Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • Gun Control
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • …
  • 10
Gun Control
Tweet Topic Started: Apr 30 2013, 09:31 AM (861 Views)
HoosierLars May 3 2013, 04:19 PM Post #46
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
May 3 2013, 03:38 PM
IUCOLTFAN
May 2 2013, 01:10 PM
If you mandate a gun safe for 600 deaths, what is the mandate for cars? Mandatory breathalyzers on every car produced?

I would support that.
If they are cheap and reliable, I would too. Way too many people killed by drunk drivers, but nobody needs to hear me go off on that rant again.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IUCOLTFAN May 4 2013, 08:37 AM Post #47
Coach
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#131
Joined:
February 9, 2008
dreachon
May 3 2013, 03:38 PM
IUCOLTFAN
May 2 2013, 01:10 PM
If you mandate a gun safe for 600 deaths, what is the mandate for cars? Mandatory breathalyzers on every car produced?

I would support that.
I'm not saying it would bother me much either. I'm financially stable and don't drink and drive (not saying I never have). But more to the point, would the additional costs of a vehicle be fair if you were a poor non-drinker? I really don't like laws that have a negative impact on innocent, law-abiding people. How much more of the load can the innocent, law-abiding, taxpayer bear. Seems everything we do just keeps lumping more weight on those people's shoulders....
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon May 4 2013, 08:47 AM Post #48
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
IUCOLTFAN
May 4 2013, 08:37 AM
dreachon
May 3 2013, 03:38 PM
IUCOLTFAN
May 2 2013, 01:10 PM
If you mandate a gun safe for 600 deaths, what is the mandate for cars? Mandatory breathalyzers on every car produced?

I would support that.
I'm not saying it would bother me much either. I'm financially stable and don't drink and drive (not saying I never have). But more to the point, would the additional costs of a vehicle be fair if you were a poor non-drinker? I really don't like laws that have a negative impact on innocent, law-abiding people. How much more of the load can the innocent, law-abiding, taxpayer bear. Seems everything we do just keeps lumping more weight on those people's shoulders....
So are you thinking that the cost of car companies including breathalyzers would then be passed on to the consumer via the price of the car? I think in most cases, people buying new cars are about to spend $15,000. Rolling the cost of the breathalyzer in there really wouldn't change the loan amount much. Just guessing.

But those are just the direct costs anyways. How much would people save in insurance costs, both car and health, due to the decrease in drunk driving accidents? How about the missed work people experience when they get hit by a drunk driver? I think the breathalyzers would more than pay for themselves.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IUCOLTFAN May 4 2013, 08:54 AM Post #49
Coach
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#131
Joined:
February 9, 2008
dreachon
May 4 2013, 08:47 AM
IUCOLTFAN
May 4 2013, 08:37 AM
dreachon
May 3 2013, 03:38 PM
IUCOLTFAN
May 2 2013, 01:10 PM
If you mandate a gun safe for 600 deaths, what is the mandate for cars? Mandatory breathalyzers on every car produced?

I would support that.
I'm not saying it would bother me much either. I'm financially stable and don't drink and drive (not saying I never have). But more to the point, would the additional costs of a vehicle be fair if you were a poor non-drinker? I really don't like laws that have a negative impact on innocent, law-abiding people. How much more of the load can the innocent, law-abiding, taxpayer bear. Seems everything we do just keeps lumping more weight on those people's shoulders....
So are you thinking that the cost of car companies including breathalyzers would then be passed on to the consumer via the price of the car? I think in most cases, people buying new cars are about to spend $15,000. Rolling the cost of the breathalyzer in there really wouldn't change the loan amount much. Just guessing.

But those are just the direct costs anyways. How much would people save in insurance costs, both car and health, due to the decrease in drunk driving accidents? How about the missed work people experience when they get hit by a drunk driver? I think the breathalyzers would more than pay for themselves.
Not being an ass, but its the insurance industry. Insurance will mysteriously go up 30% before any legislation were passed so they could then give you the 10% breathalyzer "savings". Come on Dreach, you are old enough to know how the game is played. Insurance companies are gonna get theirs.

As far as additional cost of the loan, not saying it will be noticed by most but that doesn't change the fact that the cost went up, does it? So all the folks get to pay 60-70 months of interest on that new feature....awesome.
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon May 4 2013, 09:23 AM Post #50
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
IUCOLTFAN
May 4 2013, 08:54 AM
dreachon
May 4 2013, 08:47 AM
IUCOLTFAN
May 4 2013, 08:37 AM
dreachon
May 3 2013, 03:38 PM
IUCOLTFAN
May 2 2013, 01:10 PM
If you mandate a gun safe for 600 deaths, what is the mandate for cars? Mandatory breathalyzers on every car produced?

I would support that.
I'm not saying it would bother me much either. I'm financially stable and don't drink and drive (not saying I never have). But more to the point, would the additional costs of a vehicle be fair if you were a poor non-drinker? I really don't like laws that have a negative impact on innocent, law-abiding people. How much more of the load can the innocent, law-abiding, taxpayer bear. Seems everything we do just keeps lumping more weight on those people's shoulders....
So are you thinking that the cost of car companies including breathalyzers would then be passed on to the consumer via the price of the car? I think in most cases, people buying new cars are about to spend $15,000. Rolling the cost of the breathalyzer in there really wouldn't change the loan amount much. Just guessing.

But those are just the direct costs anyways. How much would people save in insurance costs, both car and health, due to the decrease in drunk driving accidents? How about the missed work people experience when they get hit by a drunk driver? I think the breathalyzers would more than pay for themselves.
Not being an ass, but its the insurance industry. Insurance will mysteriously go up 30% before any legislation were passed so they could then give you the 10% breathalyzer "savings". Come on Dreach, you are old enough to know how the game is played. Insurance companies are gonna get theirs.

As far as additional cost of the loan, not saying it will be noticed by most but that doesn't change the fact that the cost went up, does it? So all the folks get to pay 60-70 months of interest on that new feature....awesome.
If breathalyzers were mandatory then there wouldn't be a breathalyzer discount. So I'm not sure I'm buying your assertion that insurance rates will go up because of adding breathalyzers. In general, I'm fairly certain safer cars have lower insurance rates so I just don't see the logic you're going by here.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson May 4 2013, 09:27 AM Post #51
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
Why would insurance companies raise rates for brethalyzers? requiring mandatory installation of brethalyzers would save insurance companies a ton of money, thus, allowing them to get theirs...

br
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IUCOLTFAN May 4 2013, 12:10 PM Post #52
Coach
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#131
Joined:
February 9, 2008
Wasn't Obamacare supposed to lower premiums? My point is that there is no way the insurance industry will save a huge amount and then turn around a lower everyone's premiums. It's about profit. They will not relinquish profits that they are already achieving, just my opinion. I can show you any kind og savings you want on paper, it's all relative to what I'm charging you.
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray May 4 2013, 01:12 PM Post #53
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
HoosierLars
May 3 2013, 04:19 PM
dreachon
May 3 2013, 03:38 PM
IUCOLTFAN
May 2 2013, 01:10 PM
If you mandate a gun safe for 600 deaths, what is the mandate for cars? Mandatory breathalyzers on every car produced?

I would support that.
If they are cheap and reliable, I would too. Way too many people killed by drunk drivers, but nobody needs to hear me go off on that rant again.
George Orwell would love you guys.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 May 4 2013, 01:42 PM Post #54
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
May 4 2013, 01:12 PM
HoosierLars
May 3 2013, 04:19 PM
dreachon
May 3 2013, 03:38 PM
IUCOLTFAN
May 2 2013, 01:10 PM
If you mandate a gun safe for 600 deaths, what is the mandate for cars? Mandatory breathalyzers on every car produced?

I would support that.
If they are cheap and reliable, I would too. Way too many people killed by drunk drivers, but nobody needs to hear me go off on that rant again.
George Orwell would love you guys.
1984's Mininstry of Love was the government branch that was in charge of torture. Where was it that you stood on the side 'enhanced interrogation'?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray May 4 2013, 02:30 PM Post #55
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
May 4 2013, 01:42 PM
Mr Gray
May 4 2013, 01:12 PM
HoosierLars
May 3 2013, 04:19 PM
dreachon
May 3 2013, 03:38 PM
IUCOLTFAN
May 2 2013, 01:10 PM
If you mandate a gun safe for 600 deaths, what is the mandate for cars? Mandatory breathalyzers on every car produced?

I would support that.
If they are cheap and reliable, I would too. Way too many people killed by drunk drivers, but nobody needs to hear me go off on that rant again.
George Orwell would love you guys.
1984's Mininstry of Love was the government branch that was in charge of torture. Where was it that you stood on the side 'enhanced interrogation'?
I am against torture.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 May 4 2013, 02:44 PM Post #56
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
May 4 2013, 02:30 PM
brumdog44
May 4 2013, 01:42 PM
Mr Gray
May 4 2013, 01:12 PM
HoosierLars
May 3 2013, 04:19 PM
dreachon
May 3 2013, 03:38 PM
IUCOLTFAN
May 2 2013, 01:10 PM
If you mandate a gun safe for 600 deaths, what is the mandate for cars? Mandatory breathalyzers on every car produced?

I would support that.
If they are cheap and reliable, I would too. Way too many people killed by drunk drivers, but nobody needs to hear me go off on that rant again.
George Orwell would love you guys.
1984's Mininstry of Love was the government branch that was in charge of torture. Where was it that you stood on the side 'enhanced interrogation'?
I am against torture.
No,you just redefine torture and say you are against it. See weatherboarding.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon May 4 2013, 02:49 PM Post #57
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
IUCOLTFAN
May 4 2013, 12:10 PM
Wasn't Obamacare supposed to lower premiums? My point is that there is no way the insurance industry will save a huge amount and then turn around a lower everyone's premiums. It's about profit. They will not relinquish profits that they are already achieving, just my opinion. I can show you any kind og savings you want on paper, it's all relative to what I'm charging you.
First of all. That's not what you said. You said insurance companies would raise premiums and then offer discounts for breathalyzers at a lower rate than they raised the premium. To me, that makes no sense.

Second of all, if it costs less for the insurance companies to insure people, than they can lower insurance premiums and still make the same or more profit than they are currently making.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray May 4 2013, 03:44 PM Post #58
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
May 4 2013, 02:44 PM
Mr Gray
May 4 2013, 02:30 PM
brumdog44
May 4 2013, 01:42 PM
Mr Gray
May 4 2013, 01:12 PM
HoosierLars
May 3 2013, 04:19 PM
dreachon
May 3 2013, 03:38 PM
IUCOLTFAN
May 2 2013, 01:10 PM
If you mandate a gun safe for 600 deaths, what is the mandate for cars? Mandatory breathalyzers on every car produced?

I would support that.
If they are cheap and reliable, I would too. Way too many people killed by drunk drivers, but nobody needs to hear me go off on that rant again.
George Orwell would love you guys.
1984's Mininstry of Love was the government branch that was in charge of torture. Where was it that you stood on the side 'enhanced interrogation'?
I am against torture.
No,you just redefine torture and say you are against it. See weatherboarding.
We all "redefine" torture brum. It doesn't change the fact that I am against it.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IUCOLTFAN May 4 2013, 04:05 PM Post #59
Coach
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#131
Joined:
February 9, 2008
dreachon
May 4 2013, 02:49 PM
IUCOLTFAN
May 4 2013, 12:10 PM
Wasn't Obamacare supposed to lower premiums? My point is that there is no way the insurance industry will save a huge amount and then turn around a lower everyone's premiums. It's about profit. They will not relinquish profits that they are already achieving, just my opinion. I can show you any kind og savings you want on paper, it's all relative to what I'm charging you.
First of all. That's not what you said. You said insurance companies would raise premiums and then offer discounts for breathalyzers at a lower rate than they raised the premium. To me, that makes no sense.

Second of all, if it costs less for the insurance companies to insure people, than they can lower insurance premiums and still make the same or more profit than they are currently making.
And I'm saying they won't lower premiums
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon May 4 2013, 05:07 PM Post #60
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
IUCOLTFAN
May 4 2013, 04:05 PM
dreachon
May 4 2013, 02:49 PM
IUCOLTFAN
May 4 2013, 12:10 PM
Wasn't Obamacare supposed to lower premiums? My point is that there is no way the insurance industry will save a huge amount and then turn around a lower everyone's premiums. It's about profit. They will not relinquish profits that they are already achieving, just my opinion. I can show you any kind og savings you want on paper, it's all relative to what I'm charging you.
First of all. That's not what you said. You said insurance companies would raise premiums and then offer discounts for breathalyzers at a lower rate than they raised the premium. To me, that makes no sense.

Second of all, if it costs less for the insurance companies to insure people, than they can lower insurance premiums and still make the same or more profit than they are currently making.
And I'm saying they won't lower premiums
Aren't you a proponent of the free market? If significant profits can be had by a company by offering lower premiums and gaining a larger market share because of those low premiums, won't the market encourage a company to take that path?
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • …
  • 10

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:55 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy