PDA

View Full Version : How government encourages drunk driving.




Anti Federalist
02-18-2013, 12:49 PM
Throw them in the woods is right.



He Ain’t Hurtin’ No One…

February 16, 2013

By eric

http://ericpetersautos.com/2013/02/16/he-aint-hurtin-no-one/

A reader writes: “If drunk drivers were allowed to drive at 5 m.p.h. on the shoulder of the road, things would be a whole lot better and safer all around.”clover 1

It’s a damn fine idea!

He “ain’t hurtin’ no one” … so why not leave him be?

Let the drunks safely gimp themselves home. It jibes with the NAP principle: No harm, no foul.

But, it does not jibe with the moralistic hectoring of the Clover Mind, which really wants to punish people most of all. Not “keep us safe.” Control us – and punish us when we resist or defy control. When any of us do something they do not like. Which affronts their Puritanical (but now secularized) urge to compel uniformity – and stamp out heterodoxy. Everything must be one way… their way.

Or else.

If that were not the case, then they – Clovers – would not object to the proposal above. A drunk driver cautiously making his way home, his car barely moving at walking speed, presents no significant danger to himself or others – to property or persons. I suppose it’s possible a child (to anticipate the Cloveritic cry sure to erupt) might by playing on the shoulder at 2 a.m. after last call – but it’s unlikely. Mailbox posts are more threatened, but I’d rather deal with a knocked-down mailbox every now and then than a uniformed thug scrum hassling me for no reason because someone else might be “drunk” driving.

The real danger as regards drunk driving is that the system provides every incentive for drunks to drive … at normal road speeds. Indeed, slightly faster than normal road speeds. Because to drive exactly the speed limit – or below the speed limit – in the wee hours of the morning is like throwing buckets of bloody chum in the ocean. It’s guaranteed to draw the attention of cops. So, the drunk driver drives faster in order to avoid being noticed. Rendering him a real danger to himself and others – just the opposite of the case were he to “walk” his car home at 5 MPH or so on the shoulder.

But, the Clover will cry, he shouldn’t have been driving at all! Perhaps – except here again the Clovers have set up an impossible Catch 22. In the first place, they have managed to dumb-down the legal definition of “drunk” driving to absurdity. A drink or two over the course of a meal is sufficient. It probably won’t result in any meaningful impairment of a person’s capability to safely drive home. But it is sufficient to cross the BAC threshold at which point one may be cuffed and stuffed.

Which is not .08 BAC, incidentally. In most states, a BAC level of .06 or even .04 is sufficient legal pretext to arrest a person for “drunk” driving. A .08 BAC is merely presumptive drunk driving – while lower BACs require additional evidence of “drunkeness” to establish the fact (such as a cop’s say-so).

Well, ok – then maybe just sleep it off in the car. The parked car. Surely, that’s responsible and “safe.” Even if the occupant’s BAC is .16 and he is well and truly soused, if the car’s parked then he is utterly harmless. Ergo, the law should be pleased.

He ain’t hurtin no one…. so leave him be.

But of course it will not. If a person is found sitting in his parked car – even if he is asleep in the back and the engine’s stone cold – he may still be arrested and carted off to a cell for the crime of drunk driving. Hence, another incentive for the drunk to drive. Because he is more vulnerable sleeping it off in his car. He’ll be there – in the same place – all night long. His odds of avoiding the drunk driving bust are improved if he actually drives while drunk.

In effect, anyone who drinks at all has become a “drunk” as far as the law is concerned. Just as we’ve all become presumptive criminals – terrorists – even. An offhand joke is sufficient to land one in a cell for 24 hours. Just ask the Peanut Butter Terrorist.

John Adams once said:

“It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished.

But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, ‘whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,’ and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.”

His was a re-stating (and refining) of the comment attributed to Thomas More – Henry VIII’s unfortunate (because eventually headless) Lord Chancellor – in the classic drama A Man for All Seasons:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the
laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

More also said: “I do none harm, I say none harm, I think none harm. And if this be not enough to keep a man alive, in good faith I long not to live.” I might add to this: Or arrested, waylaid, fine, hassled, caged.

So much wisdom – lost on the conscience of our age.

People who are innocent of having caused anyone else any harm are now routinely treated as if they had in fact caused harm.

Which is evidence that harm isn’t the criteria – despite the Cloveritic protestations about “safety,” “security,” “the children” and so on.

The criteria is simply, “Do as I demand” … because it is demanded.

Conform. Submit. Obey.

Or be punished.

It is the new American creed.

Throw it in the Woods?

TheGrinch
02-18-2013, 01:07 PM
I don't like them lowering the legal limit and removing reasonable discretion of sobreity tests (I agree this is the problem), but I absolutely do not think that driving a killing machine while intoxicated falls under "People who are innocent of having caused anyone else any harm are now routinely treated as if they had in fact caused harm.".... For one thing, the penalty and costs will certainly be greater if you actually cause harm...

Perhaps a more fair system would be that one could only be charged if it could be shown in a court of law through the dash cam that the officer witnessed the person engaging in dangerous intoxicated driving, such as swerving, not turning on lights, etc.

This is not a matter of pre-crime (even though it is a matter of overreaching). The crime is operating a multi-ton vehicle in a state where one's motor skills and conciousness are impaired, so that's what needs to be proven.

So please, pick stronger arguments than cases like this saying "they're not hurting anyone unless they do". We all have to share the roads, so no, I'm not going to defend one's "right" to get loaded and put my life in needless danger because they didn't think ahead to realize that they were in no state to drive.

Should we also issue licenses to sight-impaired individuals until they inevitably hit something they can't see?

Anti Federalist
02-18-2013, 01:22 PM
If somebody is "sleeping it off" in the back seat, and the ever fucking computers will tell you when the car was last started, should they be arrested?

How about "tired driving" or texting while driving, which has been studied and shown to be even more of an impairment than driving drunk.

TheGrinch
02-18-2013, 01:27 PM
If somebody is "sleeping it off" in the back seat, and the ever fucking computers will tell you when the car was last started, should they be arrested?

How about "tired driving" or texting while driving, which has been studied and shown to be even more of an impairment than driving drunk.

No, like I said, it is an issue of overreach.

I would much prefer education than having to rely on government, that's for sure, and so it's tough to say how you address texting or driving tired without getting to a similar overreach....

But nonetheless, just because it's tough to know where and how to draw the line, does not mean that line doesn't exist with truly drunk driving being on the unacceptable side. My point was mroe that I absolutely do not consider it a pre-crime. It is at best gross negligence.

pcosmar
02-18-2013, 01:34 PM
I would much prefer education than having to rely on government,

It would be nice to compare the millions of people that have a drink (or a few) and drive home without incident daily.

And the actual number of people that have accidents.. and their cause.
(But I wouldn't want anyone having that much information about anyone)

The widely skewed statistics have been pounded into people for so long they actually believe it is a problem.

Most accidents (by far) are caused by sober drivers.

TheGrinch
02-18-2013, 01:47 PM
It would be nice to compare the millions of people that have a drink (or a few) and drive home without incident daily.

And the actual number of people that have accidents.. and their cause.
(But I wouldn't want anyone having that much information about anyone)

The widely skewed statistics have been pounded into people for so long they actually believe it is a problem.

Most accidents (by far) are caused by sober drivers.

I agree that overreach is a problem (especially as someone who works in the beer industry, and have to limit what I drink at tastings/events to stay on the safe side).

But unsafe driving is still penalized, jsut not to the degree that injesting a substance that impairs ones ability to drive a car does... Hell, I'm not even saying that drunk-driving penalties aren't excessive either, in many cases they are, but I don't subscribe to the "he ain't hurting no one" theory, just because many of us have happened to make it home safely when we know we had too much to be driving.

I got my rear axle snapped in half by a drunk driver, had a friend turn over his motorcycle after leaving my house smashed (the last time he convinced me that he was okay to drive), and no, even if those hadn't happened, doesn't mean that it was acceptable for them to be using our roadways in a manner where they're unable to control a multi-ton killing machine.

Danke
02-18-2013, 01:48 PM
Just make sure your limo driver hasn't been drinking and you should be fine.

AGRP
02-18-2013, 01:53 PM
City planners encourage drunk driving. If businesses were intermingled with housing then people wouldnt have to drive home from the bar, schools, shopping, etc.

TheGrinch
02-18-2013, 01:54 PM
Just make sure your limo driver hasn't been drinking and you should be fine.

Actually there are number of affordable services nowadays, including services where they'll drive you and your car home... Really it's those a-holes who won't let you park your car overnight that induce drunk-driving.

The most smashed I've ever driven was after the GA/FLA game when the parking lot owner refused to let me keep my car parked there (was going to go sleep in the back). I won't get into the whole story, but I can assure you "he wasn't hurting no one" didn't apply. It was only by pure luck that I didn't, as I apparently blew a red light and remember hopping curbs to get to where my friends were parked.

presence
02-18-2013, 01:57 PM
John Adams once said:

“It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished.

But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, ‘whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,’ and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.”

That's good material right there.

Brian4Liberty
02-18-2013, 02:13 PM
Drunk driving is a revenue generator for (local) government. It's also a way for some officers to fill quotas or to look "good".

This was a recent story, although it is apparently quite common.


There was a time not so long ago when Lisa Steed’s stock as a corporal in the Utah Highway Patrol was soaring.

Lisa Steed, who is appealing her dismissal from the Utah Highway Patrol, was named trooper of the year in 2007. A lawsuit claims she falsified dozens of D.U.I. arrests.

Passionate about police work, with a wide smile and a notable number of driving-under-the-influence arrests to show for her diligence, Corporal Steed was named trooper of the year by her superiors in 2007, her career seemingly heading toward the inevitable promotions.

In November, however, the once promising officer was fired amid a haze of misconduct allegations.

Though the Highway Patrol would not discuss Ms. Steed’s dismissal, a lawsuit claims she falsified dozens of those arrests during her 10-year career.

According to the suit, filed Dec. 14 in District Court in Salt Lake County, Ms. Steed made a career of pulling over drivers who she claimed were driving drunk or under the influence.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/us/lawsuit-accuses-fired-utah-trooper-of-falsifying-dui-arrests.html?_r=0

Anti Federalist
02-18-2013, 02:26 PM
Actually there are number of affordable services nowadays, including services where they'll drive you and your car home... Really it's those a-holes who won't let you park your car overnight that induce drunk-driving.

The most smashed I've ever driven was after the GA/FLA game when the parking lot owner refused to let me keep my car parked there (was going to go sleep in the back). I won't get into the whole story, but I can assure you "he wasn't hurting no one" didn't apply. It was only by pure luck that I didn't, as I apparently blew a red light and remember hopping curbs to get to where my friends were parked.

Why?

Who got hurt?

pcosmar
02-18-2013, 02:37 PM
I got my rear axle snapped in half by a drunk driver,
Strong SOB right there.

I wonder what he would have done to you sober.

seraphson
02-18-2013, 02:39 PM
They encourage it by not actually doing shit about it. I know of someone through other people that have literally. I mean literally hit their 9th. As is 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, NINTH DUI. Said person got it just a few weeks after getting their license back too (big surprise).

Yet "weed" is still illegal.

tod evans
02-18-2013, 02:46 PM
I grew up in a time and place where people regularly navigated roads "drunk" by todays standards, myself included.

Statistically there were less accidents per-capita and significantly less arrests.

Statements like "pilot a killing machine" are signs that the brainwashing has already worked.

Sorry state of affairs..:(

Brian4Liberty
02-18-2013, 02:54 PM
One irony of the DUI debate is that the emotional "it's for the children" argument is often used.

Now the irony is that most enforcement of DUI law occurs late at night, especially the post midnight witching hours. How many children are out at that time? Probably much less than during the day. Is this not like using the excuse that a polar bear killed a child to enforce a polar bear free zone in Florida?

TheGrinch
02-18-2013, 03:07 PM
Strong SOB right there.

I wonder what he would have done to you sober.

Not been excessively speeding and swerving?

TheGrinch
02-18-2013, 03:09 PM
I grew up in a time and place where people regularly navigated roads "drunk" by todays standards, myself included.

Statistically there were less accidents per-capita and significantly less arrests.

Statements like "pilot a killing machine" are signs that the brainwashing has already worked.

Sorry state of affairs..:(

Bullshit. It's not brainwashing to realize that when you're drunk you have no business operating a two-ton piece of steel.

I've made it abundantly clear that I don't like the overreach and revenue it's used to justify, but to act like there's nothing wrong with truly driving drunk unless you hit someone is flat out absurd.

TheGrinch
02-18-2013, 03:10 PM
Why?

Who got hurt?
See the next sentence, it was pure luck that no one got hurt as I was swerving, blowing through red lights and hopping curbs. I knew I had no business driving, and I don't need a law to tell me that what I was doing was completely dangerous and reckless.

pcosmar
02-18-2013, 03:15 PM
Bullshit. It's not brainwashing to realize that when you're drunk you have no business operating a two-ton piece of steel.

I've made it abundantly clear that I don't like the overreach and revenue it's used to justify, but to act like there's nothing wrong with truly driving drunk is flat out absurd.
You are confusing personal responsibility with Social controls.
There is no need for the laws. But rather hold people accountable for their actions.
Hit something= you are responsible for that.
Don't hit anything= -------------(not a crime)

whatever substances may or may not be in your system are irrelevant.

bolil
02-18-2013, 03:17 PM
See the next sentence, it was pure luck that no one got hurt as I was swerving, blowing through red lights and hopping curbs. I knew I had no business driving, and I don't need a law to tell me that what I was doing was completely dangerous and reckless.

Don't you think there is a difference between belligerently drunk, as you were, and being intoxicated without hampering your ability to drive safely? If your jumping curbs and swerving you should be stopped. If you forget to signal a right turn and you happen to have had a drink or two or three you shouldn't get the screwing that is now coming your way.

TheGrinch
02-18-2013, 03:21 PM
You are confusing personal responsibility with Social controls.
There is no need for the laws. But rather hold people accountable for their actions.
Hit something= you are responsible for that.
Don't hit anything= -------------

whatever substances may or may not be in your system are irrelevant.

So do you think it's wrong to stop a criminal with a gun before the kill someone, or do you wait for them to start taking lives? Because you cannot be held "accountable" for killing someone, only punished. There is no restitution that will bring that person back.

Maybe it's not possible in the current enviornment to have fair drunk driving laws without overreach, but I absolutely disagree that you can jsut be reckless on p;ublic roads without consequence, just because you've been lucky in the past. Many other causes of crashes are grey areas as far as the degree of gross negligence, but not injesting enough of a substance to where you can't walk a straight line, to be driving a two-ton hunk of steel.

TheGrinch
02-18-2013, 03:23 PM
Don't you think there is a difference between belligerently drunk, as you were, and being intoxicated without hampering your ability to drive safely? If your jumping curbs and swerving you should be stopped. If you forget to signal a right turn and you happen to have had a drink or two or three you shouldn't get the screwing that is now coming your way.

As I've repeated many times in this thread, I don't think the current drunk driving laws are fair, as I know I can easily handle myself beyond the legal limit, but that doesn't mean I don't support measures in general to punish those who have no business operating a vehicle like I was.

bolil
02-18-2013, 03:23 PM
So do you think it's wrong to stop a criminal with a gun before the kill someone, or do you wait for them to start taking lives? Because you cannot be held "accountable" for killing someone, only punished. There is no restitution that will bring that person back.

Maybe it's not possible in the current enviornment to have fair drunk driving laws without overreach, but I absolutely disagree that you can jsut be reckless on p;ublic roads without consequence, just because you've been lucky in the past. Many other causes of crashes are grey areas as far as the degree of gross negligence, but not injesting enough of a substance to where you can't walk a straight line, to be driving a two-ton hunk of steel.

In light of your admission, should you not be going to your police department for consequences? Driving isn't walking, you would have a better time of persuading people saying that any test for excessive intoxication while driving should be administered in the form of a DRIVING test, perhaps a simulator.

raystone
02-18-2013, 03:26 PM
City planners encourage drunk driving. If businesses were intermingled with housing then people wouldnt have to drive home from the bar, schools, shopping, etc.

In this way government does the most to cause drunk driving. More specifically, by limiting the number of alcohol permits that can be "awarded" in a certain jurisdiction, everyone isn't allowed a neighborhood bar to walk to. The most extreme examples of this are the dry counties in Kentucky and other states. Dry counties have the HIGHEST rate of drunk driving. As you might guess, drunks are driving long distances to get back home after visiting the neighboring wet county.

pcosmar
02-18-2013, 03:30 PM
So do you think it's wrong to stop a criminal with a gun before the kill someone,
How do you know it is a "criminal" with a gun and not just a person with a gun. Precrime? Are you psychic?

Are you advocating Gun Control as well?
Or just Precrime judgements?

Anti Federalist
02-18-2013, 03:32 PM
So do you think it's wrong to stop a criminal with a gun before the kill someone, or do you wait for them to start taking lives? Because you cannot be held "accountable" for killing someone, only punished. There is no restitution that will bring that person back.

Well, I'll let pcosmar chime in on that.

See, he's an ex-con, and, were he to acquire a firearm he would become a felon again, just by possession.

But as for me, I could not think of too many other people I would prefer to be living next door to me with guns, than pcosmar, the felon.

I have no doubt in my mind that he is not going to go off randomly killing people.

Anti Federalist
02-18-2013, 03:34 PM
As I've repeated many times in this thread, I don't think the current drunk driving laws are fair, as I know I can easily handle myself beyond the legal limit, but that doesn't mean I don't support measures in general to punish those who have no business operating a vehicle like I was.

Yes, they are called reckless driving laws, and are already on the books, and have been on the books.

tod evans
02-18-2013, 03:40 PM
The success of brainwashing is when those who are affected don't realize it.

Calm down, take a few breaths...........It'll be okay.


Bullshit. It's not brainwashing to realize that when you're drunk you have no business operating a two-ton piece of steel.

I've made it abundantly clear that I don't like the overreach and revenue it's used to justify, but to act like there's nothing wrong with truly driving drunk unless you hit someone is flat out absurd.

tod evans
02-18-2013, 03:45 PM
So do you think it's wrong to stop a criminal with a gun before the kill someone,[snip]

And just how, pray-tell, do you determine that the person with the gun is a "criminal"?

Step back a bit man.....

Everything that's been spoon fed to you isn't all true..:eek:

phill4paul
02-18-2013, 03:47 PM
Another DUI thread. I spent my load about 5-6 years ago on this forum giving MADD, NHTSA statistics vs. statistics that included many more factors. Posted the destruction of individuals lives of laws too harsh for a first offense. I've done it all. That thread is wayyyy down the memory hole. I'm at the point were I've been arguing and giving rebuttal on this issue too long.
I just don't have it in me anymore.
Prohibitionists will prohibit.
Believe what you want to believe.
Fuck it.

Warrior_of_Freedom
02-18-2013, 03:54 PM
Or the man could just not drive. I don't feel comfortable driving when only having 2 beers, so I don't

tod evans
02-18-2013, 03:56 PM
Or the man could just not drive. I don't feel comfortable driving when only having 2 beers, so I don't

What a sane and logical approach...

TheGrinch
02-18-2013, 03:59 PM
How do you know it is a "criminal" with a gun and not just a person with a gun. Precrime? Are you psychic?

Are you advocating Gun Control as well?
Or just Precrime judgements?

You're taking the analogy far too literally, but it doesn't take a psychic to determine that person pointing a gun at innocent people is acting in a criminally forceful manner.

Advocating gun control? Lol, no it just makes my point that I support those trying to stop the criminal before he does cause people harm, same deal here.

A more strict analogy would be to punish those who discharge a gun in an irresponsible and unnecessary manner where it puts lives at risk. Hitting someone would only compound more charges, but gross negligence with a killing device should be a crime in itself, not precrime.

Similarly, I'm not going to wait for someone to get killed to see that someone who can't walk a straight line is a clear threat to my liberty and safety.

You would see the exact same thing if roads were privately funded, that they would not tolerate gross negligence that could even make them liable.

TheGrinch
02-18-2013, 04:00 PM
The success of brainwashing is when those who are affected don't realize it.

Calm down, take a few breaths...........It'll be okay.

Sorry, but GFY if you're going to treat me like a sheep who only believed what they're told.

I could say the same about those that hate laws so much that they can justify any behavior that clearly threatens lives.

TheGrinch
02-18-2013, 04:25 PM
Yes, they are called reckless driving laws, and are already on the books, and have been on the books.

That is all I'm advocating for, and was just speaking against the "no harm, no foul" argument. Reckless disregard for others should not be acceptable

The Free Hornet
02-18-2013, 04:52 PM
John Adams once said:

“It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished.

But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, ‘whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,’ and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.”

Can you requote that in the next abortion thread? Actually, that quote works on two levels. Nevermind.

DamianTV
02-18-2013, 04:54 PM
When the Legal Consequences are more severe than the Crime itself, you have Injustice.

kcchiefs6465
02-18-2013, 04:56 PM
It would be nice to compare the millions of people that have a drink (or a few) and drive home without incident daily.

And the actual number of people that have accidents.. and their cause.
(But I wouldn't want anyone having that much information about anyone)

The widely skewed statistics have been pounded into people for so long they actually believe it is a problem.

Most accidents (by far) are caused by sober drivers.
Exactly. Pretty much said everything I was going to say. I'd only add that there is no way to determine how many people have a couple drinks or smoke a spliff without incident. We only have the statistics of the ones that had their lives ruined or were in an accident. I drove for years 'impaired' and never got into even so much as a fender bender. (And there are many that I know that have done the same) For some people to consider that driving drunk equates to playing Russian roulette with your life and the lives of others just goes to show how much 'paid programming' can work.

I've known some good 'drunk drivers' and I've known some bad sober drivers.

The Free Hornet
02-18-2013, 04:56 PM
I grew up in a time and place where people regularly navigated roads "drunk" by todays standards, myself included.

Statistically there were less accidents per-capita and significantly less arrests.

Statements like "pilot a killing machine" are signs that the brainwashing has already worked.

Sorry state of affairs..:(

Was it the 1890s?:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b6/UsFatalAutoAccidentRates.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_United_States)

Note: I do not attribute that chart to government intervention. Technology and progress allows us - even encourages us - to put more emphasis on safety.

kcchiefs6465
02-18-2013, 05:14 PM
I miss the days where me and a few friends could fill my cooler with ice, buy a 12 pack, (or 30 pack :eek:) and drive around country roads drinking a few beers, listening to some music. Best times of my life. No one dares think of doing that now. The risks are too great. (and I'm not talking about the risks of a fatal car crash)

Antischism
02-18-2013, 05:25 PM
It would be nice to compare the millions of people that have a drink (or a few) and drive home without incident daily.

And the actual number of people that have accidents.. and their cause.
(But I wouldn't want anyone having that much information about anyone)

The widely skewed statistics have been pounded into people for so long they actually believe it is a problem.

Most accidents (by far) are caused by sober drivers.

Of course most accidents are caused by sober drivers, there are infinitely more sober drivers on the road at any given time than drunk. And even still, you get statistics like this (http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html):

In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.

It's shameless to say drunk driving and driving while sober both result in a similar rate of incidence when the amount of people driving drunk or sober at any given time is nowhere near close.

acptulsa
02-18-2013, 05:25 PM
APC (Actual Physical Control, or sitting drunk in a car with the keys accessible) is clearly a thoughtcrime. I'm at a loss to explain how this was never declared unconstitutional. And there can be no doubt whatsoever that it's a law specifically designed to persecute the poor more than the rich. And it most certainly does encourage people to drive while impaired. Damned if you do, damned if you don't--so why not?

As for drunk driving, this is something the federal government should never have touched at all. To say that driving drunk in the Bronx, where potential victims line the roadways and taxis are plentiful, is the same thing as driving drunk in Wewoka, Oklahoma is purely insane. The federal government needs to butt out. Their habit of refusing states highway funds (which were, lest we forget, collected from gas taxes levied on the citizens of their victim states) on the basis of a state not sticking enough people in jail for this completely ignores the reality that some jurisdictions may simply not have such a problem as others. The crooked sow in Utah comes to mind--if a large percentage of the population belongs to a religion that discourages the consumption of alchohol, how much of a denial of freedom of religion is it for the feds to come along and demand a set number of arrests for it?

Whether it should be done or shouldn't be done, there's one thing I would hope all here can agree on--it should never be done the way we're doing it.

Anti Federalist
02-18-2013, 05:28 PM
I miss the days where me and a few friends could fill my cooler with ice, buy a 12 pack, (or 30 pack :eek:) and drive around country roads drinking a few beers, listening to some music. Best times of my life. No one dares think of doing that now. The risks are too great. (and I'm not talking about the risks of a fatal car crash)

And that should really just sort of end the debate right there.

At some point while chasing Safety Über Alles you reach a point of diminishing return, and really negative consequences start to manifest themselves.

In business, you become so safety conscious that you are no longer profitable.

In law, you build a tyrannical nanny state.

And in life, you become so hung up on "Zero Tolerance" of anything that may shorten your life, that you lose sight of the fact that the purpose of life is to live.

pcosmar
02-18-2013, 05:28 PM
You're taking the analogy far too literally,

I don't think so.
I have had two DUIs. The first one I was not driving at all..and the second I was no where near drunk.
I have never wrecked a car, (I repaired them for a living)

I also was arrested and convicted for a gun, that I did not own, because it was simply hanging on the wall in my home.

I am aware of the very literal realities.

Anti Federalist
02-18-2013, 05:31 PM
Of course most accidents are caused by sober drivers, there are infinitely more sober drivers on the road at any given time than drunk. And even still, you get statistics like this (http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html):

In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.

It's shameless to say drunk driving and driving while sober both result in a similar rate of incidence when the amount of people driving drunk or sober at any given time is nowhere near close.

It's also shameless to quote that government statistic.

All that number means is that somewhere in the "evidence trail" somebody introduced the "fact" that there was a presence of alcohol detected.

Not that it was directly responsible for impairment that caused an accident.

Correlation does not equal causation, amirite???

TheGrinch
02-18-2013, 05:34 PM
I don't think so.
I have had two DUIs. The first one I was not driving at all..and the second I was no where near drunk.
I have never wrecked a car, (I repaired them for a living)

I also was arrested and convicted for a gun, that I did not own, because it was simply hanging on the wall in my home.

I am aware of the very literal realities.

How many times do I have to say that I'm not advocating for the current overreaches that actually inhibits my livelihood at risk of getting a DUI she. I'm fine to drive, but that's not what I'm arguing for, so its misrepresenting my view that truly drunk driving should not be tolerated as "no harm no foul" to morph that into some statist argument I'm not making.

phill4paul
02-18-2013, 05:38 PM
Of course most accidents are caused by sober drivers, there are infinitely more sober drivers on the road at any given time than drunk. And even still, you get statistics like this (http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html):

In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.

It's shameless to say drunk driving and driving while sober both result in a similar rate of incidence when the amount of people driving drunk or sober at any given time is nowhere near close.

It's shameless to quote statistics that are derived from NHTSA statistics.

If a person on a bicycle, over .08, rides into traffic and is struck by a SOBER driver then it is considered an alcohol related traffic death.

Jesus Christ, by order of Congress, police forces are supposed to report on the number of citizens killed and the reason.

Why is it I can find ALL kind of statistics regarding DUI and yet there is not ONE government source regarding citizen fatalities at the hands of police?

Anti Federalist
02-18-2013, 05:40 PM
In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.

Over twice that many people died in falls around the home.

http://www.nsc.org/safety_home/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Falls/Pages/Falls.aspx

I demand the instant passage of the following:

Mandatory helmet use while not sitting or in bed.

Anti Fall flooring in all new homes.

Safety harnesses and retention systems.

Foam backed flooring and partition covering in all rooms designated for occupancy by anyone over 65 or under 18.

Random law enforcement inspections, neighborhood sweeps and in home surveillance to monitor for compliance.

Antischism
02-18-2013, 05:42 PM
It's also shameless to quote that government statistic.

All that number means is that somewhere in the "evidence trail" somebody introduced the "fact" that there was a presence of alcohol detected.

Not that it was directly responsible for impairment that caused an accident.

Correlation does not equal causation, amirite???

I'd take these statistics over anecdotal evidence any day. You can sit there and make excuses for those who cause accidents due to excessive drinking all you want, though. Do I think the penalties are too harsh currently? Yes. I also don't think people who are very intoxicated have any business operation a motor vehicle, unless it's a lawn mower.

Also remember that the amount of alcohol in a person's system and how it affects them will vary from person to person, which makes it difficult to set a "bar" at all. You may be able to drink a hell of a lot more alcohol than Johnny and feel fine/well enough to drive, but Johnny gets wasted after 2-3 rum and cokes.

pcosmar
02-18-2013, 05:44 PM
Of course most accidents are caused by sober drivers, there are infinitely more sober drivers on the road at any given time than drunk. And even still, you get statistics like this (http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html):

In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.

It's shameless to say drunk driving and driving while sober both result in a similar rate of incidence when the amount of people driving drunk or sober at any given time is nowhere near close.

I will have to disagree with your posted statistic, simply because it has been proven to be horribly skewed.

Alcohol related crashes statistics include any incident where alcohol was in any way related.
For example.
Sober driver hits drunk,, driver or pedestrian.
Sober driver has a drunk passenger.
And other variables

The actual cases where a drunk driver was actually at fault is considerably less than statistics show.

Antischism
02-18-2013, 05:44 PM
It's shameless to quote statistics that are derived from NHTSA statistics.

If a person on a bicycle, over .08, rides into traffic and is struck by a SOBER driver then it is considered an alcohol related traffic death.

Jesus Christ, by order of Congress, police forces are supposed to report on the number of citizens killed and the reason.

Why is it I can find ALL kind of statistics regarding DUI and yet there is not ONE government source regarding citizen fatalities at the hands of police?

And how many people do you honestly think go around driving under the influence on bicycles? Of those people, how many do you believe are involved in accidents? Certainly not enough to make those statistics much different.

Do these people who go around "drunk biking" kill others? What's the risk factor?

Anti Federalist
02-18-2013, 05:45 PM
How many times do I have to say that I'm not advocating for the current overreaches that actually inhibits my livelihood at risk of getting a DUI she. I'm fine to drive, but that's not what I'm arguing for, so its misrepresenting my view that truly drunk driving should not be tolerated as "no harm no foul" to morph that into some statist argument I'm not making.

As many times as you like, but I think we all understand that, at least I do.

What we are trying to point out is that, once having granted the premise "overreach" is guaranteed.

It. Will. Happen.

With all that follows, loss of liberty, roadside checkpoints and all the rest that is now being rolled out for other "prohibitions".

My point, and I won't speak for others, is simply this:

All things being equal, I prefer the risk of a drunk driver as opposed to the police/nanny state alternative.

Anti Federalist
02-18-2013, 05:47 PM
Also remember that the amount of alcohol in a person's system and how it affects them will vary from person to person, which makes it difficult to set a "bar" at all. You may be able to drink a hell of a lot more alcohol than Johnny and feel fine/well enough to drive, but Johnny gets wasted after 2-3 rum and cokes.

You've just defeated your own argument, since any law that cannot be specifically quantified as to what, exactly and precisely a violation entails, is ripe for abuse and a hallmark of a tyrannical regime.

Define "supports terrorism".

kcchiefs6465
02-18-2013, 05:48 PM
It's also shameless to quote that government statistic.

All that number means is that somewhere in the "evidence trail" somebody introduced the "fact" that there was a presence of alcohol detected.

Not that it was directly responsible for impairment that caused an accident.

Correlation does not equal causation, amirite???
If I recall correctly there are 'per se' DUI laws that state should you have any detectable level of drugs (I believe it is 35ng) you can and will be charged with a DUI even if and when you are not under the influence. (Michigan being extreme but Ohio does come to mind) There was a man who was charged with negligable homicide with marijuana amounts similar to those of someone who hadn't smoked in a week or two.

phill4paul
02-18-2013, 05:48 PM
I also don't think people who are very intoxicated have any business operation a motor vehicle, unless it's a lawn mower.

THAT is incrementalism..........

230+ years worth. Happy Precedence Day.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoHDVcElIpg

Antischism
02-18-2013, 05:50 PM
I will have to disagree with your posted statistic, simply because it has been proven to be horribly skewed.

Alcohol related crashes statistics include any incident where alcohol was in any way related.
For example.
Sober driver hits drunk,, driver or pedestrian.
Sober driver has a drunk passenger.
And other variables

The actual cases where a drunk driver was actually at fault is considerably less than statistics show.

Can you show me the break-down of the statistics? I'd like evidence, so it can clear that up for me.

AGRP
02-18-2013, 05:50 PM
Or the man could just not drive. I don't feel comfortable driving when only having 2 beers, so I don't


What a sane and logical approach...

This:


City planners encourage drunk driving. If businesses were intermingled with housing then people wouldnt have to drive home from the bar, schools, shopping, etc.

There used to be things called communities where people worked, shopped, and drank together in the same neighborhood. Im willing to bet the rate of drunk driving is drastically less in an average european or nyc community compared to an average american city. It would be great if neighborhoods would get back to how they were were you could walk to the neighborhood market, but its against 99% of zoning laws.

kcchiefs6465
02-18-2013, 05:52 PM
And how many people do you honestly think go around driving under the influence on bicycles? Of those people, how many do you believe are involved in accidents? Certainly not enough to make those statistics much different.

Do these people who go around "drunk biking" kill others? What's the risk factor?
Quite a lot acutally. Probably more than you'd imagine. Were you aware that they will arrest you for drinking and riding a bike? Or I believe someone mentioned a lawnmower, but that too.

ETA: I've always been somewhat curious, though I think I know the answer, but can't you be charged with a DUI for riding a horse drunk? Even though the horse has interest in it's own not to randomly stray into traffic.

Anti Federalist
02-18-2013, 05:53 PM
This:



There used to be things called communities where people worked, shopped, and drank together in the same neighborhood. Im willing to bet the rate of drunk driving is drastically less in an average european or nyc community compared to an average american city. It would be great if neighborhoods would get back to how they were were you could walk to the neighborhood market, but its against 99% of zoning laws.

South Amboy NJ.

'Nuff said.

pcosmar
02-18-2013, 05:55 PM
And how many people do you honestly think go around driving under the influence on bicycles? Of those people, how many do you believe are involved in accidents? Certainly not enough to make those statistics much different.

Do these people who go around "drunk biking" kill others? What's the risk factor?

Oh no you didn't,,
DUI on a bike
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/weird/Man-Gets-a-DUI----On-a-Bike-119811249.html
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2010/04/22/drunk-bicyclists-beware-court-upholds-dui-conviction/
http://www.bayareaduidefense.com/bay_area_dui/motorcycles_boats_planes/cycling_under_influence.html
DUI on a horse
http://www.wkyt.com/news/headlines/Man-on-horse-arrested-for-DUI-170100436.html
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/crime-law/man-galloping-horse-gets-dui-bunnell/nSPJ5/
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/01/two-men-arrested-in-austin-for-dui----on-a-horse-and-mule/1#.USK-aCDw9AQ

Just grabbed a few from a quick search.. you can bet your wad there are a lot more.

Anti Federalist
02-18-2013, 05:56 PM
Quite a lot acutally. Probably more than you'd imagine. Were you aware that they will arrest you for drinking and riding a bike? Or I believe someone mentioned a lawnmower, but that too.

That they will...and kick your ass for you while they are at it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jKSz3CJABY

Antischism
02-18-2013, 05:58 PM
You've just defeated your own argument, since any law that cannot be specifically quantified as to what, exactly and precisely a violation entails, is ripe for abuse and a hallmark of a tyrannical regime.

Define "supports terrorism".

I was pointing out that I believe the laws as they are now are indeed harsh and difficult to quantify, but I still don't believe anyone who's incredibly intoxicated should be driving. If you want to bring anecdotal evidence into this, I've lost a couple of family members to drunk drivers; people who had never gotten into an accident until they decided to get behind the wheel with a high blood alcohol level.

phill4paul
02-18-2013, 06:01 PM
There used to be things called communities where people worked, shopped, and drank together in the same neighborhood. Im willing to bet the rate of drunk driving is drastically less in an average european or nyc community compared to an average american city. It would be great if neighborhoods would get back to how they were were you could walk to the neighborhood market, but its against 99% of zoning laws.

I'd love to build a neighborhood bar and concert hall. Unfortunately special interests have bribed <lobbied> for exclusivity.

I've lived in a city. The bar and band were nothing more than a block away. Even in the country I have found safe roads to illegal honky-tonks. A shame the honly-tonks were targeted by law enforcement at the behest of special interest.

pcosmar
02-18-2013, 06:03 PM
I was pointing out that I believe the laws as they are now are indeed harsh and difficult to quantify, but I still don't believe anyone who's incredibly intoxicated should be driving. If you want to bring anecdotal evidence into this, I've lost a couple of family members to drunk drivers; people who had never gotten into an accident until they decided to get behind the wheel with a high blood alcohol level.

No one here is saying the Drunk Driving is a Good Idea.
What the are saying is that the laws suck,(very much bad) and that the "problem" is massively overblown by the Social Controllers and Prohibitionists.

Anti Federalist
02-18-2013, 06:03 PM
I was pointing out that I believe the laws as they are now are indeed harsh and difficult to quantify, but I still don't believe anyone who's incredibly intoxicated should be driving. If you want to bring anecdotal evidence into this, I've lost a couple of family members to drunk drivers; people who had never gotten into an accident until they decided to get behind the wheel with a high blood alcohol level.

Thus, you have an emotional attachment to the argument.

All the laws in the world didn't stop that, did they now?

I've lost some friends and family to gunfire, yet you won't find a more "over the top" gun rights person than me.

Should some of those people not have had access to guns?

Sure, by all means.

That does not mean I am willing to cede the point and allow what's happening with tobacco or driving, happen with firearms.

Antischism
02-18-2013, 06:04 PM
Oh no you didn't,,
DUI on a bike
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/weird/Man-Gets-a-DUI----On-a-Bike-119811249.html
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2010/04/22/drunk-bicyclists-beware-court-upholds-dui-conviction/
http://www.bayareaduidefense.com/bay_area_dui/motorcycles_boats_planes/cycling_under_influence.html
DUI on a horse
http://www.wkyt.com/news/headlines/Man-on-horse-arrested-for-DUI-170100436.html
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/crime-law/man-galloping-horse-gets-dui-bunnell/nSPJ5/
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/01/two-men-arrested-in-austin-for-dui----on-a-horse-and-mule/1#.USK-aCDw9AQ

Just grabbed a few from a quick search.. you can bet your wad there are a lot more.

I really need to see a break-down of the numbers in the statistics, but indeed, the lawn mower/horse DUI's are ridiculous.

But since these instances are... bizarre to say the least, isn't it more likely to find news articles about them than injuries/deaths relating to drunk driving in the news? You can sure as hell bet those aren't reported more frequently because of the high rate of incidence.

Anti Federalist
02-18-2013, 06:06 PM
Or, put another way by somebody much smarter than me:

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
-- Thomas Jefferson

kcchiefs6465
02-18-2013, 06:06 PM
That they will...and kick your ass for you while they are at it.

I actually knew a man that got hit by a car crossing a small parking lot exit. (Like a McDonalds drive thru lane exit but this was Pizza Hut) The car twisted his bike all to hell and the driver fled. The cops came after someone saw him laying there unconscious and arrested him for a DUI, took him to the hospital, got him checked out, then took him to jail. He's out some 7-10 days later and we are walking to the store. Here we see the car that hit him parked about an eighth mile from where he lived. We knock on the door and the driver denied he was the one. (it was obvious from the paint transfer and damages he was the one) We never did call the cops and my buddy never got compensated for the bike but it has stuck with me. Walking to the store and my buddy points out the car, that there's that MFer right there that hit me. You'd have to be there to believe it.

Anti Federalist
02-18-2013, 06:10 PM
I actually knew a man that got hit by a car crossing a small parking lot exit. (Like a McDonalds drive thru lane exit but this was Pizza Hut) The car twisted his bike all to hell and the driver fled. The cops came after someone saw him laying there unconscious and arrested him for a DUI, took him to the hospital, got him checked out, then took him to jail. He's out some 7-10 days later and we are walking to the store. Here we see the car that hit him parked about an eighth mile from where he lived. We knock on the door and the driver denied he was the one. (it was obvious from the paint transfer and damages he was the one) We never did call the cops and my buddy never got compensated for the bike but it has stuck with me. Walking to the store and my buddy points out the car, that there's that MFer right there that hit me. You'd have to be there to believe it.

Doesn't surprise me in the least.

These are the things that happen in a police state.

And the only way to "crack down" on drunk driving is to build...a police state.

So here we are, getting ready for plenty more "crack downs".

AGRP
02-18-2013, 06:11 PM
I'd love to build a neighborhood bar and concert hall. Unfortunately special interests have bribed <lobbied> for exclusivity.

I've lived in a city. The bar and band were nothing more than a block away. Even in the country I have found safe roads to illegal honky-tonks. A shame the honly-tonks were targeted by law enforcement at the behest of special interest.

Wouldnt it be nice if everyone could walk around a couple blocks to get milk, bread, have a drink, shop, etc? We must be crazy. This is such a better life:

http://www.citycaucus.com/images/car-sprawl.jpg

Antischism
02-18-2013, 06:12 PM
Thus, you have an emotional attachment to the argument.

All the laws in the world didn't stop that, did they now?

I've lost some friends and family to gunfire, yet you won't find a more "over the top" gun rights person than me.

Should some of those people not have had access to guns?

Sure, by all means.

That does not mean I am willing to cede the point and allow what's happening with tobacco or driving, happen with firearms.

That's a bad comparison, though.

The reason for 2A is to protect ourselves from government/tyranny and from others who would intrude on our private property or try to harm us. Getting wasted and deciding to operate a vehicle, potentially putting other people in harm's way, doesn't protect anyone from anything. It's just bad news all around.

pcosmar
02-18-2013, 06:22 PM
That's a bad comparison, though.

The reason for 2A is to protect ourselves from government/tyranny and from others who would intrude on our private property or try to harm us. Getting wasted and deciding to operate a vehicle, potentially putting other people in harm's way, doesn't protect anyone from anything. It's just bad news all around.
Operating a motor vehicle sober puts everyone in harms way,
As the vast majority of accidents and fatalities are caused by Sober Drivers.

Antischism
02-18-2013, 06:22 PM
Question: If I see someone driving drunk, and they're swerving in front of me or going at ridiculous speeds, do I have the right to shoot at them or their tires to protect myself from their reckless behavior (if there's even enough time)? If the answer is yes, then by all means, I would have no problem with people driving drunk just as long as I can protect myself or my family.

pcosmar
02-18-2013, 06:24 PM
Question: If I see someone driving drunk, and they're swerving in front of me or going at ridiculous speeds, do I have the right to shoot at them or their tires to protect myself from their reckless behavior (if there's even enough time)? If the answer is yes, then by all means, I would have no problem with people driving drunk just as long as I can protect myself or my family.

No, but you do have the right to put on your brakes or steer your car elsewhere and avoid them..

and you do not know if they are drunk.. Diabetic, on prescription medicine or just a piss poor driver.

phill4paul
02-18-2013, 06:26 PM
And how many people do you honestly think go around driving under the influence on bicycles? Of those people, how many do you believe are involved in accidents? Certainly not enough to make those statistics much different.

Do these people who go around "drunk biking" kill others? What's the risk factor?

If statistics are involved I would like them to be factually correct. Wouldn't you?

If not then we get to....

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Antischism
02-18-2013, 06:29 PM
No, but you do have the right to put on your brakes or steer your car elsewhere and avoid them..

and you do not know if they are drunk.. Diabetic, on prescription medicine or just a piss poor driver.

So I just allow myself to get rear-ended by suddenly hitting the brakes? That doesn't sound too great.

pcosmar
02-18-2013, 06:34 PM
So I just allow myself to get rear-ended by suddenly hitting the brakes? That doesn't sound too great.

Ah, that was assuming that you were behind and observing their poor driving..
Your gas pedal would allow you to accelerate, and your steering wheel will allow you to turn, Side street, off ramp. or shoulder of the road.

I personally try to avoid stupid drivers. accident avoidance is a part of driving.
my reflexes and premonition have allowed me to remain accident free for 40+years of driving.

or are you being deliberately obtuse?

The Free Hornet
02-18-2013, 06:36 PM
Question: If I see someone driving drunk, and they're swerving in front of me or going at ridiculous speeds, do I have the right to shoot at them or their tires to protect myself from their reckless behavior (if there's even enough time)? If the answer is yes, then by all means, I would have no problem with people driving drunk just as long as I can protect myself or my family.

1) How do you see their BAC level? Do you believe in magical thinking?
2) If going ridiculous speed, how do you safely drive an even more ridiculous speed?
3) How do you protect yourself and your family by firing a gun while driving that more ridiculous speed?
4) How do shot out tires/drivers decrease accidents rather than increase them?
5) By chance, are you now or were you ever an LA cop?

Your argument is not unlike the, "well if some woman can abort a baby I should be allowed to kill toddlers"! Who here is arguing that driving drunk or killing fetuses is good? Rather, the argument is that government generally makes these matters worse. Here's a question, how is it that mandatory auto insurance money goes to insurance companies and not faultless accident victims? Who but government can boast victim compensation programs where 35% of the money goes to... victims (http://www.nacvcb.org/index.asp?bid=14)!

Learn to mind your business and both you and your family will be safer as a result.

phill4paul
02-18-2013, 06:36 PM
I really need to see a break-down of the numbers in the statistics, but indeed, the lawn mower/horse DUI's are ridiculous.

But since these instances are... bizarre to say the least, isn't it more likely to find news articles about them than injuries/deaths relating to drunk driving in the news? You can sure as hell bet those aren't reported more frequently because of the high rate of incidence.

what world do you live in?

kcchiefs6465
02-18-2013, 06:37 PM
So I just allow myself to get rear-ended by suddenly hitting the brakes? That doesn't sound too great.
What is your proposal? (what is reasonable to you?) As currently we are accustomed to unconstitutional [legit for public saftey] stops for anyone on the road. (DUI checkpoints, for example)

TheTexan
02-18-2013, 06:41 PM
Fuck prisons. They serve no purpose. DUI or otherwise.

Antischism
02-18-2013, 06:42 PM
What is your proposal? (what is reasonable to you?) As currently we are accustomed to unconstitutional [legit for public saftey] stops for anyone on the road. (DUI checkpoints, for example)

DUI checkpoints are awful. My proposal is being allowed to shoot people who put my life in danger.

heavenlyboy34
02-18-2013, 06:45 PM
Over twice that many people died in falls around the home.

http://www.nsc.org/safety_home/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Falls/Pages/Falls.aspx

I demand the instant passage of the following:

Mandatory helmet use while not sitting or in bed.

Anti Fall flooring in all new homes.

Safety harnesses and retention systems.

Foam backed flooring and partition covering in all rooms designated for occupancy by anyone over 65 or under 18.

Random law enforcement inspections, neighborhood sweeps and in home surveillance to monitor for compliance.
Outta rep or I'd +rep ya. :(
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.




again.

kcchiefs6465
02-18-2013, 06:46 PM
DUI checkpoints are awful. My proposal is being allowed to shoot people who put my life in danger.
Diabetics? ['Innocents?'] Your emotion is evident. I've had people cut me off more times than I could remember. I've had people abruptly brake for no damn reason at all. I'd like to hope you really aren't advocating for people to be able to send shots towards anyone who drives like an idiot or who can't drive. (whether drunk or sober)

Antischism
02-18-2013, 06:48 PM
Maybe they'll stop drinking and driving if they knew they'd get a few shots through their car windows at the first sign of danger to my person!

Antischism
02-18-2013, 06:51 PM
Diabetics? ['Innocents?'] Your emotion is evident. I've had people cut me off more times than I could remember. I've had people abruptly brake for no damn reason at all. I'd like to hope you really aren't advocating for people to be able to send shots towards anyone who drives like an idiot or who can't drive. (whether drunk or sober)

I'm sort of playing devil's advocate to be honest, as I'm partially blinded by emotion in the case of drunk driving due to past history. I'll admit to that.

But what if a mentally ill person forces his way into my home and breaks down my door in a theft attempt? Do I not have the right to shoot? You wouldn't know if it was a home invasion or a person on medication/with severe mental illness now, would you?

phill4paul
02-18-2013, 06:51 PM
DUI checkpoints are awful. My proposal is being allowed to shoot people who put my life in danger.

Summary execution of those with .08 BAC stopped at check points? Yep, from your first post this is what I believed you believe. Fuck you. At anytime you feel that I, directly, am a danger to you then you have that right.
Don't hire mercenaries to do what you are unable to.

kcchiefs6465
02-18-2013, 06:52 PM
Maybe they'll stop drinking and driving if they knew they'd get a few shots through their car windows at the first sign of danger to my person!
A lot of people would stop driving if they knew a random shot could fly through their window when you are shooting from a moving car. As if this is the movies. Let me excuse myself from this ridiculous, emotion based post.

TheTexan
02-18-2013, 06:52 PM
Maybe they'll stop drinking and driving if they knew they'd get a few shots through their car windows at the first sign of danger to my person!

This argument would make more sense if shooting at them while you're driving didn't put your person into more danger.

The concepts of stand your ground and self defense are both solid but I can't imagine any scenario where the vehicle will collide with yours unless you intervene by shooting the driver.

Even if such a situation were to occur, it would be very hard to prove...

phill4paul
02-18-2013, 06:55 PM
I'm sort of playing devil's advocate to be honest, as I'm partially blinded by emotion in the case of drunk driving due to past history. I'll admit to that.

But what if a mentally ill person forces his way into my home and breaks down my door in a theft attempt? Do I not have the right to shoot? You wouldn't know if it was a home invasion or a person on medication/with severe mental illness now, would you?

Why not just have the the police shoot the 'Mentally ill" in the streets. That'd save you a lot of trouble. In fact. You wouldn't even need to get your hands dirty.

Antischism
02-18-2013, 06:55 PM
Summary execution of those with .08 BAC stopped at check points? Yep, from your first post this is what I believed you believe. Fuck you. At anytime you feel that I, directly, am a danger to you then you have that right.
Don't hire mercenaries to do what you are unable to.

I already made a distinction between a person with alcohol in their system driving normally, and someone who's driving recklessly under the influence. One puts my life in danger, the other doesn't.

Antischism
02-18-2013, 06:57 PM
Why not just have the the police shoot the 'Mentally ill" in the streets. That'd save you a lot of trouble. In fact. You wouldn't even need to get your hands dirty.

Why would I rely on the police to do the work for me if I have a gun? Isn't that one of the reasons for gun ownership?

And where did I advocate for shooting the mentally ill? The hypothetical question I posed involved a break-in.

pcosmar
02-18-2013, 06:59 PM
I already made a distinction between a person with alcohol in their system driving normally, and someone who's driving recklessly under the influence. One puts my life in danger, the other doesn't.

And how do you know that the erratic driver is drunk?

Are you prepared to shoot a diabetic, or someone having a heart attack? Or perhaps just old people with failing sight and reflexes?

You have managed to move the goal post from stupid to utterly ridiculous.
:(
.

Antischism
02-18-2013, 07:00 PM
This argument would make more sense if shooting at them while you're driving didn't put your person into more danger.

The concepts of stand your ground and self defense are both solid but I can't imagine any scenario where the vehicle will collide with yours unless you intervene by shooting the driver.

Even if such a situation were to occur, it would be very hard to prove...

I agree with your post, it was a hypothetical situation. The point being however, that if the situation were to take place, and that were an option that truly would save my life or another person's, I shouldn't be convicted as a criminal for firing my weapon.

phill4paul
02-18-2013, 07:00 PM
I already made a distinction between a person with alcohol in their system driving normally, and someone who's driving recklessly under the influence. One puts my life in danger, the other doesn't.

Do you see where your argument is the same for the federal governments argument from keeping us safe from "terrorists?"

TheTexan
02-18-2013, 07:02 PM
I agree with your post, it was a hypothetical situation. The point being however, that if the situation were to take place, and that were an option that truly would save my life or another person's, I shouldn't be convicted as a criminal for firing my weapon.

Shrug. In that extremely unlikely scenario, if I were on the jury it would be fine with me.

heavenlyboy34
02-18-2013, 07:02 PM
I'm sort of playing devil's advocate to be honest, as I'm partially blinded by emotion in the case of drunk driving due to past history. I'll admit to that.

But what if a mentally ill person forces his way into my home and breaks down my door in a theft attempt? Do I not have the right to shoot? You wouldn't know if it was a home invasion or a person on medication/with severe mental illness now, would you?
How is breaking in entering (whether mentally ill or not) at all comparable to impaired driving?

phill4paul
02-18-2013, 07:03 PM
Why would I rely on the police to do the work for me if I have a gun? Isn't that one of the reasons for gun ownership?

And where did I advocate for shooting the mentally ill? The hypothetical question I posed involved a break-in.

Your hypothetical is a case in point. Though you do not see it. I cannot help you with that. I no longer give fish away. Those who would learn to fish will eat tomorrow.

Antischism
02-18-2013, 07:04 PM
And how do you know that the erratic driver is drunk?

Are you prepared to shoot a diabetic, or someone having a heart attack? Or perhaps just old people with failing sight and reflexes?

You have managed to move the goal post from stupid to utterly ridiculous.
:(
.

If someone broke into your house and came charging in, would you be prepared to shoot a mentally ill individual or one that has been driven to madness by medications?

Of course, I would never want to have to shoot another person, but why is it okay to do it in the case of a break-in, but not in a life-threatening situation involving automobiles if the gun shots would indeed prevent a terrible outcome?

I just don't see how it would be okay in one situation, but not the other.

phill4paul
02-18-2013, 07:09 PM
I just don't see how it would be okay in one situation, but not the other.

Do you drive down the road shooting every conceivable threat? You're a fucking idiot. And your arguments are for shit. Done with you.

pcosmar
02-18-2013, 07:10 PM
If someone broke into your house and came charging in, would you be prepared to shoot a mentally ill individual or one that has been driven to madness by medications?

Of course, I would never want to have to shoot another person, but why is it okay to do it in the case of a break-in, but not in a life-threatening situation involving automobiles if the gun shots would indeed prevent a terrible outcome?

I just don't see how it would be okay in one situation, but not the other.

I have neither a gun nor locks on my doors.
Your question is moot.

I have handled Drunks, mental cases and career criminals in the past and have not killed any of them.

But then I prefer to drink my beer in rowdy Biker Bars.

I wonder if some here are really that socially dysfunctional. or just trolling.

Antischism
02-18-2013, 07:20 PM
I have neither a gun nor locks on my doors.
Your question is moot.

I have handled Drunks, mental cases and career criminals in the past and have not killed any of them.

But then I prefer to drink my beer in rowdy Biker Bars.

I wonder if some here are really that socially dysfunctional. or just trolling.

See, I like this post.

You're able to handle people without thinking of going for your gun at the first sign of "danger." While I defend 2A, I see a lot of people who are just ITCHING to deal with a home invasion so they can shoot at a person.

The purpose of my hypothetical with the drunk driver was to see where people drew the line. Do you think it's okay to shoot one person for one action, but not another if it invalidates your stance on an issue? In that instance, is a person who's driving recklessly a criminal? How do you define a criminal? Is someone who breaks into your home a criminal, despite one not knowing their history/background?

bolil
02-18-2013, 07:29 PM
See, I like this post.

You're able to handle people without thinking of going for your gun at the first sign of "danger." While I defend 2A, I see a lot of people who are just ITCHING to deal with a home invasion so they can shoot at a person.

The purpose of my hypothetical with the drunk driver was to see where people drew the line. Do you think it's okay to shoot one person for one action, but not another if it invalidates your stance on an issue? In that instance, is a person who's driving recklessly a criminal? How do you define a criminal? Is someone who breaks into your home a criminal, despite one not knowing their history/background?

Criminal has victim(s). A person driving with alcohol in their system and one driving recklessly are not the same. By driving a vehicle on public roads, you willingly engage in a very risky behavior and to say that because of your choice you should be able to blow away anyone that you perceive as "reckless" is ridiculous (Because the very act of sharing the road with other people in big ass steel missiles IS reckless on your part). Say someone starts ramming you with their car, attempting to run you off the road. Now you have grounds to do what you gotta do.

By act of BREAKING INTO YOUR HOME they become a criminal, even if they were not before.

pcosmar
02-18-2013, 07:30 PM
See, I like this post.

You're able to handle people without thinking of going for your gun at the first sign of "danger." While I defend 2A, I see a lot of people who are just ITCHING to deal with a home invasion so they can shoot at a person.

The purpose of my hypothetical with the drunk driver was to see where people drew the line. Do you think it's okay to shoot one person for one action, but not another if it invalidates your stance on an issue? In that instance, is a person who's driving recklessly a criminal? How do you define a criminal? Is someone who breaks into your home a criminal, despite one not knowing their history/background?

Oh,, I am a firm believer in self defense,, and I am not a pacifist..

I am acquainted with violence and capable of employing it. That does not mean it is necessarily my first response.

Finding someone in my home uninvited,, I would want to know why.
Perhaps they are in need of help. or lost.
were they malevolent,, I would expect my dogs to recognize that and react.

Oh. and my home is protected by things unseen.
;)
.

pcosmar
02-18-2013, 07:33 PM
By act of BREAKING INTO YOUR HOME they become a criminal, even if they were not before.

Perhaps,, but then, so am I.(or,,I have been)


As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
;)
.

Origanalist
02-18-2013, 07:35 PM
Perhaps,, but then, so am I.(or,,I have been)
;)
.

We're all criminals now....

heavenlyboy34
02-18-2013, 07:36 PM
See, I like this post.

You're able to handle people without thinking of going for your gun at the first sign of "danger." While I defend 2A, I see a lot of people who are just ITCHING to deal with a home invasion so they can shoot at a person.

The purpose of my hypothetical with the drunk driver was to see where people drew the line. Do you think it's okay to shoot one person for one action, but not another if it invalidates your stance on an issue? In that instance, is a person who's driving recklessly a criminal? How do you define a criminal? Is someone who breaks into your home a criminal, despite one not knowing their history/background?
This is a type of inductive reasoning called "reasoning from parts to whole". It is fallacious. Just FYI.

bolil
02-18-2013, 07:40 PM
Perhaps,, but then, so am I.(or,,I have been)

;)
.

Breaking into your own home does not qualify, unless you use someone else's head to smash a window.

Origanalist
02-18-2013, 07:43 PM
Breaking into your own home does not qualify, unless you use someone else's head to smash a window.

Eh?

bolil
02-18-2013, 07:45 PM
Eh?

Breaking into your own home is not a criminal act. Unless you use someone else's head (attached or not) to smash a window to get inside.

kcchiefs6465
02-18-2013, 07:49 PM
Breaking into your own home does not qualify, unless you use someone else's head to smash a window.
The circumstances very. (not anything to do with how they break in) If someone is breaking into my home with what I perceive to be a will for violence against me or my family, they are at my mercy. I would not kill someone over property, but they'd damn sure be giving it back. (again at my mercy, though depending on things, they'd most likely get it [my mercy, with a stern warning]) These are situational decisions that are usually made quickly. Though I'm sure everyone here would agree, self defense is right, and a virtue at that. Those claiming that shooting an erratic driver = self defense, are mistaken on what self defense is.

bolil
02-18-2013, 07:52 PM
The circumstances very. (not anything to do with how they break in) If someone is breaking into my home with what I perceive to be a will for violence against me or my family, they are at my mercy. I would not kill someone over property, but they'd damn sure be giving it back. (again at my mercy, though depending on things, they'd most likely get it [my mercy, with a stern warning]) These are situational decisions that are usually made quickly. Though I'm sure everyone here would agree, self defense is right, and a virtue at that. Those claiming that shooting an erratic driver = self defense, are mistaken on what self defense is.

I was making a joke, read my earlier posts. Breaking into your own home is not a crime, that is all I am saying here. Breaking into someone else's, for whatever reason, is a crime and, as you say puts the offender at the mercy of the homeowner. In survival situations, obviously, circumstances are a bit different and only when there are not occupants.

Locke covers this extensively.

pcosmar
02-18-2013, 07:56 PM
I was making a joke, read my earlier posts. Breaking into your own home is not a crime, that is all I am saying here. Breaking into someone else's, for whatever reason, is a crime and, as you say puts the offender at the mercy of the homeowner. In survival situations, obviously, circumstances are a bit different.

Locke covers this extensively.

Ah,, well,,
it seems that this thread has devolved anyway.

Stallheim
02-18-2013, 07:59 PM
City planners encourage drunk driving. If businesses were intermingled with housing then people wouldnt have to drive home from the bar, schools, shopping, etc.
Very good point. It does make a huge difference that we have a crazy and broken zoning system as well as a great deal of public land/roads.

Origanalist
02-18-2013, 08:01 PM
Ah,, well,,
it seems that this thread has devolved anyway.

Ya, that. I was going to respond but, nvrmnd.

Then again, I'm coming in late and probably missed something........

Occam's Banana
02-19-2013, 03:41 AM
Ah,, well,,
it seems that this thread has devolved anyway.

This thread needs some John Prine ...


He Ain’t Hurtin’ No One…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1EF9Q2m7pA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1EF9Q2m7pA

tod evans
02-19-2013, 06:22 AM
I based my opinion on actually living through an era of rampant social drinking, I'm sure that somebody who crunches numbers from accident reports could argue contrary to what I personally observed.

But, the simple fact that a much greater segment of the population imbibed and then drove with no record of transgressions was the point I was making.

There shouldn't be any data to cipher since those whom I observed behaved in a responsible manner and were never arrested or cited for what today is a crime..



Was it the 1890s?:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b6/UsFatalAutoAccidentRates.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_United_States)

Note: I do not attribute that chart to government intervention. Technology and progress allows us - even encourages us - to put more emphasis on safety.

cjm
02-19-2013, 11:25 AM
I grew up in a time and place where people regularly navigated roads "drunk" by todays standards, myself included.

Statistically there were less accidents per-capita and significantly less arrests.

Statements like "pilot a killing machine" are signs that the brainwashing has already worked.

Sorry state of affairs..:(


Was it the 1890s?:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b6/UsFatalAutoAccidentRates.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_United_States)

Note: I do not attribute that chart to government intervention. Technology and progress allows us - even encourages us - to put more emphasis on safety.

That's not really an apples-to-apples comparison. Tod's claim is accidents per capita and the chart shows fatalities per 100k vehicle miles. I'm not supporting Tod's claim necessarily, just pointing out that the chart doesn't address his claim.

IIRC, Tom Woods has a video where he claims auto fatalities have gone down over the years while auto accidents have gone up. The context was "unintended consequences" I think, and again, iirc, it had to do with seatbelt laws. I tried to find a chart similar to this one which showed accidents instead of fatalities, but couldn't find one it a brief search.

I agree that technology is responsible for fewer fatalities over the years.

cjm
02-19-2013, 11:47 AM
How about "tired driving" or texting while driving, which has been studied and shown to be even more of an impairment than driving drunk.

Many of these questions can probably fall in the "pick your own study" category:

http://cloud1.autoweek.com/carshopping/article-images/Graph_of_cell_phone_use_compared_to_number_of_car_ accidents.jpg


Jose Ucles, from the Office of Communications and Consumer Information at the NHTSA, told us numbers of fatalities due to driver distraction increased greatly from 2004 to 2005 (4,472 fatalities in 2004 and then 5,836 fatalities in 2005), and peaked at 5,917 in 2007, but since then they have been coming down.

more: http://www.autoweek.com/car-shopping/articles/2011/10/researchers-number-of-car-accidents-falls-despite-increase-in-cell-phone-use.html

He goes on to say that they have come down because states are outlawing texting and such but as you note, "tired driving" is also a distraction and that doesn't change because phone use is banned. It's nice to have numbers on our side, but at the end of the day the question is about property rights. If no property or person was harmed, the fact that someone drove home a little tipsey is not a crime.

As soon as we say "DUI" is a crime, we can't just ignore it the next day. Witnesses can testify that someone drove drunk just as easily as they can testify that someone stole a six-pack from a convenience store. Imagine getting arrested 2-3 years after college (assuming the statute of limitations allows it), for a DUI "crime." Why not? if it's a crime, you should be held accountable.

The fact that arrests are not made days later (unless there was property damage or personal injury) suggests that it's not a crime in itself, just reckless behavior that should be discouraged.

Anti Federalist
02-19-2013, 11:54 AM
That's a bad comparison, though.

The reason for 2A is to protect ourselves from government/tyranny and from others who would intrude on our private property or try to harm us. Getting wasted and deciding to operate a vehicle, potentially putting other people in harm's way, doesn't protect anyone from anything. It's just bad news all around.

From an analytical and logical standpoint, perhaps it is.

Now, show me where logic and careful analysis is being used to sway public opinion.

I'll wait...

You need to get up to speed on this, the very same arguments that started in the 1980s against both drunk driving and smoking are being used now against firearms.

cjm
02-19-2013, 12:56 PM
Open container laws also have some unintended consequences. When you're done with work for the day and ready for that after-work beer, rather than grabbing a tall can and sipping it on the way home, the law encourages finishing a full beer before you even start your trip. Assuming it takes one beer to get home and the travel and consumption are pretty linear, when someone is half-way home he only has half a beer in him. When he starts the trip, he has only a sip. By preventing open containers more people are encouraged to go to a bar to "wait out the traffic" and have at least a full drink in them before they set out for home, or perhaps a two or three (that's human nature).

The argument will come back that no one needs to have a drink on the way home or before they set out for home, but the reality is no one needs to drive at 65 MPH either. If we all drove stone cold sober at 5MPH, traffic fatalities would be unheard of. The allowance of high-capacity speed zones like 55MPH is a statement that some level of risk is an acceptable trade-off for quality of life.