Canada2017 said:Intent ?LateSteak69 said:Wangchung said:
So odd that drunk driving victims can't sue automakers.
The amount of people that drink 20 beers with the intent to kill someone with their car has to be sky high.
When a drunk driver has 2-4 prior DUI's then crashes into another car head on.......killing everyone involved.
Really think it is unintentional ......merely an accident ?
The automaker is just as involved/liable in the actions of the drunk driver as the gun manufacturers are in the actions of the criminal.LateSteak69 said:Canada2017 said:Intent ?LateSteak69 said:Wangchung said:
So odd that drunk driving victims can't sue automakers.
The amount of people that drink 20 beers with the intent to kill someone with their car has to be sky high.
When a drunk driver has 2-4 prior DUI's then crashes into another car head on.......killing everyone involved.
Really think it is unintentional ......merely an accident ?
His intent was not to kill folks regardless of his priors.
That is naive in the extreme .LateSteak69 said:Canada2017 said:Intent ?LateSteak69 said:Wangchung said:
So odd that drunk driving victims can't sue automakers.
The amount of people that drink 20 beers with the intent to kill someone with their car has to be sky high.
When a drunk driver has 2-4 prior DUI's then crashes into another car head on.......killing everyone involved.
Really think it is unintentional ......merely an accident ?
His intent was not to kill folks regardless of his priors.
Canada2017 said:That is naive in the extreme .LateSteak69 said:Canada2017 said:Intent ?LateSteak69 said:Wangchung said:
So odd that drunk driving victims can't sue automakers.
The amount of people that drink 20 beers with the intent to kill someone with their car has to be sky high.
When a drunk driver has 2-4 prior DUI's then crashes into another car head on.......killing everyone involved.
Really think it is unintentional ......merely an accident ?
His intent was not to kill folks regardless of his priors.
You are either very young......or very sheltered....or both .LateSteak69 said:Canada2017 said:That is naive in the extreme .LateSteak69 said:Canada2017 said:Intent ?LateSteak69 said:Wangchung said:
So odd that drunk driving victims can't sue automakers.
The amount of people that drink 20 beers with the intent to kill someone with their car has to be sky high.
When a drunk driver has 2-4 prior DUI's then crashes into another car head on.......killing everyone involved.
Really think it is unintentional ......merely an accident ?
His intent was not to kill folks regardless of his priors.
Yes, your take is extremely naive.
Canada2017 said:You are either very young......or very sheltered....or both .LateSteak69 said:Canada2017 said:That is naive in the extreme .LateSteak69 said:Canada2017 said:Intent ?LateSteak69 said:Wangchung said:
So odd that drunk driving victims can't sue automakers.
The amount of people that drink 20 beers with the intent to kill someone with their car has to be sky high.
When a drunk driver has 2-4 prior DUI's then crashes into another car head on.......killing everyone involved.
Really think it is unintentional ......merely an accident ?
His intent was not to kill folks regardless of his priors.
Yes, your take is extremely naive.
People with repeated DUI's....know exactly what and who they are risking when they continue to drive under the influence.
Idiotic response.LateSteak69 said:Canada2017 said:You are either very young......or very sheltered....or both .LateSteak69 said:Canada2017 said:That is naive in the extreme .LateSteak69 said:Canada2017 said:Intent ?LateSteak69 said:Wangchung said:
So odd that drunk driving victims can't sue automakers.
The amount of people that drink 20 beers with the intent to kill someone with their car has to be sky high.
When a drunk driver has 2-4 prior DUI's then crashes into another car head on.......killing everyone involved.
Really think it is unintentional ......merely an accident ?
His intent was not to kill folks regardless of his priors.
Yes, your take is extremely naive.
People with repeated DUI's....know exactly what and who they are risking when they continue to drive under the influence.
Neither. Your assertion that a guy with 2 DUIs walks into a bar and says I want to get hammered to go kill folks is one of the dumbest takes I have ever heard.
You clearly don't drink or hang around people that do.
Canada2017 said:Idiotic response.LateSteak69 said:Canada2017 said:You are either very young......or very sheltered....or both .LateSteak69 said:Canada2017 said:That is naive in the extreme .LateSteak69 said:Canada2017 said:Intent ?LateSteak69 said:Wangchung said:
So odd that drunk driving victims can't sue automakers.
The amount of people that drink 20 beers with the intent to kill someone with their car has to be sky high.
When a drunk driver has 2-4 prior DUI's then crashes into another car head on.......killing everyone involved.
Really think it is unintentional ......merely an accident ?
His intent was not to kill folks regardless of his priors.
Yes, your take is extremely naive.
People with repeated DUI's....know exactly what and who they are risking when they continue to drive under the influence.
Neither. Your assertion that a guy with 2 DUIs walks into a bar and says I want to get hammered to go kill folks is one of the dumbest takes I have ever heard.
You clearly don't drink or hang around people that do.
The man who goes into a bar , gets hammered still again after repeated arrests for DUI....knows exactly the threat he presents to others on the roadway.
He makes a totally selfish choice......a choice which has killed thousands of innocent people.
Far more than any rifle .
Not remotely wrong.LateSteak69 said:Canada2017 said:Idiotic response.LateSteak69 said:Canada2017 said:You are either very young......or very sheltered....or both .LateSteak69 said:Canada2017 said:That is naive in the extreme .LateSteak69 said:Canada2017 said:Intent ?LateSteak69 said:Wangchung said:
So odd that drunk driving victims can't sue automakers.
The amount of people that drink 20 beers with the intent to kill someone with their car has to be sky high.
When a drunk driver has 2-4 prior DUI's then crashes into another car head on.......killing everyone involved.
Really think it is unintentional ......merely an accident ?
His intent was not to kill folks regardless of his priors.
Yes, your take is extremely naive.
People with repeated DUI's....know exactly what and who they are risking when they continue to drive under the influence.
Neither. Your assertion that a guy with 2 DUIs walks into a bar and says I want to get hammered to go kill folks is one of the dumbest takes I have ever heard.
You clearly don't drink or hang around people that do.
The man who goes into a bar , gets hammered still again after repeated arrests for DUI....knows exactly the threat he presents to others on the roadway.
He makes a totally selfish choice......a choice which has killed thousands of innocent people.
Far more than any rifle .
No, you're wrong. I have experience with this unfortunately with friends of mine. You need to stop posting about this. Like fast.
One of a Guns Primary purposes is to end Life, be it Human or animal, the same can not be said of Cars, im sure we've already had this discussion and the 2 comparisons are dumbWangchung said:
Should the maker of the van be held liable for the Wisconsin parade attack? That was intentional misuse of an inanimate object, too.
Yes, you made the dumb statement that it isn't the same while rambling about insurance and drunk driving laws, which in no way stops a murderer from using the van to murder, which means their previous efforts were inadequate and cost lives. You also chose to repeatedly ignore the FACT that guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year, blowing your theory that "gUnS aRe oNlY mEaNt tO KILL" all to hell. So either inanimate objects being used in crimes and not as intended in no way implicate the manufacturer or automakers are liable for misuse of their inanimate objects, same as gun makers.cms186 said:One of a Guns Primary purposes is to end Life, be it Human or animal, the same can not be said of Cars, im sure we've already had this discussion and the 2 comparisons are dumbWangchung said:
Should the maker of the van be held liable for the Wisconsin parade attack? That was intentional misuse of an inanimate object, too.
You have a fine way of latching on to your interpretation of something and never letting go, dont you?Wangchung said:Yes, you made the dumb statement that it isn't the same while rambling about insurance and drunk driving laws, which in no way stops a murderer from using the van to murder, which means their previous efforts were inadequate and cost lives. You also chose to repeatedly ignore the FACT that guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year, blowing your theory that "gUnS aRe oNlY mEaNt tO KILL" all to hell. So either inanimate objects being used in crimes and not as intended in no way implicate the manufacturer or automakers are liable for misuse of their inanimate objects, same as gun makers.cms186 said:One of a Guns Primary purposes is to end Life, be it Human or animal, the same can not be said of Cars, im sure we've already had this discussion and the 2 comparisons are dumbWangchung said:
Should the maker of the van be held liable for the Wisconsin parade attack? That was intentional misuse of an inanimate object, too.
Yes, your belief that the constitution is baloney exposes exactly why you'll never understand why you are wrong. But hey, we fought and won a war to not have to care what the British think of our rights.cms186 said:You have a fine way of latching on to your interpretation of something and never letting go, dont you?Wangchung said:Yes, you made the dumb statement that it isn't the same while rambling about insurance and drunk driving laws, which in no way stops a murderer from using the van to murder, which means their previous efforts were inadequate and cost lives. You also chose to repeatedly ignore the FACT that guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year, blowing your theory that "gUnS aRe oNlY mEaNt tO KILL" all to hell. So either inanimate objects being used in crimes and not as intended in no way implicate the manufacturer or automakers are liable for misuse of their inanimate objects, same as gun makers.cms186 said:One of a Guns Primary purposes is to end Life, be it Human or animal, the same can not be said of Cars, im sure we've already had this discussion and the 2 comparisons are dumbWangchung said:
Should the maker of the van be held liable for the Wisconsin parade attack? That was intentional misuse of an inanimate object, too.
A: I didnt say "Guns are only meant to kill", I said its one of their Primary Purposes, isnt that true? Also, if you fire a Gun in Self Defence, you are still, usually, aiming to kill someone with it, arent you?
(Nope. Defensive use of a firearm does not mean a shot was fired.)
B: As Ive said before, The Auto Industry has been forced to heavily invest in Safety Measures to make their products safer form victims of misuse, does that make them 100% safe? no, but they have at least made significant inroads into doing so, Gun Manufacturers have made no such attempt
(and those attempts failed as evidenced by drunk drivers, the Wisconsin parade attack and more incidences occurring every day)
Now you ramble on how the 2nd Amendment means that noone should have to invest anything in Gun Safety because its a Constitutional right or some baloney like that and we can meet again tomorrow
Again, thats not what i said, but its not the first time youve taken something someone says and twisted it to make it fit your narrative, it would be nice if we could have an honest discussion here, but you seem determined to not have oneWangchung said:Yes, your belief that the constitution is baloney exposes exactly why you'll never understand why you are wrong. But hey, we fought and won a war to not have to care what the British think of our rights.cms186 said:You have a fine way of latching on to your interpretation of something and never letting go, dont you?Wangchung said:Yes, you made the dumb statement that it isn't the same while rambling about insurance and drunk driving laws, which in no way stops a murderer from using the van to murder, which means their previous efforts were inadequate and cost lives. You also chose to repeatedly ignore the FACT that guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year, blowing your theory that "gUnS aRe oNlY mEaNt tO KILL" all to hell. So either inanimate objects being used in crimes and not as intended in no way implicate the manufacturer or automakers are liable for misuse of their inanimate objects, same as gun makers.cms186 said:One of a Guns Primary purposes is to end Life, be it Human or animal, the same can not be said of Cars, im sure we've already had this discussion and the 2 comparisons are dumbWangchung said:
Should the maker of the van be held liable for the Wisconsin parade attack? That was intentional misuse of an inanimate object, too.
A: I didnt say "Guns are only meant to kill", I said its one of their Primary Purposes, isnt that true? Also, if you fire a Gun in Self Defence, you are still, usually, aiming to kill someone with it, arent you?
(Nope. Defensive use of a firearm does not mean a shot was fired.)
B: As Ive said before, The Auto Industry has been forced to heavily invest in Safety Measures to make their products safer form victims of misuse, does that make them 100% safe? no, but they have at least made significant inroads into doing so, Gun Manufacturers have made no such attempt
(and those attempts failed as evidenced by drunk drivers, the Wisconsin parade attack and more incidences occurring every day)
Now you ramble on how the 2nd Amendment means that noone should have to invest anything in Gun Safety because its a Constitutional right or some baloney like that and we can meet again tomorrow
If I thought it would prevent these shootings, yes I would.Canada2017 said:Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:
Some guns should not be available. As long as we are a culture that glorifies guns we will have them. I dont think most people need them and the thought of a bunch of guys walking around armed all the time scares me.
Honest question …are you willing to give up all your firearms ?
NEW: The Texas Senate Democratic Caucus is asking Gov. Greg Abbott to urgently call a special session, demanding age of gun ownership be raised to 21 and requiring universal background checks. pic.twitter.com/3tNWUsbOtw
— Tony Plohetski (@tplohetski) May 28, 2022
the cooling off period is not necessary, especially with universal background checks if done correctly.Aliceinbubbleland said:
Seems like a reasonable request. I'd vote for that type of legislation.
Fre3dombear said:
So why it how did the shooter wreck their car?
In my morning Fox interview, I said the decision not to go in sooner cost lives. I meant to say & thought I said “may have” cost lives. Talking back & forth with the host I didn’t realize it until later. The investigation of that time period is still ongoing.
— Dan Patrick (@DanPatrick) May 29, 2022
NEW: The gunman left many warnings that were spotted by young people — but not reported — before his massacre at a Uvalde, Texas, school.
— Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs (@NickAtNews) May 27, 2022
"He finna shoot something up," one wrote after seeing Salvador Ramos post guns on Instagram.
(red = my redactions) https://t.co/DSimecpvZy pic.twitter.com/08jNFkKuBu
Curious as to what measures car makers have implemented to make their products safer for victims of misuse?cms186 said:You have a fine way of latching on to your interpretation of something and never letting go, dont you?Wangchung said:Yes, you made the dumb statement that it isn't the same while rambling about insurance and drunk driving laws, which in no way stops a murderer from using the van to murder, which means their previous efforts were inadequate and cost lives. You also chose to repeatedly ignore the FACT that guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year, blowing your theory that "gUnS aRe oNlY mEaNt tO KILL" all to hell. So either inanimate objects being used in crimes and not as intended in no way implicate the manufacturer or automakers are liable for misuse of their inanimate objects, same as gun makers.cms186 said:One of a Guns Primary purposes is to end Life, be it Human or animal, the same can not be said of Cars, im sure we've already had this discussion and the 2 comparisons are dumbWangchung said:
Should the maker of the van be held liable for the Wisconsin parade attack? That was intentional misuse of an inanimate object, too.
A: I didnt say "Guns are only meant to kill", I said its one of their Primary Purposes, isnt that true? Also, if you fire a Gun in Self Defence, you are still, usually, aiming to kill someone with it, arent you?
B: As Ive said before, The Auto Industry has been forced to heavily invest in Safety Measures to make their products safer form victims of misuse, does that make them 100% safe? no, but they have at least made significant inroads into doing so, Gun Manufacturers have made no such attempt
Now you ramble on how the 2nd Amendment means that noone should have to invest anything in Gun Safety because its a Constitutional right or some baloney like that and we can meet again tomorrow
The crowd reacts as Governor Abbott @GregAbbott_TX appears on day President Biden @POTUS visits Robb Elementary School. #biden #uvalde @TPRNews pic.twitter.com/vnEIhonkBW
— Jia Chen (@jiawenc17) May 29, 2022
Volunteer said:Curious as to what measures car makers have implemented to make their products safer for victims of misuse?cms186 said:You have a fine way of latching on to your interpretation of something and never letting go, dont you?Wangchung said:Yes, you made the dumb statement that it isn't the same while rambling about insurance and drunk driving laws, which in no way stops a murderer from using the van to murder, which means their previous efforts were inadequate and cost lives. You also chose to repeatedly ignore the FACT that guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year, blowing your theory that "gUnS aRe oNlY mEaNt tO KILL" all to hell. So either inanimate objects being used in crimes and not as intended in no way implicate the manufacturer or automakers are liable for misuse of their inanimate objects, same as gun makers.cms186 said:One of a Guns Primary purposes is to end Life, be it Human or animal, the same can not be said of Cars, im sure we've already had this discussion and the 2 comparisons are dumbWangchung said:
Should the maker of the van be held liable for the Wisconsin parade attack? That was intentional misuse of an inanimate object, too.
A: I didnt say "Guns are only meant to kill", I said its one of their Primary Purposes, isnt that true? Also, if you fire a Gun in Self Defence, you are still, usually, aiming to kill someone with it, arent you?
B: As Ive said before, The Auto Industry has been forced to heavily invest in Safety Measures to make their products safer form victims of misuse, does that make them 100% safe? no, but they have at least made significant inroads into doing so, Gun Manufacturers have made no such attempt
Now you ramble on how the 2nd Amendment means that noone should have to invest anything in Gun Safety because its a Constitutional right or some baloney like that and we can meet again tomorrow
That wasn't his question.quash said:Volunteer said:Curious as to what measures car makers have implemented to make their products safer for victims of misuse?cms186 said:You have a fine way of latching on to your interpretation of something and never letting go, dont you?Wangchung said:Yes, you made the dumb statement that it isn't the same while rambling about insurance and drunk driving laws, which in no way stops a murderer from using the van to murder, which means their previous efforts were inadequate and cost lives. You also chose to repeatedly ignore the FACT that guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year, blowing your theory that "gUnS aRe oNlY mEaNt tO KILL" all to hell. So either inanimate objects being used in crimes and not as intended in no way implicate the manufacturer or automakers are liable for misuse of their inanimate objects, same as gun makers.cms186 said:One of a Guns Primary purposes is to end Life, be it Human or animal, the same can not be said of Cars, im sure we've already had this discussion and the 2 comparisons are dumbWangchung said:
Should the maker of the van be held liable for the Wisconsin parade attack? That was intentional misuse of an inanimate object, too.
A: I didnt say "Guns are only meant to kill", I said its one of their Primary Purposes, isnt that true? Also, if you fire a Gun in Self Defence, you are still, usually, aiming to kill someone with it, arent you?
B: As Ive said before, The Auto Industry has been forced to heavily invest in Safety Measures to make their products safer form victims of misuse, does that make them 100% safe? no, but they have at least made significant inroads into doing so, Gun Manufacturers have made no such attempt
Now you ramble on how the 2nd Amendment means that noone should have to invest anything in Gun Safety because its a Constitutional right or some baloney like that and we can meet again tomorrow
Seriously? Crash worthiness is orders of magnitude over what it once was.
This, This, THIS!Porteroso said:
Beyond this, the government should invest in a major study utilizing modern psychology and science, seeking to better understand whether the way the media gives non stop attention to these mass shootings, inspires copycats. And make a recommendation that specifies how a media outlet could report on a tragedy like this, without glorifying the gunman.
It is no coincidence that while mass shootings have always happened, they rose in frequency with the rise of Wall to Wall media coverage of them, starting with Columbine.
Theres lots of things they have done, Crumple Zones, Air Bags, Softer Bumpers, the way Car bodies are designed, Seat Belts, Safety Glass, etc.Volunteer said:Curious as to what measures car makers have implemented to make their products safer for victims of misuse?cms186 said:You have a fine way of latching on to your interpretation of something and never letting go, dont you?Wangchung said:Yes, you made the dumb statement that it isn't the same while rambling about insurance and drunk driving laws, which in no way stops a murderer from using the van to murder, which means their previous efforts were inadequate and cost lives. You also chose to repeatedly ignore the FACT that guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year, blowing your theory that "gUnS aRe oNlY mEaNt tO KILL" all to hell. So either inanimate objects being used in crimes and not as intended in no way implicate the manufacturer or automakers are liable for misuse of their inanimate objects, same as gun makers.cms186 said:One of a Guns Primary purposes is to end Life, be it Human or animal, the same can not be said of Cars, im sure we've already had this discussion and the 2 comparisons are dumbWangchung said:
Should the maker of the van be held liable for the Wisconsin parade attack? That was intentional misuse of an inanimate object, too.
A: I didnt say "Guns are only meant to kill", I said its one of their Primary Purposes, isnt that true? Also, if you fire a Gun in Self Defence, you are still, usually, aiming to kill someone with it, arent you?
B: As Ive said before, The Auto Industry has been forced to heavily invest in Safety Measures to make their products safer form victims of misuse, does that make them 100% safe? no, but they have at least made significant inroads into doing so, Gun Manufacturers have made no such attempt
Now you ramble on how the 2nd Amendment means that noone should have to invest anything in Gun Safety because its a Constitutional right or some baloney like that and we can meet again tomorrow
cms186 said:Theres lots of things they have done, Crumple Zones, Air Bags, Softer Bumpers, the way Car bodies are designed, Seat Belts, Safety Glass, etc.Volunteer said:Curious as to what measures car makers have implemented to make their products safer for victims of misuse?cms186 said:You have a fine way of latching on to your interpretation of something and never letting go, dont you?Wangchung said:Yes, you made the dumb statement that it isn't the same while rambling about insurance and drunk driving laws, which in no way stops a murderer from using the van to murder, which means their previous efforts were inadequate and cost lives. You also chose to repeatedly ignore the FACT that guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year, blowing your theory that "gUnS aRe oNlY mEaNt tO KILL" all to hell. So either inanimate objects being used in crimes and not as intended in no way implicate the manufacturer or automakers are liable for misuse of their inanimate objects, same as gun makers.cms186 said:One of a Guns Primary purposes is to end Life, be it Human or animal, the same can not be said of Cars, im sure we've already had this discussion and the 2 comparisons are dumbWangchung said:
Should the maker of the van be held liable for the Wisconsin parade attack? That was intentional misuse of an inanimate object, too.
A: I didnt say "Guns are only meant to kill", I said its one of their Primary Purposes, isnt that true? Also, if you fire a Gun in Self Defence, you are still, usually, aiming to kill someone with it, arent you?
B: As Ive said before, The Auto Industry has been forced to heavily invest in Safety Measures to make their products safer form victims of misuse, does that make them 100% safe? no, but they have at least made significant inroads into doing so, Gun Manufacturers have made no such attempt
Now you ramble on how the 2nd Amendment means that noone should have to invest anything in Gun Safety because its a Constitutional right or some baloney like that and we can meet again tomorrow
