What am I missing here?

13 Jan 2013 13:51 #11 by The Dude
Replied by The Dude on topic What am I missing here?
Either way we have laws and regulations in place for cars to cut down on the amount of accidents wheter intentional or not. And as far as I can tell those laws and regulations have helped decrease the amount of deaths caused by auto's. I will find a link and post when I have more time.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

13 Jan 2013 13:53 #12 by Raees
Replied by Raees on topic What am I missing here?

akilina wrote:

Raees wrote:

navycpo7 wrote:

Raees wrote: I ask how A is related to B and you bring up C and D.

Still waiting for an answer to my question.


Raees, a person who was drinking, gets into his car, drives down a road and kills a family or a member of a family, do you consider that accidental or not.


It's about as accidental as someone who was drinking, grabs their gun(s) and shoots people, as opposed to someone who plans gun violence over time (like Klebold and Harris, and Holmes).

The majority of fatal vehicle crashes are accidental, I believe. That's why you can't compare vehicle deaths to gun deaths. Understand?


Really vehicle crashes accidental? Don't think so. That's why so many tickets get handed out and why there is a mandatory insurance requirement. Someone often at fault.


Someone being at fault doesn't mean they intentionally were at fault. When someone runs a red light, for example, they are at fault but it doesn't follow that most run a red light because they intended to. There's a difference between fault and intent.

We should have mandatory insurance for gun owners, but that's a different argument.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

13 Jan 2013 14:22 #13 by akilina
Replied by akilina on topic What am I missing here?

The Dude wrote: Either way we have laws and regulations in place for cars to cut down on the amount of accidents wheter intentional or not. And as far as I can tell those laws and regulations have helped decrease the amount of deaths caused by auto's. I will find a link and post when I have more time.


Have to agree that there are laws and regulations in place for cars as there are some for guns. Since car deaths substantially outnumber gun deaths I would expect more regs so as to decrease the amount of deaths.

IN NOVEMBER 2014, WE HAVE A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO CLEAN OUT THE ENTIRE HOUSE AND ONE-THIRD OF THE SENATE! DONT BLOW IT!

“When white man find land, Indians running it, no taxes, no debt, plenty buffalo, plenty beaver, clean water. Women did all the work, Medicine man free. Indian man spend all day hunting and fishing; all night having sex. Only whit man dumb enough to think he could improve system like that.” Indian Chief Two Eagles

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

13 Jan 2013 14:35 #14 by archer
Replied by archer on topic What am I missing here?
Being at fault does not equal intent. So many gun deaths are intended to be just that......I just don't see the equivalence with vehicle deaths.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

13 Jan 2013 14:36 #15 by akilina
Replied by akilina on topic What am I missing here?

Raees wrote:

akilina wrote:

Raees wrote:

navycpo7 wrote:

Raees wrote: I ask how A is related to B and you bring up C and D.

Still waiting for an answer to my question.


Raees, a person who was drinking, gets into his car, drives down a road and kills a family or a member of a family, do you consider that accidental or not.


It's about as accidental as someone who was drinking, grabs their gun(s) and shoots people, as opposed to someone who plans gun violence over time (like Klebold and Harris, and Holmes).

The majority of fatal vehicle crashes are accidental, I believe. That's why you can't compare vehicle deaths to gun deaths. Understand?


Really vehicle crashes accidental? Don't think so. That's why so many tickets get handed out and why there is a mandatory insurance requirement. Someone often at fault.


Someone being at fault doesn't mean they intentionally were at fault. When someone runs a red light, for example, they are at fault but it doesn't follow that most run a red light because they intended to. There's a difference between fault and intent.

We should have mandatory insurance for gun owners, but that's a different argument.


And who knows when gun death equal vehicle deaths maybe there will be. But there is a huge difference statistics wise.

IN NOVEMBER 2014, WE HAVE A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO CLEAN OUT THE ENTIRE HOUSE AND ONE-THIRD OF THE SENATE! DONT BLOW IT!

“When white man find land, Indians running it, no taxes, no debt, plenty buffalo, plenty beaver, clean water. Women did all the work, Medicine man free. Indian man spend all day hunting and fishing; all night having sex. Only whit man dumb enough to think he could improve system like that.” Indian Chief Two Eagles

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

13 Jan 2013 17:20 #16 by The Dude
Replied by The Dude on topic What am I missing here?

akilina wrote:

The Dude wrote: Either way we have laws and regulations in place for cars to cut down on the amount of accidents wheter intentional or not. And as far as I can tell those laws and regulations have helped decrease the amount of deaths caused by auto's. I will find a link and post when I have more time.


Have to agree that there are laws and regulations in place for cars as there are some for guns. Since car deaths substantially outnumber gun deaths I would expect more regs so as to decrease the amount of deaths.



It is also my understanding that there are way more car owners than there are gun owners so naturally there would be more auto accidents/deaths than gun deaths.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.152 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum
sponsors
© My Mountain Town (new)
Google+