PDA

View Full Version : 1st our guns, whats next our cars


robert042769
01-07-2013, 8:23 AM
If they are going to try to take away our guns because they can so called kill people. What are they going to do about cars that kill people when drunk drivers get behind the wheel?

What do we have to do to make the simple minded legislature understand Guns don't kill people, People Kill People. Fix the people and let us keep our guns.

For those that don't get it, guns are just as guilty as cars, neither are at fault. Why punish the majority of legal, law abiding citizens for what happens when a law breaker gets a hold of a gun.

My answer is to ease gun control and issue more concealed carry permits. If nobody knew who was armed bet they'd feel less safe pulling a gun to commit a crime.

Bobio
01-07-2013, 8:28 AM
Driving while intoxicated is a much bigger safety problem then guns. Absolutely. We need MUCH tighter regulation on DUIs.

email
01-07-2013, 8:30 AM
once they take the guns, they can take whatever they want.
History shows us this.

gesundheit
01-07-2013, 8:32 AM
DUI drivers kills Tens of thousands of folks every year. They should ban cars that can go faster than 65 mph. Fienstein should get right on it!

splitmx
01-07-2013, 8:35 AM
Its not a Right in California to have a drivers license. So they could take away your driving rights. Lol.

But I agree, Guns don't kill people just as much as a hammer doesn't drive the nail. Its the person driving the hammer and the person pulling the trigger.

But getting little minded people to understand that is like getting a 2 year old to understand the word NO. lol

narcolepsy
01-07-2013, 8:37 AM
Driving while intoxicated is a much bigger safety problem then guns. Absolutely. We need MUCH tighter regulation on DUIs.

Actually, DUIs and guns are about equal in death. Of approximately 265M cars, there are approximately 10K deaths from DUIs every year. Of the approximately 300M guns, there are approximately 12K deaths every year, excluding suicides.

Of significant note: Overall there are approximately 50K deaths on the roads every year, with only one fifth of those attributed to DUI. Thus, from a statistical point of view, the real danger on the roads is the sober drivers, not the drunk ones.

the86d
01-07-2013, 8:41 AM
No they won't ban the leading killer in America (aside from bad heath habits, but they are trying to ban food and large sodas already):Firearms in the US (Estimated 2009): 310,000,000 (probably a LOT more since Obama's Dictatorship...)
Current US population (per last census?): 311,591,917
99.4891% of Americans could be armed if citizens only had one firearm each...

12,996 -- Homicides in the United States in 2010.
8,775 -- Homicides by firearm in 2010.

This means you were 0.0028161834506124% likely to be killed by a firearm in 2010.

8583 - Homicides by firearm - 2011

This means you were 0.0027545643939153% likely to die by firearm in a homicide in 2011

32,367 -- Motor vehicle Deaths 2011

You were 0.010387625042276% likely to die by Motor Vehicle accident in 2011

So this means we all were 377.1059070255088% more likely to die by motor vehicle than a firearm, in 2011... right?
(I did the math on Windows calc, with a copy-paste.)
No really, LET'S BAN IDIOTS FROM DRIVING IF THEY LACK THE COMMON SINCE TO SIGNAL (90%), and traffic will flow like it's NOT TJ!


This IS funny:
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-rights/2013/01/03/fbi-more-people-killed-hammers-clubs-each-year-rifles

joefreas
01-07-2013, 8:59 AM
If we all lived in cages there would be less deaths.

philobeddoe
01-07-2013, 9:03 AM
wrong, you'd just die in a cage

the death rate is steady at 100%

Moonshine
01-07-2013, 9:05 AM
Actually they just take away the guns. Next comes european style socialism. There are very high levels of unemployment right now and there's two competing views on this:

1) (my view) during the real estate boom levels of unemployment were artificially low because low achieves were able to live off the fat of the land and rack up large amounts of debt to keep up with those who actually took it upon themselves to get an education and a good job.

2) (the Democrat view) European style socialism is needed because the free market cannot regulate itself to create enough jobs. The Feds fear that gun owners will not tolerate this type of drastic societal shift (kinda like Stalin and Mao did when they wanted registration)

winnre
01-07-2013, 9:07 AM
I'm really surprised a DUI is so cheap. If I wanted you dead and shot you I'd get 20 years in jail. But if I ran you over and then celebrated with a drink I'd get 6 months probation.

Hmmm gotta wonder if that has ever happened.

javalos
01-07-2013, 9:43 AM
Yes, our cars, extremist environmentalists within the Democrat party I'm sure would like to see us all on public transportation, on bicycles, or walking.

ddestruel
01-07-2013, 9:57 AM
Cars are regulated.. the EPA has been pushing manufacturers with stricter regulations on manual transmission vs automatic equipt cars and a sliding scale for fuel economy and emissions calculations that favor automatics and weigh heavily against manual equipt cars.......

Mechanically injected diesel engines make great power are efficient, got good mileage made great power had very low matience costs compared to modern electronic diesels ...... cummins wanted to keep producing the 12 valve 5.9 diesel with $600 worth of injectors and a $1000 all mecanical injection pump that lasts 500k miles but the EPA forced them into upgrading to electronic high pressure injectors with $3000 worth of injectors and an electronic $1200 injection pump with a service life spand of 250k miles........

the list goes on and on.........

Major pet peeve they micro manage too much and insted mess everything up

MOA1
01-07-2013, 11:42 AM
Self driving cars are on the horizon. In fact, you will be charged extra on your insurance if you want to drive yourself. Don't think it's not in the very near future. Just think of how much money could be made changing out the old for the new. Mandate old cars out, new cars in. Cars will be driving around with no driver, deliveries and such. Or time share cars, self docking, all you do is sit in your car and work on your computer or take a nap or watch the latest BS on the news, or a movie. Whatever.

It is coming. Motorcycles will be banned, too risky, obamacare won't allow you to ride a motorcycle or drive yourself.

YUK

MOA1
01-07-2013, 11:45 AM
The mid 40s generation won't want it but the younger generation would embrace it. They grew up with computerized everything, it will be a natural transition. Plus they can update their facebook while traveling. Probably even be able to be drunk while traveling since you technically aren't driving.

That will create a revenue problem for the police, no DUI money. Less need for them.

Moonshine
01-07-2013, 1:39 PM
Personally i think regulating cars makes more sense than regulating guns. For instance it's easy to prove there's limited amounts of oil in the ground and its not practical to have people who live in the suburbs use a HUGE 4 x 4 truck as a commuter vehicle. Likewise you can argue carbon emissions are causing global warming to accelerate. So at least on some level it is possible to "prove" the ill effects of cars.

On the other hand it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove gun control has any impact whatsoever on crime and violence. The fact that you used to be able to mail order a submachine gun and there were no school shootings and columbine happened during an assault weapons ban shows there is ZERO correlation.

tcrpe
01-07-2013, 1:51 PM
What's next? They will regulate your speech.

winnre
01-07-2013, 1:59 PM
What's next? They will regulate your speech.

No they can't! If they try I'll take my gun and...and...and....

okay I'll shut up. Hail Obama.


NOT.

skyscraper
01-07-2013, 2:05 PM
The car, knife,and hammer analogies fall on deaf ears.

mud99
01-07-2013, 10:55 PM
Personally i think regulating cars makes more sense than regulating guns. For instance it's easy to prove there's limited amounts of oil in the ground and its not practical to have people who live in the suburbs use a HUGE 4 x 4 truck as a commuter vehicle. Likewise you can argue carbon emissions are causing global warming to accelerate. So at least on some level it is possible to "prove" the ill effects of cars.

On the other hand it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove gun control has any impact whatsoever on crime and violence. The fact that you used to be able to mail order a submachine gun and there were no school shootings and columbine happened during an assault weapons ban shows there is ZERO correlation.

Many of those huge 4x4 trucks use Diesel engines and get pretty good gas mileage compared to smaller vehicles.

As an example, my Dodge 3500 gets 18-22 mpg. My Toyota Tacoma only gets 15-20.

Everyone demonized the ford excursion, but it got nearly 20mpg since it had a diesel.

Also, you can't place much faith in EPA fuel mileage numbers. They don't actually base the mileage on the amount of fuel burned, but on the carbon emitted....stupid....the numbers are much lower than reality for diesel vehicles, and much higher than reality for hybrid vehicles.

vmwerks
01-08-2013, 5:42 AM
Stats from the CDC - we need to ban cars with evil features...


Mortality
All injury deaths
Number of deaths: 177,154
Deaths per 100,000 population: 57.7
Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 34,485
Deaths per 100,000 population: 11.2
All poisoning deaths
Number of deaths: 41,592
Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.5
All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 31,347
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.2


Actually, DUIs and guns are about equal in death. Of approximately 265M cars, there are approximately 10K deaths from DUIs every year. Of the approximately 300M guns, there are approximately 12K deaths every year, excluding suicides.

Of significant note: Overall there are approximately 50K deaths on the roads every year, with only one fifth of those attributed to DUI. Thus, from a statistical point of view, the real danger on the roads is the sober drivers, not the drunk ones.

Actually I have to disagree about the dangers of sober driving. You list total deaths with no regard to the per capita rate. Get the per capita rate and you'll probably see the opposite is true.

SilverTauron
01-08-2013, 6:43 AM
Don't worry, the leftist leadership has you covered. Once they've taken away the citizenry's ability to resist with force, the next move involves taxing us out of our wasteful cars and into environmentally responsible cattle cars- err, mass transit.

SilverTauron
01-08-2013, 6:44 AM
Don't worry, the leftist leadership has you covered. Once they've taken away the citizenry's ability to resist with force, the next move involves taxing us out of our wasteful cars and into environmentally responsible cattle cars- err, mass transit.