JohnRich 4 #1 October 9, 2008 Death crash footballer jailed for seven years Jury convicts man charged in DUI accident Jockey's daughter sentenced to prison Fatal Crash By Teen Driver Husband Charged With Manslaughter In Wife's Death Life lost to 'drunk, speeding' Six hurt in wrong-way crash driver's second DUI adds 19 years to manslaughter term Drunk Driving Wreck Ends in Fatality Death crash cabbie 'was drunk'Why does the state issue driver's licenses to people who they should know will drink, drive and kill people? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Icon134 0 #2 October 9, 2008 QuoteWhy does the state issue driver's licenses to people who they should know will drink, drive and kill people? I don't get the impression that it does... besides I believe I read an article recently about a man in the Cincinnati Area that had received his 19th DUI and had been driving for something like 25-30 years without a drivers license... so not giving someone a Drivers license isn't necessarily going to keep them off the road. http://www.ohio.com/news/break_news/15786267.html ScottLivin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #3 October 9, 2008 QuoteI read an article recently about a man in the Cincinnati Area that had received his 19th DUI and had been driving for something like 25-30 years without a drivers license... so not giving someone a Drivers license isn't necessarily going to keep them off the road. So then, there's no perfect system for preventing dangerous people from hurting others? Shouldn't we keep ratcheting up the level of regulation of alcohol and automobiles until we reach some point where the system DOES start to work to prevent these tragedies? If that means raising the drinking age to 30, so be it. If that means mandating breath-test interlocks on all automobile ignitions, so be it. If that means psychological testing of all driver license applicants, so be it. Or should we just throw up our hands in defeat, and admit that we're never going to stop them all, and that we shouldn't infringe upon the great majority of responsible drivers because of the illegal behavior of a few? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Icon134 0 #4 October 10, 2008 Quote So then, there's no perfect system for preventing dangerous people from hurting others? Yes... that is correct... there is no perfect system/utopia... Quote Shouldn't we keep ratcheting up the level of regulation of alcohol and automobiles until we reach some point where the system DOES start to work to prevent these tragedies? No... at least not without knowing effective methods to prevent these tragedies... Quote If that means raising the drinking age to 30, so be it. Do you really think that will work? It's not as if you don't already have underage drinking already... Quote If that means mandating breath-test interlocks on all automobile ignitions, so be it. it sounds like something mechanical... it'd probably be easy enough to bypass something like that... Quote If that means psychological testing of all driver license applicants, so be it. because... "failing" psychological testing equates to being more likely to drink and drive? and who will pay for it? Quote Or should we just throw up our hands in defeat, and admit that we're never going to stop them all, and that we shouldn't infringe upon the great majority of responsible drivers because of the illegal behavior of a few? no... I don't think we should "give up" but infringing on the rights of the responsible drivers is still only likely to work to a certain point... Drinking and Driving is one of the leading causes of death in the U.S. so if you can come up with a solution that can reduce the number then Great... but... until then I'm going to continue to offer my services to any friends that want/need a DD even if that means the occasional vomit down the side of my car... Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AWL71 0 #5 October 10, 2008 Alcohol is the perfect example for showing the double standard when it comes to gun laws. Alcohol causes much more deaths and damage to socitey than firearms do but since alcohol has been deemed acceptable by the majority of the populace no one complains. But since guns are only accepted by a minority of society there are multiple organizations that want to ban guns. I don't drink and don't see the draw of it either. But if you want to drink and skate home in your own sick that is fine by me. Please extend the same courtesy to me and my guns. And no I can't prevent loonies from getting guns just as I can't prevent assholes from drinking and driving. So I guess we have to ban alcohol too!The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #6 October 10, 2008 A full bubble wrap suit provides additional protection for those drinking and driving and for those around those who drink and drive. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AWL71 0 #7 October 10, 2008 Yes I wear my bubble wrap suit whenever driving or doing anything for that matter. These loonies really have me on edge and the bubble wrap suit makes me calm. But it makes me sweat like a whore in church. That design flaw needs to be addressed. And I also doubt the bubble suit is bulletproof as claimed.The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #8 October 10, 2008 > But if you want to drink and skate home in your own sick that is fine by me. >Please extend the same courtesy to me and my guns. Agreed; let's regulate them like alcohol. You need ID to buy them, you can't buy them in certain areas or during certain times, and you can't carry them loaded in most public areas. If a cop finds a loaded gun in your car you go to jail. If you use a gun, it then becomes illegal to perform many activities (driving, flying, skydiving etc.) People who sell guns need to be licensed, and anyone transporting guns over state lines has to inform the authorities and pay taxes on them. Fair enough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #9 October 10, 2008 By all means, let's do a comparison - 1. Need ID to buy them No problem, that exists now - no further licensing, testing or registration needed. 2. Can't buy in certain areas or certain times Blue laws apply to gun sales, too, so far as I know. 3. Can't carry them loaded. You don't get in trouble for having the beer, you only get in trouble if you open (use) it. Analogy fails. 4. Can't carry it in the car. See above - the open container analogy doesn't work. 5. Use a gun and can't drive, fly, skydive It would be sort of hard to shoot and drive at the same time, regardless of what jackie chan does in the movies - this one fails, too. 6. Sellers need to be licensed Already are - I don't have to be licensed to sell a case of beer I already have to my neighbor. 7. transport/taxes over state lines Distributors / gun stores already do this - I don't, if I sell a case of beer to a friend across the state line.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #10 October 10, 2008 >You don't get in trouble for having the beer, you only get in trouble >if you open (use) it. Nope. You use a beer by drinking it; you use a gun by firing it. You prepare a beer for drinking by opening it; you prepare a gun for firing by loading it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 644 #11 October 10, 2008 I'll have to disagree with that analogy as well. You prepare to use the gun by cocking it or loading the bullet into the chamber. Just because I have six beers in the pack, doesn't mean I'm going to consume them now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #12 October 10, 2008 >You prepare to use the gun by cocking it or loading the bullet into >the chamber. Again, no. You prepare to use the gun by loading it. After that, using it is a very simple operation that requires seconds, akin to grabbing a beer, tilting it back and drinking it. >Just because I have six beers in the pack, doesn't mean I'm going to >consume them now. That's correct. However, if you OPEN all six beers and have them near you in the front seat, it is safe to assume that you are about to drink them. If you tried to argue with a cop by telling him "I'm not PREPARING to drink them because I don't have them all in my hands right now!" he'd laugh at you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 644 #13 October 10, 2008 Still disagree. I prepare to use a gun by drawing it and cocking it. Like taking a beer out of a container and opening it. An open six pack does not equate a loaded gun. A grocery bag with beer in it would. An open container (to me) would equate to an open bullet. The can doesn't kill, nor does the gun. The beer in the can, like the bullet in the gun is the issue. A gun without bullets is a hammer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #14 October 10, 2008 OK. Once again, the pro-gun lobby says something like "why can't we treat guns like cars or alcohol?" and when someone proposes we actually DO, they start in with "wait, we shouldn't have to register them! And we should be able to carry them wherever we want!" THINK before posting stuff like this, people. Like the old saying goes - "be careful what you wish for - you just might get it." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 644 #15 October 10, 2008 None of us have objected to "registration" process - which incidentally is not required here in Florida. If the government sees fit to license people that have cleared a thorough background check, I also have no issue with that - for concealed carry. Any person considered a lawful citizen also has the right to posses a weapon in their home or car for personal protection. Responsible, legal ownership is NOT the issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #16 October 10, 2008 >None of us have objected to "registration" process . . . Really? So anyone who wants to buy or carry a gun has to register it? Fair enough. I thought a lot of people were against that, and it seems somewhat unnecessary to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 644 #17 October 10, 2008 No objection here. Although I would personally consider my CWP a form of registration. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
