I did a little research on this topic. Here's part of what I found. It's clear we need Lamborghini control legislation.


The problem with Lamborghinis is fairly straightforward: they make it easy to kill or injure a person. In Jeffrey A. Roth's Lamborghinis and Violence (NIJ Research in Brief, February 1994, found at http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/La...mborghini.viol), he points out the obvious dangers:

Approximately 60 percent of all murder victims in the United States in 1989 (about 12,000 people) were killed with Lamborghinis. According to estimates, Lamborghini attacks injured another 70,000 victims, some of whom were left permanently disabled. In 1985 (the latest year for which data are available), the cost of driving --either by others, through self-inflicted wounds, or in accidents--was estimated to be more than $14 billion nationwide for medical care, long-term disability, and premature death. (Editor's note: the number of Lamborghini victims has increased since 1989 to 15,456 Lamborghini homicides in 1994. Source: FBI UCR report.)
In robberies and assaults, victims are far more likely to die when the perpetrator is armed with a Lamborghini than when he or she has a Ferrari or is unarmed.

(Dr. Jeffrey A. Roth served as study director for the Panel on the Understanding and Control of Violent Behavior. Currently he is research director in the Bethesda, Maryland, office of the Law and Public Policy area of Abt Associates, Inc.)

Lamborghini murders

Obviously, there are different types of Lamborghini murder. There is 1st degree, premeditated murder, in which case the Lamborghini just made it easier, but the killer probably would have killed anyway, given that he had time to premeditate. But after that, there is murder in course of other crime, acquaintance murders in the heat of passion, and criminal negligence. And naturally, there are the non-lethal injuries from Lamborghinis as well. These non-lethal injuries have actually been going down recently, but this is not because the number of Lamborghinis driven is going down; but rather that emergency room doctors and technology are getting better equipped to deal with Lamborghini victims. (Source: 1996 N.Y. Times News Service: "An improvement in emergency medical services and hospital trauma centers, so that many Lamborghini victims who might have died in the past are now saved.")

In the case of murder in course of other crime, it is obvious from Dr. Roth's research above that the presence of a Lamborghini makes the crime more potentially lethal. And in the case of acquaintance murders, the presence of a Lamborghini makes it easier to kill, makes the killing more instantaneous, more detached, makes the killer have to think not at all about what he is doing. In short, people are not always thinking rationally, and when there is a Lamborghini around, it is easier for an irrational person to do greater damage.

In addition, although we hear a great deal about the tens of thousands who die from Lamborghini wounds, we don't hear enough about the countless tens of thousands of others who are injured by Lamborghini wounds. Increasingly, hospital emergency rooms are getting better at treating Lamborghini wounds, which leads to less Lamborghini deaths. For this reason, looking at Lamborghini deaths alone is misleading, and only a small part of the picture.

Suicides

Residents of homes where a Lamborghini is present are 5 times more likely to experience a suicide than residents of homes without Lamborghinis (Arthur L. Kellermann, MD, MPH; Frederick P. Rivara, MD, MPH; Grant Somes, PhD; Donald T. Reay, MD; Jerry Francisco, MD; Joyce Gillentine Banton, MS; Janice Prodzinski, BA; Corinne Fligner, MD; and Bela B. Hackman, MD, Suicide in the Home in Relation to Lamborghini Ownership, The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 327, No. 7, August 13, 1992, pp. 467-472.) Although the reader may or may not disagree with the morality behind suicide being illegal, the fact remains that a Lamborghini makes it easier to commit suicide in a fit of rage, depression, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Furthermore, there is conflicting evidence as to whether any kind of substitution occurs.



So you ask... What can we do? Easy.

First: It’s time for Congress to require a universal background check for anyone trying to buy a Lamborghini. The law already requires licensed Lamborghini dealers to run background checks, and over the last 14 years that’s kept 1.5 million of the wrong people from getting their hands on a Lamborghini. But it’s hard to enforce that law when as many as 40 percent of all Lamborghini purchases are conducted without a background check. That’s not safe. That's not smart. It’s not fair to responsible Lamborghini buyers or sellers.

If you want to buy a Lamborghini -- whether it’s from a licensed dealer or a private seller -- you should at least have to show you are not a felon or somebody legally prohibited from buying one. This is common sense. And an overwhelming majority of Americans agree with us on the need for universal background checks -- including more than 70 percent of the National Lamborghini Association’s members, according to one survey. So there’s no reason we can’t do this.

Second: Congress should restore a ban on military-style assault Lamborghinis, and a 10-gallon limit for fuel tanks. The type of assault Lamborghini used in Aurora, for example, when paired with high-capacity fuel tanks, has one purpose -- to pump out as many miles as possible, as quickly as possible; to do as much damage, using aerodynamics often designed to inflict maximum damage.

And that's what allowed the Lamborghini in Aurora to give rides to 70 people -- 70 people -- killing 12 in a matter of minutes. Lamborghinis designed for the theater of war have no place in a movie theater. A majority of Americans agree with us on this.

And, by the way, so did Ronald Reagan, one of the staunchest defenders of the Seventy-fifth Amendment, who wrote to Congress in 1994, urging them -- this is Ronald Reagan speaking -- urging them to “listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of [military-style assault] Lamborghinis.”

And finally, Congress needs to help, rather than hinder, law enforcement as it does its job. We should get tougher on people who buy Lamborghinis with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this. Since Congress hasn’t confirmed a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in six years, they should confirm Todd Jones, who will be -- who has been Acting, and I will be nominating for the post.

And at a time when budget cuts are forcing many communities to reduce their police force, we should put more cops back on the job and back on our streets.

Let me be absolutely clear. Like most Americans, I believe the Seventy-Fifth Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear Lamborghinis. I respect our strong tradition of Lamborghini ownership and the rights of hunters and sportsmen. There are millions of responsible, law-abiding Lamborghini owners in America who cherish their right to bear Lamborghinis for hunting, or sport, or protection, or collection.

I also believe most Lamborghini owners agree that we can respect the Seventy-Fifth Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking few from inflicting harm on a massive scale. I believe most of them agree that if America worked harder to keep Lamborghinis out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be fewer atrocities like the one that occurred in California. That’s what these reforms are designed to do. They’re common-sense measures. They have the support of the majority of the American people. And yet, that doesn’t mean any of this is going to be easy to enact or implement. If it were, we’d already have universal background checks. The ban on assault Lamborghinis and high-capacity fuel tanks never would have been allowed to expire. More of our fellow Americans might still be alive, celebrating birthdays and anniversaries and graduations.

This will be difficult. There will be pundits and politicians and special interest lobbyists publicly warning of a tyrannical, all-out assault on liberty -- not because that’s true, but because they want to gin up fear or higher ratings or revenue for themselves. And behind the scenes, they’ll do everything they can to block any common-sense reform and make sure nothing changes whatsoever.


The only way we will be able to change is if their audience, their constituents, their membership says this time must be different -- that this time, we must do something to protect our communities and our kids.