Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.atheism > #2070247 > unrolled thread

A pit bull kills a person every 13 days in the USA. Why aren't they regulated like guns?

Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism

Contents

  A pit bull kills a person every 13 days in the USA. Why aren't they regulated like guns? "Byner" <byner@ferguson.gov> - 2016-03-05 09:30 +0100
    Re: A pit bull kills a person every 13 days in the USA. Why aren't they regulated like guns? Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 16:09 -0800
      Re: A pit bull kills a person every 13 days in the USA. Why aren't they regulated like guns? MarkA <someone@somewhere.invalid> - 2016-03-07 02:28 +0000
        Re: A pit bull kills a person every 13 days in the USA. Why aren't they regulated like guns? MattB <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 18:38 -0800
        Re: A pit bull kills a person every 13 days in the USA. Why aren't they regulated like guns? "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-07 11:23 +0000
          Re: A pit bull kills a person every 13 days in the USA. Why aren't they regulated like guns? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-07 23:03 +0000
          Re: A pit bull kills a person every 13 days in the USA. Why aren't they regulated like guns? Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 23:55 -0500
            Re: A pit bull kills a person every 13 days in the USA. Why aren't they regulated like guns? "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-08 08:39 +0000
              Re: A pit bull kills a person every 13 days in the USA. Why aren't they regulated like guns? MarkA <someone@somewhere.invalid> - 2016-03-08 22:48 +0000
                Re: A pit bull kills a person every 13 days in the USA. Why aren't they regulated like guns? Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2016-03-09 02:27 -0800
              Re: A pit bull kills a person every 13 days in the USA. Why aren't they regulated like guns? Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 23:55 -0500
                Re: A pit bull kills a person every 13 days in the USA. Why aren't they regulated like guns? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-09 23:47 +0000
    Re: A pit bull kills a person every 13 days in the USA. Why aren't they regulated like guns? Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 19:02 -0800
      Re: A pit bull kills a person every 13 days in the USA. Why aren't they regulated like guns? "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-07 11:24 +0000
      Re: A pit bull kills a person every 13 days in the USA. Why aren't they regulated like guns? Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-03-10 06:10 -0500
    Re: A pit bull kills a person every 13 days in the USA. Why aren't they regulated like guns? Wexford Eire <wexford.eire.1798@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 19:22 -0800
    Re: A pit bull kills a person every 13 days in the USA. Why aren't they regulated like guns? Malcolm McMahon <malcolm.mc74@googlemail.com> - 2016-03-09 02:30 -0800

#2070247 — A pit bull kills a person every 13 days in the USA. Why aren't they regulated like guns?

90 people a day are killed by automobiles.

Why are automobiles not more highly regulated, or drivers who 
kill someone while using a cell phone permanently banned from 
operating a motor vehicle?
  

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2071007

On Saturday, 5 March 2016 08:40:03 UTC, Byner  wrote:
> 90 people a day are killed by automobiles.
> 
> Why are automobiles not more highly regulated, or drivers who 
> kill someone while using a cell phone permanently banned from 
> operating a motor vehicle?

Automobiles are considerably regulated, or, was that your point?

Not everyone is allowed to operate an automobile - they must 
pass a test of applicable skills; the automobile itself must 
be maintained in proper working condition or not used; each 
automobile has a prominently displayed registered number, 
the police get highly excited if they see a black person
with one...  Things like that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2071038

On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 16:09:38 -0800, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> On Saturday, 5 March 2016 08:40:03 UTC, Byner  wrote:
>> 90 people a day are killed by automobiles.
>> 
>> Why are automobiles not more highly regulated, or drivers who kill
>> someone while using a cell phone permanently banned from operating a
>> motor vehicle?
> 
> Automobiles are considerably regulated, or, was that your point?
> 
> Not everyone is allowed to operate an automobile - they must pass a test
> of applicable skills; the automobile itself must be maintained in proper
> working condition or not used; each automobile has a prominently
> displayed registered number,
> the police get highly excited if they see a black person with one... 
> Things like that.

I worry that, 10 years from now, when self-driving cars are the norm, 
natural selection will have a much harder time weeding out the idiots, 
and the general stupidity of the population will skyrocket.

-- 
MarkA

They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one 
half so bad as a lot of ignorance.  --  Terry Pratchett

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2071045

On 7 Mar 2016 02:28:44 GMT, MarkA <someone@somewhere.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 16:09:38 -0800, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, 5 March 2016 08:40:03 UTC, Byner  wrote:
>>> 90 people a day are killed by automobiles.
>>> 
>>> Why are automobiles not more highly regulated, or drivers who kill
>>> someone while using a cell phone permanently banned from operating a
>>> motor vehicle?
>> 
>> Automobiles are considerably regulated, or, was that your point?
>> 
>> Not everyone is allowed to operate an automobile - they must pass a test
>> of applicable skills; the automobile itself must be maintained in proper
>> working condition or not used; each automobile has a prominently
>> displayed registered number,
>> the police get highly excited if they see a black person with one... 
>> Things like that.
>
>I worry that, 10 years from now, when self-driving cars are the norm, 
>natural selection will have a much harder time weeding out the idiots, 
>and the general stupidity of the population will skyrocket.

Weeding out the idiots, and the general stupidity of the population?
Let hope it doesn't get much worse in the USA.  I mean did you see the
last Dem and Repub debate?  How much worse can it get. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2071145

On 07/03/2016 02:28, MarkA wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 16:09:38 -0800, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, 5 March 2016 08:40:03 UTC, Byner  wrote:
>>> 90 people a day are killed by automobiles.
>>>
>>> Why are automobiles not more highly regulated, or drivers who kill
>>> someone while using a cell phone permanently banned from operating a
>>> motor vehicle?
>>
>> Automobiles are considerably regulated, or, was that your point?
>>
>> Not everyone is allowed to operate an automobile - they must pass a test
>> of applicable skills; the automobile itself must be maintained in proper
>> working condition or not used; each automobile has a prominently
>> displayed registered number,
>> the police get highly excited if they see a black person with one...
>> Things like that.
>
> I worry that, 10 years from now, when self-driving cars are the norm,
> natural selection will have a much harder time weeding out the idiots,
> and the general stupidity of the population will skyrocket.
>

Given the latest disaster with the Google self-driving car, I suspect 
that weeding the idiots out of the human gene pool will be taken over 
(profitably so, one assumes) by Google....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2071334

On Mon, 07 Mar 2016 11:23:00 +0000, Alex W. wrote:

> On 07/03/2016 02:28, MarkA wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 16:09:38 -0800, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, 5 March 2016 08:40:03 UTC, Byner  wrote:
>>>> 90 people a day are killed by automobiles.
>>>>
>>>> Why are automobiles not more highly regulated, or drivers who kill
>>>> someone while using a cell phone permanently banned from operating a
>>>> motor vehicle?
>>>
>>> Automobiles are considerably regulated, or, was that your point?
>>>
>>> Not everyone is allowed to operate an automobile - they must pass a
>>> test of applicable skills; the automobile itself must be maintained in
>>> proper working condition or not used; each automobile has a
>>> prominently displayed registered number,
>>> the police get highly excited if they see a black person with one...
>>> Things like that.
>>
>> I worry that, 10 years from now, when self-driving cars are the norm,
>> natural selection will have a much harder time weeding out the idiots,
>> and the general stupidity of the population will skyrocket.
>>
>>
> Given the latest disaster with the Google self-driving car, I suspect
> that weeding the idiots out of the human gene pool will be taken over
> (profitably so, one assumes) by Google....

The Google car is electric. No engine oil, so no dipstick is needed.

-- 
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made 
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2071410

Le 2016-03-07 06:23, Alex W. a écrit :
> On 07/03/2016 02:28, MarkA wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 16:09:38 -0800, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, 5 March 2016 08:40:03 UTC, Byner  wrote:
>>>> 90 people a day are killed by automobiles.
>>>>
>>>> Why are automobiles not more highly regulated, or drivers who kill
>>>> someone while using a cell phone permanently banned from operating a
>>>> motor vehicle?
>>>
>>> Automobiles are considerably regulated, or, was that your point?
>>>
>>> Not everyone is allowed to operate an automobile - they must pass a test
>>> of applicable skills; the automobile itself must be maintained in proper
>>> working condition or not used; each automobile has a prominently
>>> displayed registered number,
>>> the police get highly excited if they see a black person with one...
>>> Things like that.
>>
>> I worry that, 10 years from now, when self-driving cars are the norm,
>> natural selection will have a much harder time weeding out the idiots,
>> and the general stupidity of the population will skyrocket.
>>
>
> Given the latest disaster with the Google self-driving car

?

What "disaster"?

> , I suspect
> that weeding the idiots out of the human gene pool will be taken over
> (profitably so, one assumes) by Google....
>
>


-- 
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2071465

On 08/03/2016 04:55, Olrik wrote:
> Le 2016-03-07 06:23, Alex W. a écrit :
>> On 07/03/2016 02:28, MarkA wrote:
>>> On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 16:09:38 -0800, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, 5 March 2016 08:40:03 UTC, Byner  wrote:
>>>>> 90 people a day are killed by automobiles.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why are automobiles not more highly regulated, or drivers who kill
>>>>> someone while using a cell phone permanently banned from operating a
>>>>> motor vehicle?
>>>>
>>>> Automobiles are considerably regulated, or, was that your point?
>>>>
>>>> Not everyone is allowed to operate an automobile - they must pass a
>>>> test
>>>> of applicable skills; the automobile itself must be maintained in
>>>> proper
>>>> working condition or not used; each automobile has a prominently
>>>> displayed registered number,
>>>> the police get highly excited if they see a black person with one...
>>>> Things like that.
>>>
>>> I worry that, 10 years from now, when self-driving cars are the norm,
>>> natural selection will have a much harder time weeding out the idiots,
>>> and the general stupidity of the population will skyrocket.
>>>
>>
>> Given the latest disaster with the Google self-driving car
>
> ?
>
> What "disaster"?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35692845

Nobody died, and there were no injuries, but it was a public relations 
disaster.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2071679

On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 08:39:30 +0000, Alex W. wrote:

> On 08/03/2016 04:55, Olrik wrote:
>> Le 2016-03-07 06:23, Alex W. a écrit :
>>> On 07/03/2016 02:28, MarkA wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 16:09:38 -0800, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, 5 March 2016 08:40:03 UTC, Byner  wrote:
>>>>>> 90 people a day are killed by automobiles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why are automobiles not more highly regulated, or drivers who kill
>>>>>> someone while using a cell phone permanently banned from operating
>>>>>> a motor vehicle?
>>>>>
>>>>> Automobiles are considerably regulated, or, was that your point?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not everyone is allowed to operate an automobile - they must pass a
>>>>> test of applicable skills; the automobile itself must be maintained
>>>>> in proper working condition or not used; each automobile has a
>>>>> prominently displayed registered number,
>>>>> the police get highly excited if they see a black person with one...
>>>>> Things like that.
>>>>
>>>> I worry that, 10 years from now, when self-driving cars are the norm,
>>>> natural selection will have a much harder time weeding out the
>>>> idiots,
>>>> and the general stupidity of the population will skyrocket.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Given the latest disaster with the Google self-driving car
>>
>> ?
>>
>> What "disaster"?
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35692845
> 
> Nobody died, and there were no injuries, but it was a public relations
> disaster.

Seems to me that if the bus had been a Google self-driving vehicle, they 
would have gotten along just fine.

-- 
MarkA

The world is full of magical things, patiently waiting for our wits
to grow sharper. -- Eden Phillpotts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2071864

On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 22:46:33 UTC, MarkA  wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 08:39:30 +0000, Alex W. wrote:
> 
> > On 08/03/2016 04:55, Olrik wrote:
> >> Le 2016-03-07 06:23, Alex W. a écrit :
> >>> On 07/03/2016 02:28, MarkA wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 16:09:38 -0800, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Saturday, 5 March 2016 08:40:03 UTC, Byner  wrote:
> >>>>>> 90 people a day are killed by automobiles.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Why are automobiles not more highly regulated, or drivers who kill
> >>>>>> someone while using a cell phone permanently banned from operating
> >>>>>> a motor vehicle?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Automobiles are considerably regulated, or, was that your point?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not everyone is allowed to operate an automobile - they must pass a
> >>>>> test of applicable skills; the automobile itself must be maintained
> >>>>> in proper working condition or not used; each automobile has a
> >>>>> prominently displayed registered number,
> >>>>> the police get highly excited if they see a black person with one...
> >>>>> Things like that.
> >>>>
> >>>> I worry that, 10 years from now, when self-driving cars are the norm,
> >>>> natural selection will have a much harder time weeding out the
> >>>> idiots,
> >>>> and the general stupidity of the population will skyrocket.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Given the latest disaster with the Google self-driving car
> >>
> >> ?
> >>
> >> What "disaster"?
> > 
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35692845
> > 
> > Nobody died, and there were no injuries, but it was a public relations
> > disaster.
> 
> Seems to me that if the bus had been a Google self-driving vehicle, they 
> would have gotten along just fine.
> 
> -- 
> MarkA
> 
> The world is full of magical things, patiently waiting for our wits
> to grow sharper. -- Eden Phillpotts

Apparently they are going to adjust the software so that it no longer assumes that large vehicles like buses are as likely to give way as normal cars.

They may have to make similar tweaks for clunkers (whose owners are likely to care less about damage) and red cars (chosen preferentially by the psychotic).

Google have to pretend that they can achieve zero accidents. As far as I'm concerned it's sufficient for them to demonstrate fewer accidents than the average human driver.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2071805

Le 2016-03-08 03:39, Alex W. a écrit :
> On 08/03/2016 04:55, Olrik wrote:
>> Le 2016-03-07 06:23, Alex W. a écrit :
>>> On 07/03/2016 02:28, MarkA wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 16:09:38 -0800, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, 5 March 2016 08:40:03 UTC, Byner  wrote:
>>>>>> 90 people a day are killed by automobiles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why are automobiles not more highly regulated, or drivers who kill
>>>>>> someone while using a cell phone permanently banned from operating a
>>>>>> motor vehicle?
>>>>>
>>>>> Automobiles are considerably regulated, or, was that your point?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not everyone is allowed to operate an automobile - they must pass a
>>>>> test
>>>>> of applicable skills; the automobile itself must be maintained in
>>>>> proper
>>>>> working condition or not used; each automobile has a prominently
>>>>> displayed registered number,
>>>>> the police get highly excited if they see a black person with one...
>>>>> Things like that.
>>>>
>>>> I worry that, 10 years from now, when self-driving cars are the norm,
>>>> natural selection will have a much harder time weeding out the idiots,
>>>> and the general stupidity of the population will skyrocket.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Given the latest disaster with the Google self-driving car
>>
>> ?
>>
>> What "disaster"?
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35692845
>
> Nobody died, and there were no injuries, but it was a public relations
> disaster.

Really? Where?

Anyway, the IQ of Google's software is probably better than 100, and it 
can't get drunk!

;-)


-- 
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2072076

On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 23:55:36 -0500, Olrik wrote:

> Le 2016-03-08 03:39, Alex W. a écrit :
>> On 08/03/2016 04:55, Olrik wrote:
>>> Le 2016-03-07 06:23, Alex W. a écrit :
>>>> On 07/03/2016 02:28, MarkA wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 16:09:38 -0800, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Saturday, 5 March 2016 08:40:03 UTC, Byner  wrote:
>>>>>>> 90 people a day are killed by automobiles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why are automobiles not more highly regulated, or drivers who kill
>>>>>>> someone while using a cell phone permanently banned from operating
>>>>>>> a motor vehicle?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Automobiles are considerably regulated, or, was that your point?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not everyone is allowed to operate an automobile - they must pass a
>>>>>> test of applicable skills; the automobile itself must be maintained
>>>>>> in proper working condition or not used; each automobile has a
>>>>>> prominently displayed registered number,
>>>>>> the police get highly excited if they see a black person with
>>>>>> one...
>>>>>> Things like that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I worry that, 10 years from now, when self-driving cars are the
>>>>> norm, natural selection will have a much harder time weeding out the
>>>>> idiots,
>>>>> and the general stupidity of the population will skyrocket.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Given the latest disaster with the Google self-driving car
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> What "disaster"?
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35692845
>>
>> Nobody died, and there were no injuries, but it was a public relations
>> disaster.
> 
> Really? Where?
> 
> Anyway, the IQ of Google's software is probably better than 100, and it
> can't get drunk!
> 
> ;-)

So it's not theist software then.

-- 
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made 
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2071056

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 12:40:03 AM UTC-8, Byner wrote:
> 90 people a day are killed by automobiles.
> 
> Why are automobiles not more highly regulated, or drivers who 
> kill someone while using a cell phone permanently banned from 
> operating a motor vehicle?
>   

Because pit bulls are only as violent as their owners want them to be.  They were at one time the most popular family dog in the country.  FDR had one.  Spanky and our gang comedies featured one.  I own one and it was a gift to my daughter who was about 13 at the time, so I felt I needed to do research to decide if I should allow it or not.  

http://dogtime.com/dog-breeds/american-pit-bull-terrier

https://www.cesarsway.com/about-dogs/pit-bulls/how-did-pit-bulls-get-a-bad-rap

https://www.petfinder.com/pet-adoption/dog-adoption/myths-and-facts-about-pit-bulls/

The males should be neutered to cut down on aggression.  It is true they are not great with other dogs until they get socialized, but in our house we already had a terrier/Chihuahua mix, who is the Alpha dog.  The pit won't get on the bed unless the little do is not there or unless invited. He snores.
He is a terrific family dog.

Don't believe the hype.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2071146

On 07/03/2016 03:02, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 12:40:03 AM UTC-8, Byner wrote:
>> 90 people a day are killed by automobiles.
>>
>> Why are automobiles not more highly regulated, or drivers who kill
>> someone while using a cell phone permanently banned from operating
>> a motor vehicle?
>>
>
> Because pit bulls are only as violent as their owners want them to
> be.  They were at one time the most popular family dog in the
> country.  FDR had one.  Spanky and our gang comedies featured one.  I
> own one and it was a gift to my daughter who was about 13 at the
> time, so I felt I needed to do research to decide if I should allow
> it or not.

Amen.

When a dog attacks a human, it is never the dog's fault.
His owner made him what he is.

To put down an aggressive dog is a crime -- and doubly so when it 
happens without the owner being punished *severely*.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2072285

On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 19:02:34 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
<youngblood2949@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<e2911941-e343-4564-a6a7-8bc52df0c292@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 12:40:03 AM UTC-8, Byner wrote:
>> 90 people a day are killed by automobiles.
>> 
>> Why are automobiles not more highly regulated, or drivers who 
>> kill someone while using a cell phone permanently banned from 
>> operating a motor vehicle?
>>   
>
>Because pit bulls are only as violent as their owners want them to be.  They were at one time the most popular family dog in the country.  FDR had one.  Spanky and our gang comedies featured one.  I own one and it was a gift to my daughter who was about 13 at the time, so I felt I needed to do research to decide if I should allow it or not.  
>
>http://dogtime.com/dog-breeds/american-pit-bull-terrier
>
>https://www.cesarsway.com/about-dogs/pit-bulls/how-did-pit-bulls-get-a-bad-rap
>
>https://www.petfinder.com/pet-adoption/dog-adoption/myths-and-facts-about-pit-bulls/
>
>The males should be neutered to cut down on aggression.  It is true they are not great with other dogs until they get socialized, but in our house we already had a terrier/Chihuahua mix, who is the Alpha dog.  The pit won't get on the bed unless the little do is not there or unless invited. He snores.
>He is a terrific family dog.
>
>Don't believe the hype.

A bit over one person per day is killed by aspirin.  Should aspirin be
regulated ?

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.

Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially 
those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government 
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2071068

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 3:40:03 AM UTC-5, Byner wrote:
> 90 people a day are killed by automobiles.
> 
> Why are automobiles not more highly regulated, or drivers who 
> kill someone while using a cell phone permanently banned from 
> operating a motor vehicle?
>   

Why don't you have a good conversation with a cop about vehicular homicide in your state? A person, distracted by a cell phone, who drives carelessly and kills someone is guilty of vehicular homicide. The cops can easily tell a vehicle operator was talking on a phone. All they have to do is get the phone records. There are very clever methods of reconstructing the accident as well and determining fault. Find out how many years you get for vehicular homicide.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2071865

On Saturday, 5 March 2016 08:40:03 UTC, Byner  wrote:
> 90 people a day are killed by automobiles.
> 
> Why are automobiles not more highly regulated, or drivers who 
> kill someone while using a cell phone permanently banned from 
> operating a motor vehicle?
>   

Perhaps trousers should also be licensed:

http://www.kgbanswers.co.uk/how-many-people-die-as-a-result-of-their-trousers-every-year/2238019

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism

csiph-web