How government encourages drunk driving.

[phill4paul]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

.

We're all criminals now....

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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]

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]

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

Eh?

 

[bolil]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[tod evans]

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?:



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]

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?:



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]

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:

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-shoppin...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.