Gun Control

[dank69]

Originally Posted by Craig234

It's not treating everyone like a criminal.

Take driving tests to get a license. Why don't we not require them, assuming everyone can drive and knows the laws, and not treat them like they don't?

Simply because the devices have only been used for convicted drunk drivers doesn't mean that using them is 'treating the driver like a criminal'.

You have to pass a driving and written test to drive - to make sure you can at least to some standard.

The device further makes sure you are fit to drive. Fact is, with one in 75 drunk drivers reportedly caught, there are a lot of drunk drivers and we need protection. Ones who are NOT convicted criminals. It's simple common sense - a few seconds when you start your car, in order to prevent a lot of drunk drivers from killing you.

I don't understand the mentality of making trivial things the basis of hyperbolic complaints about their being big 'freedoms'.

The right to criticize the government, of free association, of supporting political causes, of freedom of movement, freedom from police abuse, and others, those are real freedoms.

But what we hear about in these complaints of the 'tyranny' we're under are having to use more environmentally friendly light bulbs, wear a seat belt, take a few seconds to start a car. Last night, the Jon Stewart had a serious Texan couple saying they wanted to secede because of this tyranny, citing as their #1 example the right to text while driving.

It really trivializes the discussion of 'freedom' and to melodramatically play the 'people who have been killed in war for freedom' card over this type of thing?

Do you want to get rid of stop signs and traffic signals and speed limits as infringements on your freedoms, too? Why not?

Is it more important to have the 'freedom' to drive drunk without a device stopping you or the 'freedom' to travel on the road and not be at so much danger from drunk drivers?

Thousands and thousands of people a year are killed by drunk drivers, many more injured. The tradeoff seems clear to me that a few seconds to start the care is a low cost.

I understand your argument entirely, and I believe a case can be made for these devices in all cars. I also believe that they may be standard in all cars at some point. It does make a lot of sense and it is very difficult, if not impossible, to back any argument claiming that these devices restrict freedom. It is already illegal to drive drunk.

I will say this, though: I worry when I see people utter the bolded phrase above. Protection is nice, but we can't be protected from everything. I prefer the phrase "protection is justified in this case."

[Craig234]

Originally Posted by dank69

I understand your argument entirely, and I believe a case can be made for these devices in all cars. I also believe that they may be standard in all cars at some point. It does make a lot of sense and it is very difficult, if not impossible, to back any argument claiming that these devices restrict freedom. It is already illegal to drive drunk.

I will say this, though: I worry when I see people utter the bolded phrase above. Protection is nice, but we can't be protected from everything. I prefer the phrase "protection is justified in this case."

I agree. And I will moderate the phrase you bolded, that while we need protection from drunk drivers, I mean we need protection that does not excessively infringe freedoms.

What I meant by the phrase - see the preceding language only 1 in 75 are caught - was that the existing things like a license do not solve the problem of the danger.

[Charles Kozierok]

Originally Posted by dank69

I understand your argument entirely, and I believe a case can be made for these devices in all cars. I also believe that they may be standard in all cars at some point. It does make a lot of sense and it is very difficult, if not impossible, to back any argument claiming that these devices restrict freedom. It is already illegal to drive drunk.

Okay, how does that argument not also apply to speed regulators?

[Craig234]

Originally Posted by Charles Kozierok

Okay, how does that argument not also apply to speed regulators?

I don't have a firm position on the issue, but I'm more reluctant on speed regulators for a few reasons, one of which is the relative problem needing to be solved, and another is the larger list of times when you might need to drive really fast - admittedly rare, but they do exist. Driving on the Autobahn is just one, if rare, example (done that. In the dark. In heavy rain. At like 100 mph. Yes, that's very scary).

It's not the obvious tradeoff a few seconds for alcohol is for me. But note: we do have speed regulators on some cars already - they're just generally absurdly high.

I think there is a possibility, though, that you might be right that the benefits of stronger speed regulators outweigh the infringmenent. I could use 'expert input' on the benefits.

Then again, when I was under 10, I used to think that creating cars that drove automatically and safely could be a great safety benefit - and now we have them invented.

[Charles Kozierok]

Originally Posted by Craig234

I don't have a firm position on the issue, but I'm more reluctant on speed regulators for a few reasons, one of which is the relative problem needing to be solved, and another is the larger list of times when you might need to drive really fast - admittedly rare, but they do exist. Driving on the Autobahn is just one, if rare, example (done that. In the dark. In heavy rain. At like 100 mph. Yes, that's very scary).

I'm being Americentric, as usual. Germany can have its own rules.

And there are practical arguments against breathalyzer lockouts:

1. They can be defeated
2. They aren't always reliable.
3. They could stop someone who has had a small amount of alcohol but would be fine to drive from doing so.
4. They'd be a major, unnecessary pain in the ass for people who don't drink.

In contrast, a speed regulator set to, say 10 mph over the highest speed limit in the country, would really inconvenience nobody except for the lunatics who dangerously race down the interstates. It could even be set on a state-by-state basis.

While we're at it, why are speed detector detectors allowed in this country? Has to be the definition of a product whose ONLY use is law-breaking.

[dank69]

Originally Posted by Charles Kozierok

Okay, how does that argument not also apply to speed regulators?

I think that deserves its own thread. I'll be happy to baffle you with all my extreme thoughts on speeding and other traffic laws in such a thread.

[Craig234]

Originally Posted by Charles Kozierok

I'm being Americentric, as usual. Germany can have its own rules.

And there are practical arguments against breathalyzer lockouts:

1. They can be defeated

That's the same tired 'it isn't PERFECT so it's TOTALLY USELESS argument as with the gun and other issues, that is fallacious. How much will they REDUCE drunk driving?

2. They aren't always reliable.

See above.

3. They could stop someone who has had a small amount of alcohol but would be fine to drive from doing so.

No, they are not boolean. They measure an amount. At least they can.

4. They'd be a major, unnecessary pain in the ass for people who don't drink.

One second. I have to make a major trip to the sink to lift the majorly heavy glass and make the major effort to turn on the water for a drink.

A few seconds to start your car in order to greatly reduce the risk of getting killed, I don't call a "major.. pain".

Seat belt 'major pain'. Keeping the car maintained n safe condition 'major pain'. Pulling over to talk on the cell phone 'major pain'. Stopping at stop signs 'major pain'.

And the word 'unnecessary' is wrong. It IS necessary to get the benefit of everyone being protected, which is the question we're discussing.

Unless you have some "practical" way to get non-drinkers to sign a promise that they'll all keep and get exempted.

In contrast, a speed regulator set to, say 10 mph over the highest speed limit in the country, would really inconvenience nobody except for the lunatics who dangerously race down the interstates. It could even be set on a state-by-state basis.

While we're at it, why are speed detector detectors allowed in this country? Has to be the definition of a product whose ONLY use is law-breaking.

I stand by my previous comments that I'll consider the speed regulators - and I agree with you on the radar detectors. Ban them.

But radar detectors have a lot of the same issues as handguns.

Aren't they a state and not a federal issue? If not all states ban them aren't they easy to get in the states where they are sold and take them to states they aren't?

What about the millions already sold?

[Charles Kozierok]

Originally Posted by Craig234

That's the same tired 'it isn't PERFECT so it's TOTALLY USELESS argument as with the gun and other issues, that is fallacious. How much will they REDUCE drunk driving?

This is a straw man. I never said that because it wasn't perfect that it was useless.

You made this comment: "It's not the obvious tradeoff a few seconds for alcohol is for me."

IMO, that presents breathalyzers as some sort of no-brainer that any reasonable person would have no problem with. So, I felt it relevant to point out some of the potential legitimate objections.

Originally Posted by Craig234

A few seconds to start your car in order to greatly reduce the risk of getting killed, I don't call a "major.. pain".

People who never drink but are forced to deal with stupid breathalyzers every time they want to start their cars WILL find it a major pain in the ass.

I occasionally go on photography trips. These can involve starting and stopping the car's engine dozens of times a day. I never drink, and I would not enjoy having to breathe into a device every single time.

Originally Posted by Craig234

Seat belt 'major pain'.

Yes, major pain for many. Which is why some still don't use them.

A good argument could be made that seat belts shouldn't even be mandatory.

But it's a nonsensical analogy. Wearing seat belts improves survivability for everyone. Breathalyzer lockouts are only relevant to drinkers.

Originally Posted by Craig234

Keeping the car maintained n safe condition 'major pain'.

Ditto. All cars need maintenance.

Originally Posted by Craig234

Pulling over to talk on the cell phone 'major pain'.

Ditto. All people who talk on the cell phone while driving have the potential to be distracted.

Originally Posted by Craig234

Stopping at stop signs 'major pain'.

Ditto, and frankly, bordering on the insulting.

If you want to use analogies, use rational ones. Stop signs are not in any way, shape or form comparable to breathalyzer lockouts. I can't believe I even had to write that.

Originally Posted by Craig234

And the word 'unnecessary' is wrong. It IS necessary to get the benefit of everyone being protected, which is the question we're discussing.

They are only necessary for people who drink.

Originally Posted by Craig234

Unless you have some "practical" way to get non-drinkers to sign a promise that they'll all keep and get exempted.

I don't. I said it was a pain in the ass. Whether it is worth imposing on people or not doesn't change it being a pain in the ass.

[Craig234]

Originally Posted by Charles Kozierok

This is a straw man. I never said that because it wasn't perfect that it was useless.

You made this comment: "It's not the obvious tradeoff a few seconds for alcohol is for me."

IMO, that presents breathalyzers as some sort of no-brainer that any reasonable person would have no problem with. So, I felt it relevant to point out some of the potential legitimate objections.

I never said the detector can never be beaten - but it's not exactly an argument against it that it's not perfect. It's relevant to note in weighing its benefit, but not a 'bad' thing.

That's like saying that flu shots that catch 80% of the flu viruses have a 'downside' arguing against taking that they miss some.

It's not a downside - just something to note about the aount of benefit.

How many drunk drivers would defeat them? A very important question you don't answer. IMO, the number is very low.

My saying it's an 'obvious tradeoff' doesn't mean there isn't ANY argument against it.

People who never drink but are forced to deal with stupid breathalyzers every time they want to start their cars WILL find it a major pain in the ass.

I think people call that '#firstworldproblems'. It's not a MAJOR pain in the ass. A major pain in the ass is getting hit by a drunk driver.

Matter of opinion, but man is it a MAJOR pain in the ass having to use a light switch just to turn on the light. Sheesh, the tyranny.

I occasionally go on photography trips. These can involve starting and stopping the car's engine dozens of times a day. I never drink, and I would not enjoy having to breathe into a device every single time.

You have to put on your seat belt each time also. A major pain in the ass obviously.

A good argument could be made that seat belts shouldn't even be mandatory.

A bad argument can be made for that, not a good one.

But it's a nonsensical analogy. Wearing seat belts improves survivability for everyone. Breathalyzer lockouts are only relevant to drinkers.

Your logic is wrong. Because there's no way to have 'only' people who are drunk use the device and gain the protection against (nearly) all drunk drivers, everyone IS protected.

Your logic is like saying that gun searches at airports are a bad idea, because people who don't have guns have to be inconvenienced.

No, EVERYONE benefits from the increase in safety, and everyone has to go through them because we don't know how to only do them on people with guns.

Ditto, and frankly, bordering on the insulting.

The only reason you find it 'bordering on the insulting' is because the flaw in your arguing is painful to look at for you.

You're the one being hyperbolic about a few seconds when you start your car baing a "major pain", so facetiously using the same language about your having to stop at a stop sign is a very appropriate illustration to you of the abuse of the word 'major' you are committing as you selectively apply it to something to tiny.

If you'd care to explain to my why all the stops at stop signs and traffic signals aren't just as much of a "major pain" on a trip as one use of a device when you start the car, ok.

My point is that neither is a "major pain" and both are minor inconveniences that are justified by the benefit in safety.

I'm not saying they're 'the same' - just that both are correctly described by that.

If you want to use analogies, use rational ones. Stop signs are not in any way, shape or form comparable to breathalyzer lockouts. I can't believe I even had to write that.

Yes, they are.

Both take a matte of seconds.

Both are laws you are required to follow, minorly restricting your 'freedom'.

Both are for the purpose of increased traffic safety.

They can be compared on all those issues that matter in whether to have them.

They differ in irrelevant ways. Stop signs affect a lot of 'threats', while a small percentage of cars have drunk drivers. One uses the foot, one uses the mouth. Etc.

They are only necessary for people who drink.

As I explained above with gun searches, they are NOT necessary, 'only for people who drink', because to catch those who are drunk, we have to test everyone.

Go invent the device that can catch all the drunk people and not test 'non-drinkers'.

I don't. I said it was a pain in the ass. Whether it is worth imposing on people or not doesn't change it being a pain in the ass.

You're misrepresenting our discussion.

You did not say they are a pain in the ass. I did not object to you saying they are a pain in the ass.

You said they are a "major, unnecessary pain in the ass". My objection was to the word "unnecessary" and I explained why they ARE necessary for non-drinkers.

In your response you completely ignored my point, and you selectively quoted yourself to omit the relevant word "unnecessary" that was the entire point of the exchange.

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally Posted by Craig234

I don't have a firm position on the issue, but I'm more reluctant on speed regulators for a few reasons, one of which is the relative problem needing to be solved, and another is the larger list of times when you might need to drive really fast - admittedly rare, but they do exist. Driving on the Autobahn is just one, if rare, example (done that. In the dark. In heavy rain. At like 100 mph. Yes, that's very scary).

But the Autobahn is largely unrestricted as far as speed is concerned and cars sold in Germany are electronically limited to 155 mph by law. There are no roads in America with unrestricted speed limits anymore are there (I seem to recall Montana overturning their unrestricted speed roads)? The maximum speed limit doesn't go above 85. Despite this, there are no electronic restrictions on how fast a car may physically go in America. So even though Germany has roads that let you drive as fast as you please, they make sure you're never getting above a limit they've determined as the absolute maximum speed a car should be allowed to go. It's strange that we don't have something similar in America with our greatly reduced speed limits.

[Charles Kozierok]

Originally Posted by Craig234

I never said the detector can never be beaten - but it's not exactly an argument against it that it's not perfect. It's relevant to note in weighing its benefit, but not a 'bad' thing.

That was my only real point, that it needed to be weighed in to the discussion.

Originally Posted by Craig234

Matter of opinion, but man is it a MAJOR pain in the ass having to use a light switch just to turn on the light. Sheesh, the tyranny.

This sort of sarcasm is unproductive and not really appropriate for this room.

Originally Posted by Craig234

Your logic is wrong. Because there's no way to have 'only' people who are drunk use the device and gain the protection against (nearly) all drunk drivers, everyone IS protected.

That is true. The problem is the perception that this particular solution requires inconvenience and extra costs for everyone because of the actions of a few. As such, it compares unfavorably to alternatives such as only requiring them for cars owned by those convicted of DUI.

Originally Posted by Craig234

The only reason you find it 'bordering on the insulting' is because the flaw in your arguing is painful to look at for you.

No, I find it bordering on the insulting because stop signs are a basic requirement for traffic flow, and breathalyzer interlocks are not.

Originally Posted by Craig234

You're the one being hyperbolic about a few seconds when you start your car baing a "major pain", so facetiously using the same language about your having to stop at a stop sign is a very appropriate illustration to you of the abuse of the word 'major' you are committing as you selectively apply it to something to tiny.

I'm entitled to my opinion on whether that would be a pain or not. I guarantee you that many people would agree with me on that.

Not one person would argue against stopping at stop signs. Your "facetiousness" is not constructive.

Originally Posted by Craig234

If you'd care to explain to my why all the stops at stop signs and traffic signals aren't just as much of a "major pain" on a trip as one use of a device when you start the car, ok.

Stop signs *are* a pain in the ass. But without them, safe traffic flow is impossible. There are no alternatives to having traffic flow. There are alternatives to forcing everyone to use breathalyzers because of a small percentage of people who need them.

Originally Posted by Craig234

Stop signs affect a lot of 'threats', while a small percentage of cars have drunk drivers.

Stop signs and lights don't "affect threats". They are the only thing that makes safe travel even possible.

I'm not wasting any more time on this nonsense.

Originally Posted by Craig234

You said they are a "major, unnecessary pain in the ass". My objection was to the word "unnecessary" and I explained why they ARE necessary for non-drinkers.

If they were "necessary", we wouldn't be able to travel without them.

We can.

They would save lives at the cost of hassle. Whether that tradeoff is worthwhile is a matter of opinion, especially given more reasonable options such as requiring them only for those who have committed DUIs.

[Craig234]

Originally Posted by Charles Kozierok

That was my only real point, that it needed to be weighed in to the discussion.

OK, so let's include the factor that probaly under 1% of drunk drivers will defeat it.

This sort of sarcasm is unproductive and not really appropriate for this room.

It seems the appropriate way to make the point that in discussing saving several times the lives lost in 9/11 every year - for which we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars and other costs - taking a few seconds to start your car is called a "major pain". But if you prefer I say instead that it's an attack on the English language depriving the phrase 'major inconvenience' of meaning with its hyperbole, I can rephrase to that.

But my point was not entirely sarcastic - it was quite literally accurate. It sounded sarcastic because the absuridity of the language is exposed applied to another topic.

That is true. The problem is the perception that this particular solution requires inconvenience and extra costs for everyone because of the actions of a few. As such, it compares unfavorably to alternatives such as only requiring them for cars owned by those convicted of DUI.

No, it 'doesn't compare quite unfavorably'. Given one in 75 drunk drivers caught, your solution provides 1/75 the protection of mine. You appear to want to equate them.

No, I find it bordering on the insulting because stop signs are a basic requirement for traffic flow, and breathalyzer interlocks are not.

Traffic signs are often hugely inefficient - how many times do you have to stop at a clear intersection with no traffic?

Stop signs could be replaced for one example with a rule, 'stop if safety requires'. It'd be more convenient; and less safe.

Traffic signs are needed for an increase in safety over the alternatives.

Alcohol devices are needed for an increase in safety over not having them.

There's no insult intended - it's illustrating a point that's quite valid.

I'm entitled to my opinion on whether that would be a pain or not. I guarantee you that many people would agree with me on that.

Not one person would argue against stopping at stop signs. Your "facetiousness" is not constructive.

Popular opinion is not the only issue. As I said in another post, inter-racial marriage has 96% support, but not that long ago had 4% support.

Just because an opinion isn't widely held, there are things like the rational issue to discuss for the position. As I said above, you are overestimating the 'facetiousness'.

Stop signs *are* a pain in the ass. But without them, safe traffic flow is impossible. There are no alternatives to having traffic flow. There are alternatives to forcing everyone to use breathalyzers because of a small percentage of people who need them.

'Safe' is a relative word. How many lives would be lost if they were replaced with a rule to 'stop if required for safety'? How many lives are lost to drunk drivers?

You want to try to make this Boolean; it's not. Neither these nor other examples are black and white, 'without it the world ends'. They're all options with costs and benefits.

Stop signs and lights don't "affect threats". They are the only thing that makes safe travel even possible.

I'm not wasting any more time on this nonsense.

And currently, short of an effective ban an alcohol that seems impossible and undesirable, these devices seem the only way to make the roads much safer from drunk drivers.

If they were "necessary", we wouldn't be able to travel without them.

We can.

They would save lives at the cost of hassle. Whether that tradeoff is worthwhile is a matter of opinion, especially given more reasonable options such as requiring them only for those who have committed DUIs.

Yes, that's a very 'reasonable' position, to get 1/75 of the benefit in a policy already in place leaving us with many thousands of lives lost annualy.

You know, it was a 'reasonable' position not to have seat belts required in cars for decades, when the lives lost annually were far higher than they are now.

[Craig234]

Originally Posted by Atomic Playboy

But the Autobahn is largely unrestricted as far as speed is concerned and cars sold in Germany are electronically limited to 155 mph by law. There are no roads in America with unrestricted speed limits anymore are there (I seem to recall Montana overturning their unrestricted speed roads)? The maximum speed limit doesn't go above 85. Despite this, there are no electronic restrictions on how fast a car may physically go in America. So even though Germany has roads that let you drive as fast as you please, they make sure you're never getting above a limit they've determined as the absolute maximum speed a car should be allowed to go. It's strange that we don't have something similar in America with our greatly reduced speed limits.

I agree with your comments. Mainly I'm trying to think if there might be more times to justify allowing the cars to go very fast before putting my name on another restriction.

We do have race tracks where people can drive their own cars really fast, so again like guns, we have the 'sporting defense'.

There's the 'pregnant wife to the hospital' cliche, but I've never been a big fan, getting killed on the drive isn't a good idea.

So, I'm leaning towards agreeing that limiting cars' speed might be justified - especially looking at all the carnage from high speed chases.

[Charles Kozierok]

Originally Posted by Craig234

But if you prefer I say instead that it's an attack on the English language depriving the phrase 'major inconvenience' of meaning with its hyperbole, I can rephrase to that.

I prefer that you attempt to make your points without the condescending attitude.

If you want to argue that breathalyzers are not so much of an annoyance that we shouldn't put them on all cars, fine. Comparing that to turning on light switches is either sarcasm or just plain nonsense.

Originally Posted by Craig234

But my point was not entirely sarcastic - it was quite literally accurate. It sounded sarcastic because the absuridity of the language is exposed applied to another topic.

No, it sounded sarcastic because it WAS sarcastic, both in language and style: "Matter of opinion, but man is it a MAJOR pain in the ass having to use a light switch just to turn on the light. Sheesh, the tyranny."

The entire point of that was to try to make fun of my argument. If you think affixing the phrase "Sheesh, the tyranny" to the end of a sentence doesn't constitute sarcasm, then you should work on your own language before you deal with mine.

Originally Posted by Craig234

No, it 'doesn't compare quite unfavorably'. Given one in 75 drunk drivers caught, your solution provides 1/75 the protection of mine. You appear to want to equate them.

Where did that number come from?

Originally Posted by Craig234

Traffic signs are often hugely inefficient - how many times do you have to stop at a clear intersection with no traffic?

Stop signs could be replaced for one example with a rule, 'stop if safety requires'. It'd be more convenient; and less safe.

They're called "Yield" signs. And they are used in many places.

But you're going off on a side tangent, because the point is that some sort of sign is necessary for traffic control, and that is something entirely different from a mechanism put on a car.

That mechanism could certainly save lives, but traffic flow is entirely impossible without signs.

You can see the poll I started. If you want, start one asking people if they think it would be a good idea to get rid of traffic signs, and see what the response is.

Originally Posted by Craig234

Popular opinion is not the only issue. As I said in another post, inter-racial marriage has 96% support, but not that long ago had 4% support.

I don't think I have ever encountered an individual who uses analogies so often -- and so consistently poorly. Maybe 10% of your analogies actually make any sense.

This one is so utterly absurd I'm not even bothering with the rest of your post.

[blankslate]

Originally Posted by dank69

Yes, it absolutely does. You can argue about the degree but people will no longer be free to do something they once could do. This is a restriction of freedom no matter how small you may think it is.

Granted there is a loss of freedom. But how much of a loss of freedom is it to not be able to walk around with 30 round magazines for your pistol vs. having a particular weapon banned? Compared to actually having a weapon or a broad category of weapons banned from further sale, it definitely seems rather small.

Now someone may say that limiting a magazine to up to 20 for a pistol or 30 for a rifle is somehow onerous... is it really? Does it limit a person's freedom to practice with a particular firearm and become proficient with it?

People practice and shoot with revolvers, which are seeing a bit of a resurgance in popularity with some enthusiasts. They don't need to have 15-20 shots before reloading to get sufficient target practice.
Unless we're talking about an smaller calibers, that a lot of experts would consider unsuitable for defense, a revolver limits a shooter to about 8 rounds max and typically 6.

Originally Posted by dank69

I don't equate rights with freedoms and "having the 2nd ammendment" doesn't somehow make up for a loss of freedom. I am not even entirely sold on the "fighting words" exception to freedom of speech, either.

Good, because the right to bear arms probably wasn't conceieved of with the ability to fire 30 rounds from a pistol in a short amount of time. A right to something shouldn't be expanded into freedoms if those freedoms can easily infringe on other peoples' rights.

I really don't see how not being able to fire more than 20 rounds from a pistol before reloading is somehow an onerous limit on a person's freedom.
Explain how that is.
I doubt anyone can without bringing up "fun / sport" (which has been limited quite a lot in other areas) or bringing up Rambo-esque hypotheticals that are almost as or more unlikely than the odds of being struck by lightning.

Originally Posted by dank69

When I inject the "save one life" idea into the conversation is is an attempt to break the IMO misguided belief that there is nothing more sacred than life, and with this being a tech forum, using video games is the most effective way to drive that point home.

It's still a rather fallacious example because, the "potential" harm a video game can cause isn't immediate and requires that the person (if one follows and accepts the usual line of reasoning) corrupted by video games actually obtains a weapon of some sort.
That's probably not going to change unless somehow DVD or other media that games typically are stored on suddenly become extremely deadly objects in an average persons hands.