Originally Posted by MattO (Post 19396956)

That's a stupid comparison because vehicles aren't made for the sole purpose of killing humans.

Originally Posted by Dvae (Post 19396960)

I'll bet if you polled 50 people on this board and without them looking at Google or a map, very few would know there is a Philadelphia, Mississippi.

Ever heard of Susan Smith?

Originally Posted by xenigo (Post 19396464)

Yes, absolutely. Contrary to popular belief, speed does NOT kill. Impacts kill. Performance vehicles are built to bring down the chance of impacts to absolutely minimal levels.

The reality is that the Porsche 911 Turbo, BMW M3, and vehicles like these are orders of magnitude safer than the Toyota Prius or Honda Civic. Know why? They have 10+ inch wide tires, independent front and rear suspension, and brakes that are the size of manhole covers.

When a vehicle is built for speed, it is built for literally ANY situation you can throw at it on the road.

And your analogy is not a good one for this debate, because performance vehicles are built with the express purpose of safe and efficient travel, not to splatter maximum brain matter on the wall.

Travel = reasonable

Bullets spraying brain matter on walls = unreasonable

Originally Posted by Dvae (Post 19396966)

It makes more sense than taking everybody's gun away.
Newsflash! I don't care how many laws you pass how many cops you put on the street the criminals are still going to have guns.

Originally Posted by tony286 (Post 19396719)

I will ask the question again. If the bush tax cuts were so great why didnt he push to make permanent ? He had both houses.

Originally Posted by tony286 (Post 19397126)

who said take everyones gun away? Having regulation is not banning. But these all nra talking points.

Originally Posted by CyberSEO (Post 19396454)

As about the cars... Yes they are dangerous too, but they are NOT INTENDED to kill, and the modern civilization can't exist without them. And yes, we have to pay a deathly toll for using cars too.