Quantcast

Public Opinion Says Loaded Guns in Cars Are OK [INFOGRAPHIC]

SodaHead Infographics 2011/08/26 23:00:00
Earlier this week we asked SodaHeads what they thought about keeping a loaded gun in the car, and the results are in.

SodaHeads overwhelmingly decided that keeping a loaded gun in the car should be your legal right, and that majority spanned across a huge range of demographics. However, there were still a few statistics that stood out to us.

For instance, ever wonder what exactly the difference between a "liberal" and "progressive" is? Looking at their responses to this question, liberals are far more likely to concede gun control than progressives. In fact, liberals were markedly in support of allowing loaded guns in cars.

The original question was tied to a recent incident involving a clumsy gun-owner on a Tennessee highway who accidentally shot himself, but that didn't deter votes in the least.

Wanna find out more? Hold your breath, and get ready for another Deep Dive infographic -- powered by SodaHead.

(For clarity's sake, we counted "only in the trunk" responses as a yes.)

deep dive infographic powered sodahead claritys sake counted trunk responses
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Jackie Debs 2011/08/26 23:17:17 (edited)
    Jackie Debs
    +24
    Loaded guns are fine in most places as long as responsible adults are the ones carrying them, LAWFULLY, as demonstrated by the various background checks and permits that we already have in place. This isn't even up for debate. The constitution is clear.



    You can have a gun on a goat

    You can have a gun in a boat

    You can have a gun in your house

    You can have a gun near a mouse

    You can have a gun inside your den

    You can have a gun to anger a dem

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Sean Grammar... 2011/08/29 21:58:43
    Sean
    cunnilingus & fellatio? What do those terms mean?
  • Grammar... Sean 2011/08/29 22:42:33
    Grammar Freak
    Look them up.
    ;-)
  • Sean Grammar... 2011/08/30 03:58:59
    Sean
    Okay I guess those are the Latin terms for oral sex. Yes why on Earth would anyone in their right mind want to drink semen, and vaginal fluids, and someone who actually gets aroused by that has got something wrong with them.
  • Grammar... Sean 2011/08/30 08:50:51
    Grammar Freak
    +1
    You're entitled to your opinion. I believe, however, that it's wrong to criminalize or prohibit ANY sex between CONSENTING adults, even if you or I or someone else finds some sexual activity unappealing to us. The reason is, that when a form of sex is prohibited, it makes it more alluring (to some people) & then the idea of punishing people for doing something that is no one's business comes back into play. "Kinky" sex is still just sex, after all, &, as you said before, if it's between consenting individuals (adults), it does not affect others.

    I must argue, however, that there is a vast difference between sex & rape. Rape really only uses sex as its tool to express power, domination, control & violence (physical, mental & emotional). When one person forces another to perform a sexual activity, when consent is not present between all parties involved, that is rape. Sex is the tool. All forms of rape equal violence, even when the activity itself isn't necessarily violent. But rape does absolutely not equal sex.
  • PCisWrong Sean 2011/08/30 22:07:44 (edited)
    PCisWrong
    For starters, where is there a concentration camp in the United States?

    Secondly, when I say rape, I mean violent, forceful rape. You don't just get locked up for an accusation. You go to trial. Most women are evaluated by a doctor for vaginal tearing, bruising, semen samples, etc. There may have been witnesses or a camera.

    How bizarre. You are okay with rape but not okay with consensual oral sex?
  • JimShou Sean 2011/08/29 14:01:01
    JimShou
    Hmmmm....I think the Nazi era is over.... please
  • joe mauro JimShou 2011/08/29 21:08:22
    joe mauro
    if you believe that your not checking out recent developments in france norway etcetcetcetcetcetcetcetc
  • jimrthy... PCisWrong 2011/08/29 18:42:17
    jimrthy BN-0
    +1
    I cannot speak for Sean, though I think I understand where he's coming from (and, yes, I agree with you. The whole sex == rape idea is downright creepy).

    But he is looking at the world from a radically different perspective. One that's worth at least a little thought. If only because it *is* so different than most. My opinions about your points:

    1) Mostly irrelevant. Though this sort of thing would probably require everyone to spread out and be members of much smaller communities. People just were not meant to live packed together like sardines.
    2) Why would muggers make the effort? If everyone has all they want, the only reason for mugging anyone else (or any other sort of theft for that matter), is the sick pleasure of being a bully. If your community is small enough that everyone knows everyone else, people like this won't last long.
    3) He *is* talking about a world of abundance. Why would anyone bother looting if they could just get whatever they wanted without any real effort?
    4) The *vast* majority of "criminals" have no victims. "Our" legal system doesn't really benefit anyone except the lawyers and the megacorps. It is a failure. There are tons of alternatives we could (and should) try.
    5) Back to #2. If there's enough to go around for everybody, there isn't any real reason ...




    I cannot speak for Sean, though I think I understand where he's coming from (and, yes, I agree with you. The whole sex == rape idea is downright creepy).

    But he is looking at the world from a radically different perspective. One that's worth at least a little thought. If only because it *is* so different than most. My opinions about your points:

    1) Mostly irrelevant. Though this sort of thing would probably require everyone to spread out and be members of much smaller communities. People just were not meant to live packed together like sardines.
    2) Why would muggers make the effort? If everyone has all they want, the only reason for mugging anyone else (or any other sort of theft for that matter), is the sick pleasure of being a bully. If your community is small enough that everyone knows everyone else, people like this won't last long.
    3) He *is* talking about a world of abundance. Why would anyone bother looting if they could just get whatever they wanted without any real effort?
    4) The *vast* majority of "criminals" have no victims. "Our" legal system doesn't really benefit anyone except the lawyers and the megacorps. It is a failure. There are tons of alternatives we could (and should) try.
    5) Back to #2. If there's enough to go around for everybody, there isn't any real reason to steal anything from anybody else. If anyone's going hungry, it's because so is everyone else.
    6) This is true. Since before recorded history, people have been telling each other "Thou shalt not..." and then going ahead and doing it anyway and getting punished for it. The punishment is a slight deterrent, but it obviously isn't very effective. It seems to me that a common sense approach, focused on restitution for the victim might have a much better chance at success. If that doesn't work, recognize that, note it, and try something else.

    There *are* ways for people to live together mostly in peace. The proof is that they did so for so long. We've just mostly forgotten what they are.

    If you haven't seen it, "The Gods Must Be Crazy" is well worth watching and thinking about.
    (more)
  • Sean jimrthy... 2011/08/29 20:55:33
  • earl Sean 2011/08/30 12:41:03
    earl
    Was the acid good????
  • chgo Sean 2011/08/31 18:10:31
    chgo
    There's something wrong with you.
  • jimrthy... Sean 2011/09/06 20:42:47
    jimrthy BN-0
    It is an interesting plan. I think it's sad that it pretty much inevitably gets dismissed so quickly. I just happen to disagree with that particular piece of it.

    This is a perfect example of why a one-size-fits-all society is doomed. We can agree to disagree. If we can get enough people to do that, we can set up our tribes (or join existing tribes that make sense to us) and find out which sets of rules are the most successful for us.

    That was the original theory behind having different sovereign States with a very small and limited federal government. Let the States experiment and find out the best approach to a given problem for them. If one successful meme is obviously a winner, the rest can mimic it. If not, it isn't a big deal.

    That's the main theme behind the Daniel Quinn books, BTW. The entire reason our culture is so screwed up is that everybody believes there's One Right Way for everyone to live. If we can just find that, everyone will be happy. We've been trying this for 10,000 years now, and we've almost wiped out all the other cultures and their knowledge and experience about hundreds of thousands of years of a way to live that works for them (which ours really doesn't, for us). (Not to mention all the species we're driving extinct along the way).

    Personally, I don't ha...









    It is an interesting plan. I think it's sad that it pretty much inevitably gets dismissed so quickly. I just happen to disagree with that particular piece of it.

    This is a perfect example of why a one-size-fits-all society is doomed. We can agree to disagree. If we can get enough people to do that, we can set up our tribes (or join existing tribes that make sense to us) and find out which sets of rules are the most successful for us.

    That was the original theory behind having different sovereign States with a very small and limited federal government. Let the States experiment and find out the best approach to a given problem for them. If one successful meme is obviously a winner, the rest can mimic it. If not, it isn't a big deal.

    That's the main theme behind the Daniel Quinn books, BTW. The entire reason our culture is so screwed up is that everybody believes there's One Right Way for everyone to live. If we can just find that, everyone will be happy. We've been trying this for 10,000 years now, and we've almost wiped out all the other cultures and their knowledge and experience about hundreds of thousands of years of a way to live that works for them (which ours really doesn't, for us). (Not to mention all the species we're driving extinct along the way).

    Personally, I don't have any problems with alternative sex practices. The people who practice them may very well have severe chemical imbalances, or just be genetic dead-ends. Whatever. I understand that they don't have any control over what turns them on, and they don't want to be "fixed," (even if that ever becomes possible) so I'm not going to get upset about it. AFAIC, the only "real" sex organ is the brain.

    Like you, I'd probably draw the line at pedophilia. Is it always, inevitably harmful to the kid? I don't know. Parts of our culture have practiced it pretty openly for hundreds of years at least. I don't like those parts, but it's something that worked for them.

    As for the magic age of 13, that's as arbitrary as 18. I figure the actual age should be puberty, but that seems wrong to me as well. The idea of old men having sex with a battered screaming 13 year old just strikes me as disturbing as Hell.

    Maybe that's the criteria for rape: was it consensual? Maybe there isn't any way to avoid false accusations is to get a time-stamped recording of her agreeing before-hand. That seems to be the direction we're heading now. With those thugs in costumes treating the victims as if it were their fault (I know your stance that it was).

    If the social stigma against sex goes totally away, there will be far fewer reasons for people to accuse falsely. It isn't a perfect solution, but that's sort of the point.

    There *is* no perfect solution to all our problems. There are just ways to live that work.
    (more)
  • dave ki jimrthy... 2011/09/07 19:21:25
    dave ki
    Yeah kinda like finding that one religion everyone will be satisfied with.
  • jimrthy... dave ki 2011/09/08 19:40:49
    jimrthy BN-0
    Very similar, yeah.
  • dave ki jimrthy... 2011/09/09 00:12:26
    dave ki
    Which is exactly why it could never work. Try as you might not all would ever be satisfied.Which is why it's a good idea to be armed and ready.I am gonna keep what I got even if it's not a whole lot(life not withstanding).
  • jimrthy... dave ki 2011/09/09 19:14:43
    jimrthy BN-0
    It worked just fine, for hundreds of thousands of years.

    The key seems to have been realizing that what works well for one tribe isn't necessarily going to work well for another. Sure, neighboring tribes might squabble over land (for example, if one of them was dealing with a drought). And there was a little intra-tribal violence.

    But nothing at all like what modern people have to deal with. And (as far as we know) the tribes never tried to force their customs on one another. That's a relatively modern innovation, and it's malignant.

    Sean's talking about a society where there wouldn't be any reason for you to worry about keeping what you already have, because you could easily replace it on a whim.

    I think it would be silly to give up your arms because, hey, humans will always be human. But the overall theme is interesting to contemplate.
  • dave ki jimrthy... 2011/09/10 00:26:54
    dave ki
    It may have worked out fine for all those years,but people depended on each other to,where as one place may be a months journey not so now. The same can be said of food we are not dependent on the guy next to us or a day away.I think we think the same(unless you believe in whims).LOL
  • jimrthy... dave ki 2011/09/11 19:40:04
    jimrthy BN-0
    We still depend on each other. It's just easier to pretend that we don't.

    I don't pretend this is "The Right Answer". But it's interesting to think about.
  • chgo PCisWrong 2011/09/01 16:25:13
    chgo
    Is there a reason why my responses to you about Chicago and DC crime rates suspiciously disappeared?
  • Red Ruf... Sean 2011/08/29 01:15:02
    Red Ruffansore
    +1
    What a stoner, no wonder you never see danger approaching, you're to busy tripping on all the colors.
  • Hobbitt... Sean 2011/08/29 02:12:50
    Hobbitt / Oldsquid
    +1
    Pay attention everyone...this is your brain on drugs.
  • whipnet Sean 2011/08/29 04:23:10
    whipnet
    +1
    Even Star Trek still has guns... with no monetary system.

    *
  • Sean whipnet 2011/08/29 14:09:20
    Sean
    Lazar guns to protect the crew on the vehicle from hostile beings from space, they never used the Lazar weapons on each other.
  • whipnet Sean 2011/08/30 12:18:12 (edited)
    whipnet
    Guns in the homes of millions of law abiding citizens to protect the family from hostile beings in the neighborhood. They never used the weapons on each other.
  • JimShou Sean 2011/08/29 13:58:22
    JimShou
    you must be the originator of the "funny farm"
  • Kochman Sean 2011/08/29 17:45:28 (edited)
    Kochman
    Why stop at guns:
    Lets outlaw Knives
    Axes
    Saws
    sticks.......and trees
    Water (drowning)
    Food (choking)
    High places.................ETC. See how stupid your idea is?
  • jimrthy... Sean 2011/08/29 17:50:21
    jimrthy BN-0
    Those who beat their swords into plowshares are doomed to become the slaves of those who don't.
  • earl Sean 2011/08/30 12:35:45
    earl
    good luck with that, we will let you explain it to the gangs!
  • dave ki Sean 2011/09/01 19:04:37
    dave ki
    Boy is this someone that's listened to or read to much about the Brady campaign against guns or what?Maybe a little to much anti-gun media?
    Lets take all these firearms out of existence,ant idea how many thousands of jobs going with them? http://www.nssf.org/PDF/2010E...
    And you can bet there are a lot more. I would say anyone that doesn't think firearms are no good for personal defense is the delusional one with a capitol D.
  • YULING YANG 2011/08/28 22:09:33
    YULING YANG
    +4
    Yes, by all means! Criminals will carry loaded gun anyway regardless of the law! So by banning the law obeying citizens, the government is indeed helping the criminals!
  • merugop 2011/08/28 21:58:58
    merugop
    +2
    I think it's a bad idea, never seen a poll of how many ppl get angry in traffic and how many ppl drive drunk and btw what's the porpose? if you get carjackd by an armed bandit he ain't gonna give you time to grab it.
    overall the gun laws are bad
  • PCisWrong merugop 2011/08/29 00:59:26
    PCisWrong
    What if the carjacker is running away from the cops towards your car. You see him, but you are stuck behind another car at a traffic light. In this scenario, having a gun handy would be quite useful. You might not have time to reach for your gun every time, but at that moment, you would be glad to have it.
  • chgo PCisWrong 2011/09/02 06:09:40
    chgo
    You have two separate SH accounts with the same user ID...at least
    http://www.sodahead.com/user/...
  • merugop PCisWrong 2011/09/04 21:41:36
    merugop
    never saw it happen but that doesn't katter i ain't a driver yet but can't you lock your car? it can'tbe that hard.
    but again i don't have to life with those laws
  • chgo 2011/08/28 20:16:40 (edited)
    chgo
    It goes to show these lunatic gun fanatics will not go away until their Social Security checks cease. You know what people I'm talking about. Those people who went frantic when they heard more minority babies will soon be born in America than while white babies. Attention: you're losing "your" country! Just as all the redneck politicians predicted! According to the latest numbers, diversity is destroying America's "greatest traditions:" whites are now less than half of all three year-olds.
  • Jackie ... chgo 2011/08/28 21:11:36
    Jackie Debs
    +4
    haha what in the world? You call other people lunatics as you go into a crazy rant about minority babies? Holy crap, please ask your doctor if Zoloft might be right for you
  • Morgan Orlins 2011/08/28 20:04:38
    Morgan Orlins
    Should they be "allowed"?

    What part of the 2nd Amendment don't you understand?

    "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    ****Case closed.****
  • chgo Morgan ... 2011/08/28 20:24:10
    chgo
    +2
    Evidently, you don't understand the FIRST part: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State..."

    Did you just ignore that first part? All political viewpoints agree that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the government to maintain an armed militia to protect the nation, not that it guarantees the right of all persons to own/use guns any place and at any time.
  • Morgan ... chgo 2011/08/28 20:25:57
    Morgan Orlins
    +1
    Ignore it? Nah. The S.C. has ALREADY ruled that it refers to all citizens. The "well-regulated militia" are the people! Tough being lefty, isn't it?
  • chgo Morgan ... 2011/08/28 20:44:16
    chgo
    +1
    The National Rifle Association asked their 5 conservative friends and cronies in the Supreme Court to appeal the gun rights decision invalidating a handgun ban in the District of Columbia, the Chicago area, and other local and state laws. All 5 of those cons voted for the NRA, When we they get rid of those 5 contards in the Supreme Court, we'll get rulings not based on special interest or other corrupt acts, Einstein. Just look at Clarence Thomas, for example.

News & Politics

2013/05/19 03:00:35

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals