are tough politically, wait until they cross the car nuts.
Does this mean NASCAR as we know it will be thing of the past?
Huh? Are NASCAR racecars converted street vehicles? Use thy noggin, mate.
Where does NASCAR get the cars? Engines? Engine parts?
You miss the point of the regulation entirely This is to eliminate lowly hobbyists from converting production cars for more casual racing. NASCAR vehicles are pure ground-up purpose-built racers, and not made from off-the-shelf spare parts available at Summit Racing. You’re stuck in the ’60s.
Yes. What else do you think “Stock Car ” means ?
Does a formula one race car look anything like a street car? does a NHRA dragster look anything like a stock street car.
Yes NASCAR races street cars, like Ford Tauruses and the like (when Ford Tauruses were a popular street stock car.
g
Dave, for the most part, they build the cars and engines from scratch.
George, the only thing stock about those cars is the shape.
The origin of NASCAR is converted stock cars, but they stopped doing that 40 years ago.
Brian356, the POINT of any regulation is immaterial, the EFFECT of the regulation and what purpose it can be used for, is.
brian356,
You’ve never heard of club racing? They’re race cars and generally not used on the street but they are most definitely modified from street cars. Moreover, many of the Ferraris and Porsches that show up at LeMans, Daytona, or Sebring are modifications of the street versions. And, have you not heard of homologation rules? Those rules gave us the BMW M1, the Alfa Romeo Tipo 33 Stradale, just to name only two.
BUT, why wouldn’t NASCAR’s be next once the door is opened? Also suspect that this is a way of restraining owner bypass on the soon-to-be high mileage requirements which would require low power engines in wuss cars and all muscle or fast sports cars would also soon be verboten.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/28/obama-administration-finalizes-historic-545-mpg-fuel-efficiency-standard
The EPA’s lamentable role in the Colorado mine spill and the subsequent lead poisoning of the citizens of Flint seems to have escaped America’s attention entirely. The Agency should be taken to task over these two issues and not be allowed to hide behind this latest smokescreen.
In regards to the Flint situation, I’ve read through about half of the emails and the sad part is the MDEQ, and the EPA seemed more concerned with the statistical analysis of the lead levels as a function of season, and whether there were any statistically significant epidemiology problems and everybody had a “business as usual” attitude about it; which leads me to suspect that the problem effects many more cities than Flint. I fear that Flint was just a “so bad they couldn’t pretend it was happening” event rather than a unique event.
If your living in an area where the water distribution system is less than new, you might want to get your water independently tested for heavy metals and do it at least once in the summer when the more water is more likely to leach lead or copper into the water.
I guess they feel pretty safe to order in “Phase Two”. Nevertheless, upsetting the masses never works out well.
The EPA with Obama lunch meeting to offset the report that coal use was under estimated. This is what they came up with.
The EPA should start by looking at the carbon footprint of their leader in the White House flying around Willy Nelly in airforce 1 .
Hypocrites!!
“Our civilization is flinging itself to pieces. Stand back from the centrifuge.”
― Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
“This is what happens when bureaucracy runs out of things to do, they up the ante,…”
This is what happens when you create a very large bureaucracy. They cast about for things to do. This is what happens when you create a very large government – ‘industrial’ (climate science) complex. They go into every nook beyond the ridiculous to try to find relevance. An oversupply of anything is immensely costly and the quality of the product declines to below marginal utility level. Companies doing this soon go bankrupt or if they insist on putting out a product that people don’t want.
I had always thought (I had heard) that car racing contributed enormously to auto technology, engine efficiency and safety. Why didn’t the racing body use this argument instead of the fact that it has a small environmental impact. There must be numerous references to this. Don’t try to reason with today’s ‘collective’ europeanized governments on the reasonable argument that something is small impact on the environment (don’t forget that Brussels ruled you couldn’t call asparagus raised differently than prescribed in the regulations couldn’t be call asparagus – save us all from this control to the minutiae level. Show them how it has improved the environment.
Each of these incursions into freedom gets easier and easier to make as they build up precedents – even for an opposition that doesn’t appreciate the end game of such a trend (think Jan Kozak who used parliamentary democracy’s rules to convert it to communism
http://www.robertwelchuniversity.org/Not%20a%20Shot.pdf.
I know sceptics are most often cast as right wing nuts and ‘progressives’ as practicing sensible politics for the good of all. Somehow we have to introduce the greater concern about loss of freedom of the individual in society. I wish Democrat voters would recognize that the party they vote for is not the Democrat party they inherited from their parents (or less frequently found it by themselves).
They need to be kicked out and put in the penalty box for over a decade at least until new blood can re-establish its old roots. In Canada, which is left of centre for sure, they did just this very thing. The Liberal (approximately Demcrat) party had become so corrupt and filled with a sense of entitlement that they even had a mafia bagman in Montreal – probably making offers people ‘couldn’t refuse’. They gave big contracts to their friends, on many of which no work was done for the money!! What was known as the Gomery Inquiry was even ordered by the Liberal Party leader Paul Martin, who knew the Liberals would be toast for a fair amount of time after it was over and old influential Liberals even said they needed a turn in the “penalty box” (hey, hockey is big stuff here, I figure you know). I was disappointed that they returned as soon as they did with such a young man as their leader. I’m hopeful he may get some guidance from some of the old guard.
The other piece of the puzzle is to hope, for this enterprise of renewing freedom, the Republicans would weed out the 19th Century suspender snapping, hang ’em high, fringe that gives the whole party its image in the eyes of prospective left-leaning voters that might be considering calling a penalty. Harper did this in Canada, getting rid of old “Reform Party” antediluvians. Gays are here to stay; women are going to remain in control of their bodies, etc. no matter what you would like. It’s the core issues that matter: small government, free enterprise (suitably regulated from predatory competition practices and the like), and freedom to do as long as you don’t do it at the expense of your neighbour) and, for goodness sake, protecting your sovereignty from interference by UN and other anti-American bodies and movements.
Gary well written. Bring back the Reform Party.
Yes. It always strikes me as odd that those who want small government and free enterprise (classical liberals, or more popularly these days, libertarians) teamed up with conservatives, who like to use government to control behaviour.
Modern liberals are even more anxious to use govt to control the behavior of individuals than are conservatives.
The right wing is VERY intrusive, demanding to control women, for example, in very personal ways that are hideous and infuriating.
I didn’t say that conservatives aren’t intrusive, just refuted your claim that they are uniquely intrusive.
PS: I don’t believe that trying to save babies qualifies as intrusive.
EMS,
Could you please expand on what you find hideous and intrusive? Is it either of those things to suggest that a viable fetus should not be murdered, that a full-term baby should not have its brains sucked out or that a naturally delivered baby should not be a victim of infanticide?
Most pregnant women and girls exercise their right to chose as soon as they find out they’re pregnant, and schedule abortions as soon as they can. What then can be hideous and intrusive about protecting viable, third trimester babies? Abortion is more dangerous for the mom than natural childbirth by that stage.
IMO what is hideous and a denial of fundamental human rights is killing unborn babies. Maybe you have some other hideous intrusions in mind.