Guns and cars

[Iamme]

(Wildcat)

All of that is unnecessary. Just lower all speed limits to 5 mph. "If it saves just one life, it's worth it".

----------------------------------------------

Perhaps not. I have seen no such indication from our government that they support your line of thinking about saving one...measely...life. Think of the billions of dollars in lost revenue due to going 5 miles per hour. Can you imagine if trucks would ship your food to market at only 5 miles an hour from California across the U.S.? Or, could you imagine if IBM was anxiously awaiting some key components from Intel, and it took days for the parts to arrive? How would you like to have to get up at 3 in the morning to get ready for school, work, or church?

It sounds noble, but I couldn't see Bush trying to save one life, *anyway*. After all, he wouldn't even save a converted killer in Karla Faye Tucker from death row.

 

[merphie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Guns and cars

No it's not really a matter of opinion. Cars were made so that people could get from point A to point B in a short amount of time. Guns were made so that someone standing at point A could destroy something located at point B. See the difference?



We've already covered this. To run over someone with a car, you have to be in their immediate vicinity at sometime or another. Not so if you happen to have a rifle. You can easily snipe someone from a distance of 200 yards, and there's a good chance you will get away with it, unless you do something stupid. [/B]

depends on the car and the gun.

 

[merphie]

I doubt that very much, If you'd be charged with attempted murder for a nonfatal accident then why wasn't the guy in your link charged with murder?

possible 15 years isn't good enough for you?

If they don't agree that it was selfdefense or that the amount of force used was justified, you can also get charged for defending yourself with other weapons, including cars.

There has also been cases when someone has been charged when it was clearly self defense. I would have to do some searching for some examples.

I figure the number of murders commited with car keys is fairly low yes.

How would we know? The FBI doesn't track death by car keys.

I'm fairly sure I've pointed butter knives at people and I've never gotten charged for it.

Sure it is, but does the other guy know that? Death treats are illegal even if you can't carry them out. Would you get charged with handing a guy a nonloaded weapon barrel first?

Ok, but how does the other guy know what your intention is with the knife?

 

[merphie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Guns and cars

Thanks... but you "can" sue for anything without evidence... you'll just lose. It's no different for guns or cars than with anything else. Is your objection the ability to sue, or a pattern of such lawsuits winning?

No if there is reasonable evidence to support fault then I am all for the lawsuit.

However these brand of lawsuits do nothing more than cost innocent people money. Lots of it.

I could sue you for slander. I would probably lose because I have no evidence. However what if everyone on this board sued you for slander? It would get expensive in the long run. This is especially true if I have deep pockets or someone backing me does.

I suppose it could apply to doctors as well. The question is how to fix the problem.

 

[Kerberos]

possible 15 years isn't good enough for you?

No it's not. First of all because he hasn't been convocted, secondly because you're moving the goal posts, you siad attempted murder not reckless homicide and thirdly because you can also be charged for reckless homicide for a car accident

There has also been cases when someone has been charged when it was clearly self defense. I would have to do some searching for some examples.

I'm sure you could find examples of people being charged for something we'll both agree is selfdefense using a gun but you could probably also find cases where people have been charged after defending themselves with other weapons than guns.

How would we know? The FBI doesn't track death by car keys.

What about common sense? FBI doesn't track homicides with fluffy toys either, does that mean we should consider fluffy equivelant with guns?

Ok, but how does the other guy know what your intention is with the knife?

Do you have some sort of reason for asking theese spectacuarly stupid questions? You might as well ask, how you would know, what my intention with my fluffy toy, my finger or whatever other object I might point at you with, was. Unless the carrier of the fluffy toy or butter knife says or does something otherwise threatening, pointing at them with it simply cannot be considered threatening or scary.

 

[merphie]

No it's not. First of all because he hasn't been convocted, secondly because you're moving the goal posts, you siad attempted murder not reckless homicide and thirdly because you can also be charged for reckless homicide for a car accident

I am not trying to move the goal post. Obviously murder was not attempted. It took place as is the meaning of homicide. They man is still being charged for murder. It is true he is not convicted yet. However, I believe the article said it was likely.

A good example is a relative of mine was killed in a car wreck by a man who lost control of his vehicle. He was late for work and hit a water puddle. He lost control and crossed the median. He was not charged for murder or reckless homicide. He never saw the inside of a jail cell. He got community service.

My point is a charge and conviction is more likely in an event where a gun is involved.

I'm sure you could find examples of people being charged for something we'll both agree is selfdefense using a gun but you could probably also find cases where people have been charged after defending themselves with other weapons than guns.

There would probably be more cases involving guns. Charges would also be more likely with the gun involved since the victim should have called the police and wait.

What about common sense? FBI doesn't track homicides with fluffy toys either, does that mean we should consider fluffy equivelant with guns?

They don't track murder by vehicle either. Obviously we can't track everything. That wasn't the point. Aside from the sarcasim my point was that most people seem to blame the gun instead of the person committing the crime.

Do you have some sort of reason for asking theese spectacuarly stupid questions? You might as well ask, how you would know, what my intention with my fluffy toy, my finger or whatever other object I might point at you with, was. Unless the carrier of the fluffy toy or butter knife says or does something otherwise threatening, pointing at them with it simply cannot be considered threatening or scary.

How did we get from knives to fluffy toys?

Why is it so stupid? How I am supposed to know what you intend If you use a knife in a threatening manner toward me.

The other day while driving home from work a couple of kids on bikes passed me from the other direction. When they were about to pass one of the kids ran into the other kid as to knock him in front of my truck. I would not have been able to stop in time if he had fell in front of me even though I was doing the posted speed limit on the street.

Surely the intention was a joke. However the consequence could have been most severe for his actions. Should the pusher have been charged with attempted murder?

Pointing an unloaded gun has the same potential and yet it is a crime. Of course I am knowingly pointing a dangerous weapon at someone, but the kid also done a knowingly dangerous action.

Why are the two so different?