Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

the laws we have are not enforced, do not work, or function counterproductively, the "solution" is then throw more laws at it?!
Really ?!
*aside glance*
Does ANY ONE ELSE find this a little insane, here ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

So if you, Mike, are never going to drink and drive, does it reduce the number of drunk driving accidents if the government takes your CRX away, or puts a governor on it that limits your top speed to 55MPH?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

So if you, Mike, are never going to drink and drive, does it reduce the number of drunk driving accidents if the government takes your CRX away, or puts a governor on it that limits your top speed to 55MPH?

---

If I've never hit and killed anyone with my car, does it increase the risk to anyone if I drive my CRX 140mph through a school zone while school's letting out, and while talking and texting on my phone?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Isn't having a gun in the household an affirmative action that you've CHOSEN to take, which thereby increases the risk to everybody within that household? Studies show that guns in the house are 43 times more likely to be used against someone who lives there than some intruder.

---

Quote:

---

If you choose to engage in risky behavior, you should pay the price and there should be rules and regulations, even if you've done nothing illegal by engaging in such risky behavior, but only because you COULD theoretically increase the danger to another uninvolved party. You said so yourself.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

People who criminally mis-use automobiles - speeding, reckless driving, DUI, etc. - are punished by fines, jail time, or removal of their privilege to use an auto. Folks who criminally mis-use firearms face pretty much the same penalties.

People who do not mis-use automobiles get to keep their money, time, and the use of their cars. Why shouldn't people who don't mis-use their firearms be treated the same?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Automobiles, their sales, registrations, insurance, and fines (speeding/parking tickets & such) are a SUBSTANTIAL income for the government- guns not so much.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

People who criminally mis-use automobiles - speeding, reckless driving, DUI, etc. - are punished by fines, jail time, or removal of their privilege to use an auto. Folks who criminally mis-use firearms face pretty much the same penalties.

People who do not mis-use automobiles get to keep their money, time, and the use of their cars. Why shouldn't people who don't mis-use their firearms be treated the same?

---

Automobiles, their sales, registrations, insurance, and fines (speeding/parking tickets & such) are a SUBSTANTIAL income for the government- guns not so much.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Exactly. Tell me again, Geezer - how much doesn't it cost to own and operate a motor vehicle? I'm required to carry insurance even on a car I don't drive, and keep it registered and inspected, even though it's not driven on public roads.

So while I'm not using the car, I'm still paying all the fees associated with using it.

---

Quote:

---

By the way, Geezer here keeps shifting the goal posts. DUI is an affirmative choice, he says, and then includes DUI deaths in his total of "accident" deaths for automobiles. Meanwhile, he removes suicides from gun deaths. Is not gun suicide a rather affirmative choice one makes?

If you want to compare auto deaths to gun deaths, at least be intellectually honest enough to do it straight-up. As I've learned, there's really no such thing as an "accident" in a car - if you were talking on the phone when you had a wreck, you made a choice to do so. If you were driving in the snow, that was a choice. If you weren't paying attention, you chose it. If someone hit you while they were talking or texting, that was their choice. None of those constitute an "accident".

---