quote:

Show me a trend longer than a few years and show causation rather than correlation that increased regulation has anything to do with lower automobile deaths rather than seat belts and air bags.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: MyEnemy

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: MyEnemy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

And we register,do safety checks and require insurance for each one,not only because they`re dangerous but because of their potential use/abuse by criminals/crazies and kids....


Which seems perfectly reasonable to normal people.....


But somehow guns are different.

Why do cars kill more people than guns despite all the regulation?

I dunno.

Can you tell me why deaths related to cars are going down while gun related deaths are going up?

No I can't tell you why something you are incorrect about is.

quote:

No I can't tell you why something you are incorrect about is.

To bad you have no idea what you are talking about.

2010 -

Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 33,687
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9

All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 31,672
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.3

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

“In 2008, there were an estimated 5,811,000 police-reported traffic crashes, in which 37,261 people were
killed and 2,346,000 people were injured; 4,146,000 crashes involved property damage only.”

In 2008, 37,261 people lost their lives in motor vehicle crashes — a decrease of
10 percent from 2007 (41,259).

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811162.PDF


In the United States, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

2011: 32,163
2010: 31,672
2009: 31,347
2008: 31,593
2007: 31,224
2006: 30,896
2005: 30,694
2004: 29,569
2003: 30,136
2002: 30,242
2001: 29,573
2000: 28,663
1999: 28,874

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states


[image]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/factsheets/factsheet_injury_fig2.gif[/image]

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/factsheets/factsheet_injury.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Dont you need a CDL to buy a dump truck? But, hey, if you can find some idiot to sell you one without it, and manage to get him to give you the keys and let you drive off without stopping by the DMV to transfer it, then its all yours. [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Dont you need a CDL to buy a dump truck? But, hey, if you can find some idiot to sell you one without it, and manage to get him to give you the keys and let you drive off without stopping by the DMV to transfer it, then its all yours. [;)]

Now, as to a dealer, yes, he would have if he didnt prove you have insurance to cover it and a CDL to drive it off the lot. I dont see that happening, do you?

quote:

Show me a trend longer than a few years and show causation rather than correlation that increased regulation has anything to do with lower automobile deaths rather than seat belts and air bags.

As to this... seat belts and air bags are regulated

quote:

The seller did nothing illegal whether he was a private seller or a dealer.

quote:

So you agree that if I so choose to I can go buy an unregistered dump truck in horrible condition never get it registered inspected or insured (all without a background check) and go on a rampage on public roads at any time I want running people off the road killing dozens in a crowded city. It seems to me that there aren't very many parallels between automobile regulation and proposed gun regulation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

The seller did nothing illegal whether he was a private seller or a dealer.

He said he would drive it. From a dealership, they would not let him drive one off the lot without one.

A dealership will require insurance.

Keep in mind the scenario...

quote:

So you agree that if I so choose to I can go buy an unregistered dump truck in horrible condition never get it registered inspected or insured (all without a background check) and go on a rampage on public roads at any time I want running people off the road killing dozens in a crowded city. It seems to me that there aren't very many parallels between automobile regulation and proposed gun regulation.

Then, he claims it doesnt matter if its a dealer or private sale.

quote:

Tazzy,the F.B.I.'s website differs quite a bit from your figures.According to Wikipedia,"In 2010 there were 358 murders involving rifles. Murders involving the use of pistols in the US that same year totaled 6,009, with another 1,939 murders with the firearm type unreported." linked to the F.B.I. site.Now if you figure in suicides the figures are ..."Of the 30,470 firearm-related deaths in the United States in 2010, 19,392 (63.6%) were suicide deaths, and 11,078 (36.4%) homicide deaths."link.Something tells me if a suicidal person didn't have a gun,they might try a different method,so trying to add them to inflate gun deaths is a bit of a stretch.Also what isn't being told is in many places,a large percent of homicide victims are criminals."People with a criminal record were also more likely to die as homicide victims. Between 1990 and 1994, 75% of all homicide victims age 21 and younger in the city of Boston had a prior criminal record. In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996. In Richmond, Virginia, the risk of gunshot injury is 22 times higher for those males involved with crime." from Wikipedia.

quote:

The dealer has no legal obligation to prevent me from doing anything with the truck once I own it. They may say you can't drive that without insurance, but they aren't going to stop anyone.

quote:

There are vehicles on the road without airbags and without seat belts. The point I keep alluding to and that I wish you would address is that it would save lives to ban all cars that go over 45 mph, so do you support banning them? You could easily say that any car that can go faster than the speed limit is an assault car. Call things like spoilers, chrome wheels, turbos and v8 engines assault features and ban any car that has more than one of those options.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

The dealer has no legal obligation to prevent me from doing anything with the truck once I own it. They may say you can't drive that without insurance, but they aren't going to stop anyone.

The dealer in most states wont complete the sale without insurance, bond or deposit. New Hampshire being the exception.

In some states -- such as California, Tennessee, Washington, Texas and Ohio -- it's perfectly legal to skip carrying car insurance if you can prove you have the financial ability to cover liability costs if you get in a wreck. And if you live in New Hampshire, you don't even need to prove your financial fitness.

http://money.msn.com/auto-insurance/never-buy-car-insurance-again-insurance.aspx

quote:

Do you support banning them? I keep asking this but you haven't answered yet.

quote:

I don't think you care about saving lives but only about removing power from people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Not a dealer. A private sale, yes. A dealer doesnt want the hassle of the liability.

quote:

Do you support banning them? I keep asking this but you haven't answered yet.

No, what you kept asking me is if I supported banning vehicles. [8|]

quote:

I don't think you care about saving lives but only about removing power from people.

Its obvious you do not know me to make such bold, and erroneous, assumptions. And a quick glance at your profile shows me why.

You are assuming things you have no knowledge about. But my position is quite clear. You can own any ole weapon you want. I dont care if its a tommy or a bazooka. But, if you own it, secure it. If you dont, and it gets stolen, you are to be held liable.

Pretty simple.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Yes!

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Not a dealer. A private sale, yes. A dealer doesnt want the hassle of the liability.

quote:

Do you support banning them? I keep asking this but you haven't answered yet.

No, what you kept asking me is if I supported banning vehicles. [8|]

quote:

I don't think you care about saving lives but only about removing power from people.

Its obvious you do not know me to make such bold, and erroneous, assumptions. And a quick glance at your profile shows me why.

You are assuming things you have no knowledge about. But my position is quite clear. You can own any ole weapon you want. I dont care if its a tommy or a bazooka. But, if you own it, secure it. If you dont, and it gets stolen, you are to be held liable.

Pretty simple.

quote:

You celebrate the creation of legislation banning a multitude of weapons...

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Yes!


...then you say you oppose the banning of guns. I give up.

quote:

The problem with the above is our Miss tazzygirl doesn't actually Know any thieves. There is No security against a determined thief. You can just make it more expensive or risky. When the tools to defeat a safe cost close to what a particular gun in the safe is worth, you'd think the gun is protected? Except most theft I know about is as much about the challenge and the power over the other as about the money. When the idea becomes Law that owners have to spend more than the house is worth to actually secure effective weapons, you have made self-defense an elitist capability, one working people or the majority of professionals simply can't afford. Possible an Unintended Consequence? But very predictable.

quote:

The proposal to use criminal penalties for someone else conduct if you don't use heroic measures (And even then) to secure physical objects they may use illegally is absurd legally and morally.

quote:

Automobile owners are liable if 'reasonable' measures aren't take to prevent theft, but still don't face criminal penalties from criminal actions By Others with stolen cars.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

I'm not worried, President Obama said directly on TV that he wasn't after our guns... He's as trustworthy as they come... Biden too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
No, my friend who is lacking in this knowledge about me, that isnt what I am saying at all. If you can prove you took reasonable measures, as determined by law, to prevent the theft of your weapons, as I have stated repeatedly on many threads so far (and no one seems to read them, instead they just assume they know what someone's position is and ends up looking .. well.. TOS prevents me from saying that part), then you would not be held liable for not taking those steps.
In other words, a fine and jail term... for failing to comply with that law, not for what the "thief" did.
And, with a half a million - 500,000 - guns stolen every year, yeah, I think this is a pretty damn big problem, considering there are those who have come on these threads to talk about flimsy house locks to keep intruders out.
You people never heard of a security system? Gun safe?