Should drunk driving (even when it ends safely) have harsher penalties?

[waggy]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: waggy
Actually FLOT is correct.

with the limit on getting a DUI being so low the police can a nail anyone who has had a drink or two.
heck it was even proven that some mouthwash will give a .5 bac.


I do agree we need much stiffer penalties on DUI. BUT lets have some realistic limits.

That's a bunch of bull. Mouthwash will NOT give someone a .5 bac. (or even a .05, unless you drink half the bottle) I'd like to see where it was "proven" because I've seen it shown time and time again that it will not. (nor will chewing gum, etc. lower the alcohol content. )


Anyway, I really don't care what other people do to themselves... they can all get drunk and drive over a cliff as far as I'm concerned. But, I AM concerned about any potential harm they may cause me or those that I care about. When you get behind the wheel of a car, you're piloting a lethal weapon down the road. It's your responsibility to be able to do so safely. Personally, I drink responsibly.
Also, I question that 2 drink thing... What do you guys all weigh? 80 pounds? 2 beers, or 2 mixed drinks is not going to push you over the legal limit, unless 100% of it entered your bloodstream immediately and 0% of it was removed by your liver.

well if you don't think 2 drinks will give you a .5 you are mistaken. play around at

here and you will be suprised. it has for my weight 140lbs 3 drinks in 1 hour gives me .5 wich is the limit.

I do seem to remember some show showeing that mouth wash will give you a bac limit of .5 or higher. wish i could remember the show or find a link.

 

[KLin]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Deeko
I didn't read the thread cuz I'm lazy.

I think in 2 situations, no it shouldn't be.

1) Low alcohol content. Currently the DUI level is .08, which really is really pretty low. Have a scale, where if you're over .15 you get a harsher penality
2) 1st offense with no one else involved.

I can tell you, I got a DUI with a .12 level, no cars were involved but my own. I learned my lesson and will certainly never EVER do it again. Do I deserve to go to jail for a year and pay $100000 dollars? I don't think so. I know a LOT of people who drink a lot more than I'd had, and drive on a regular basis. I just happened to be unlucky enough that the FIRST time I'd ever done it, without being extrodinarily drunk, was the time I got caught for it. Does that mean I deserve to never drive again? I say no.

Then by taking no action (either taking their keys or calling the police) I would consider you accessory to murder should they ever kill anyone. I have gone so far as to drive a good friend into the ground and leave him handcuffed to a bike rack to keep him from driving, and I've frequently called the police, even on my own sister AND my wife (now ex, then wife). Then again, I always offer to drive them home, or help them, only as a last resort intervening.

I will not thru my actions, nor allow thru my inaction, someone to harm an innocent.

I'll say it again; if you drive after drinking, it's premeditated attempted murder and I will FOREVER treat it as such.

I think calling it premeditated attempted murder is a little stretch. I doubt anyone gets into their car when they're drunk and thinks "I Think I'll kill someone with my car before I go home". But other than that I agree with you. Driving drunk is stupid, and is breaking the law. If you make it home, you lucked out.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I am allowed, by both state and federal law, to defend myself against harm visited by another. I can, in fact, use DEADLY FORCE to prevent such harm, or even to simply prevent a felony commited in my presence.

Drinking, then driving, IS ABSOLUTELY PURPOSEFULLY RISKING HARM TO OTHERS. You CAN NOT ARGUE THAT. There is no one on the planet that does not understand that fact. Given that, it qualifies, under legal terminology, as premeditation to do harm, or at the very least, negligence. If I was walking down the street drunk, and waving my gun around, every one of you on this board would DEMAND I never be allowed to touch a gun again. Hypocrisy, it's what's for dinner.

yeap you are allowed to defend yourself. But you are NOT allowed to use deadly force unless it is a last resort.

IF you think you can do what you say you are sadly mistaken. all you are doing is trying to show how big of a man you are. Sadly it just makes you look like a child.

But go ahead and keep stroking yourself. just don't get upset when people laugh at you.

I don't argue that I'd get off, only that MORALLY it's the right thing to do (by my definitions, not necessarily yours (but then again your morality might allow child sodomy too)). I CAN do what I say, I just have to be willing to accept the consequences of my actions, which I am.

The ones trying to prove what a 'big man' they are are the freaking ignorant inbred self-centered bastards that threaten the lives of my child and myself by getting drunk and driving, demandning all the while that "they'll do as they damn well please" or "they were in control" or any other such lame excuse. Again, in any other case of premeditated attempt to harm someone with a deadly weapon, most people here would be shouting 'string em up', but america is so blinded by this 'they'll never take my god given right to drive a car' mentality, that people refuse to see it.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: flot
GagHalfrunt> You're an idiot
remagavon> You are a dumbass

Are either of you old enough to drink? Have you not been to a bar? For god's sake, did you go to college?

I'd love to know what sort of rainbow colored world you people live in.

I am not supporting drinking and driving.

I'm trying to explain that if you were to be out in public right now (11:50 on a sat night?) you would be having near death encounters on the road with dozens of people who were "over the legal limit."

You could tell, because THEY'D BE THE PEOPLE DRIVING AROUND AT 11:50 ON A SATURDAY NIGHT.

Where do you think they are all going to / coming from, work??? Church?? Lan parties??

Fvck you, retard. All's well and good until you start pulling out the name-calling.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: KLin

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Deeko
I didn't read the thread cuz I'm lazy.

I think in 2 situations, no it shouldn't be.

1) Low alcohol content. Currently the DUI level is .08, which really is really pretty low. Have a scale, where if you're over .15 you get a harsher penality
2) 1st offense with no one else involved.

I can tell you, I got a DUI with a .12 level, no cars were involved but my own. I learned my lesson and will certainly never EVER do it again. Do I deserve to go to jail for a year and pay $100000 dollars? I don't think so. I know a LOT of people who drink a lot more than I'd had, and drive on a regular basis. I just happened to be unlucky enough that the FIRST time I'd ever done it, without being extrodinarily drunk, was the time I got caught for it. Does that mean I deserve to never drive again? I say no.

Then by taking no action (either taking their keys or calling the police) I would consider you accessory to murder should they ever kill anyone. I have gone so far as to drive a good friend into the ground and leave him handcuffed to a bike rack to keep him from driving, and I've frequently called the police, even on my own sister AND my wife (now ex, then wife). Then again, I always offer to drive them home, or help them, only as a last resort intervening.

I will not thru my actions, nor allow thru my inaction, someone to harm an innocent.

I'll say it again; if you drive after drinking, it's premeditated attempted murder and I will FOREVER treat it as such.

I think calling it premeditated attempted murder is a little stretch. I doubt anyone gets into their car when they're drunk and thinks "I Think I'll kill someone with my car before I go home". But other than that I agree with you. Driving drunk is stupid, and is breaking the law. If you make it home, you lucked out.

Well, I guess to me it's about hypocrisy. I hear about people trying to sue gun owners for murder because they didn't lock them properly, or suits against tobacco companies for killing with cancer...and yet, for some reason, no one will accept the same theory when it comes to drunk driving.

Seriously, people are saying EVERYONE is responsible for premeditated murder, EXCEPT drunk drivers. Once it hits court, it's usually dropped to negligent homicide, but still, that's a big jump up from DUI to negligent homicide.

 

[DWW]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Deeko
I didn't read the thread cuz I'm lazy.

I think in 2 situations, no it shouldn't be.

1) Low alcohol content. Currently the DUI level is .08, which really is really pretty low. Have a scale, where if you're over .15 you get a harsher penality
2) 1st offense with no one else involved.

I can tell you, I got a DUI with a .12 level, no cars were involved but my own. I learned my lesson and will certainly never EVER do it again. Do I deserve to go to jail for a year and pay $100000 dollars? I don't think so. I know a LOT of people who drink a lot more than I'd had, and drive on a regular basis. I just happened to be unlucky enough that the FIRST time I'd ever done it, without being extrodinarily drunk, was the time I got caught for it. Does that mean I deserve to never drive again? I say no.

Then by taking no action (either taking their keys or calling the police) I would consider you accessory to murder should they ever kill anyone. I have gone so far as to drive a good friend into the ground and leave him handcuffed to a bike rack to keep him from driving, and I've frequently called the police, even on my own sister AND my wife (now ex, then wife). Then again, I always offer to drive them home, or help them, only as a last resort intervening.

I will not thru my actions, nor allow thru my inaction, someone to harm an innocent.

I'll say it again; if you drive after drinking, it's premeditated attempted murder and I will FOREVER treat it as such.

I'd say that is a little...different. Blaming someone for not stopping someone else? Is that like a good samaritan act? Personally I think the person who does the driving is wholly responsible. Why? Because no matter how drunk you are, you still know right from wrong up until the moment you pass out it just whether or not you want to listen to that or not.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: DWW

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Deeko
I didn't read the thread cuz I'm lazy.

I think in 2 situations, no it shouldn't be.

1) Low alcohol content. Currently the DUI level is .08, which really is really pretty low. Have a scale, where if you're over .15 you get a harsher penality
2) 1st offense with no one else involved.

I can tell you, I got a DUI with a .12 level, no cars were involved but my own. I learned my lesson and will certainly never EVER do it again. Do I deserve to go to jail for a year and pay $100000 dollars? I don't think so. I know a LOT of people who drink a lot more than I'd had, and drive on a regular basis. I just happened to be unlucky enough that the FIRST time I'd ever done it, without being extrodinarily drunk, was the time I got caught for it. Does that mean I deserve to never drive again? I say no.

Then by taking no action (either taking their keys or calling the police) I would consider you accessory to murder should they ever kill anyone. I have gone so far as to drive a good friend into the ground and leave him handcuffed to a bike rack to keep him from driving, and I've frequently called the police, even on my own sister AND my wife (now ex, then wife). Then again, I always offer to drive them home, or help them, only as a last resort intervening.

I will not thru my actions, nor allow thru my inaction, someone to harm an innocent.

I'll say it again; if you drive after drinking, it's premeditated attempted murder and I will FOREVER treat it as such.

I'd say that is a little...different. Blaming someone for not stopping someone else? Is that like a good samaritan act? Personally I think the person who does the driving is wholly responsible. Why? Because no matter how drunk you are, you still know right from wrong up until the moment you pass out it just whether or not you want to listen to that or not.

Actually I agree with you, but I eventually get pissed off listening to people who say "i was in a room with a guy who talked about raping his daughter" or "all my friends drink a fifth then drive" or any other crap like that. When people want to know what's wrong with the world today, there it is. Not only does everyone lack the personal responsibility NOT to do bad things, but everyone who DOES know better just sits around on their a$$es too lazy, or too apathetic to stop it. Hell, I'm not asking you to carry a gun and play sheriff, just carry a cell phone and call the police. You could very honestly save someone(s) life by doing so. If you don't have the ballz then call me, and I'll turn em in. Life is more important than anything else, and I'd do ANYTHING to protect it.

 

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: waggy
Actually FLOT is correct.

with the limit on getting a DUI being so low the police can a nail anyone who has had a drink or two.
heck it was even proven that some mouthwash will give a .5 bac.


I do agree we need much stiffer penalties on DUI. BUT lets have some realistic limits.

That's a bunch of bull. Mouthwash will NOT give someone a .5 bac. (or even a .05, unless you drink half the bottle) I'd like to see where it was "proven" because I've seen it shown time and time again that it will not. (nor will chewing gum, etc. lower the alcohol content. )


Anyway, I really don't care what other people do to themselves... they can all get drunk and drive over a cliff as far as I'm concerned. But, I AM concerned about any potential harm they may cause me or those that I care about. When you get behind the wheel of a car, you're piloting a lethal weapon down the road. It's your responsibility to be able to do so safely. Personally, I drink responsibly.
Also, I question that 2 drink thing... What do you guys all weigh? 80 pounds? 2 beers, or 2 mixed drinks is not going to push you over the legal limit, unless 100% of it entered your bloodstream immediately and 0% of it was removed by your liver.

well if you don't think 2 drinks will give you a .5 you are mistaken. play around at

here and you will be suprised. it has for my weight 140lbs 3 drinks in 1 hour gives me .5 wich is the limit.

I do seem to remember some show showeing that mouth wash will give you a bac limit of .5 or higher. wish i could remember the show or find a link.

at .5, you are dead.

 

[DAGTA]

Yes
There is absolutely no excuse for drunk driving. There are plenty of options available to avoid driving drunk. If you are too lazy/irresponsible to handle your drinking without driving, then you don't deserve your license.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: flot
NO.

NO.

NO.

Jesus. Why does everyone jump on this particular bandwagon??

Here's a little tip for you: Go to any popular bar on a friday or saturday night. Watch how many people have 2 or more drinks and then drive away. All of those people are likely "under the influence" under the current definitions.

You would propse to ruin the lives of every person who went to a bar, had two drinks, and drove home? (last I checked, the punishments for DUI are pretty severe as it is)

so when they dent their new SUV and kill a single mother in her escort. YES.

My Best friend is a Police officer and wow the stories he tells me...

your arguement stinks. Designated driver always worked when I was Bar hoppen age.

 

[TerryMathews]

I vote for the death penalty for DUI. First offense, too.

Of course, I'm a diehard Republican, and I also believe in the death penalty for (First offenses, mind you)
1. Rape
2. Murder
3. Kidnapping
4. Molestation
5. Torture
6. Shoplifting
7. Hit and Run
8. Vandalism
9. Larceny
10. Fraud
11. Telemarketing

I like to think of it less as execution and more as enforced Darwinism.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: waggy
Actually FLOT is correct.

with the limit on getting a DUI being so low the police can a nail anyone who has had a drink or two.
heck it was even proven that some mouthwash will give a .5 bac.


I do agree we need much stiffer penalties on DUI. BUT lets have some realistic limits.

That's a bunch of bull. Mouthwash will NOT give someone a .5 bac. (or even a .05, unless you drink half the bottle) I'd like to see where it was "proven" because I've seen it shown time and time again that it will not. (nor will chewing gum, etc. lower the alcohol content. )


Anyway, I really don't care what other people do to themselves... they can all get drunk and drive over a cliff as far as I'm concerned. But, I AM concerned about any potential harm they may cause me or those that I care about. When you get behind the wheel of a car, you're piloting a lethal weapon down the road. It's your responsibility to be able to do so safely. Personally, I drink responsibly.
Also, I question that 2 drink thing... What do you guys all weigh? 80 pounds? 2 beers, or 2 mixed drinks is not going to push you over the legal limit, unless 100% of it entered your bloodstream immediately and 0% of it was removed by your liver.

well if you don't think 2 drinks will give you a .5 you are mistaken. play around at

here and you will be suprised. it has for my weight 140lbs 3 drinks in 1 hour gives me .5 wich is the limit.

I do seem to remember some show showeing that mouth wash will give you a bac limit of .5 or higher. wish i could remember the show or find a link.

at .5, you are dead.

I noticed a 0 was missing, but decided to let it go. Actually, it is possible to live with .5. I've seen .54 at the hospital while working there. Lifelong drunks get insane content. .74 is the highest recorded at a US hospital, but I've read about .8x in other countries.

 

[Mill]

PrinceofWands == Insane freakshow that should NEVER EVER have a fvcking gun. What a lunatic. FWIW, DUIs should have stiffer penalties, but attempted murder, etc is absurd. How many people have driven while sleepy? /me raises hand. How many people have driven while stressed out, talking on the phone, changing a CD, pissed off, sad, etc. /me raises hand again. Fact is, any of those things, or a combination of those things can cause someone to be less responsive and a terrible driver behind the wheel. What are we doing about those things? Do we jail those that fell asleep and ran into a family of 6? Typically no. So why the discrepancy? I know what 0.8 feels like, and I know what complete and total lack of sleep(to the point of nodding off) feels like. There's no defending extreme DUI(.15 and above), but we do need to look at the other egregious offenders instead of just blaming drunks.

The lack of public transportation is what pisses me off, but you can't convince anyone around here to build it. They'd rather the city be full of freaking smog and crackhouses. Regardless, POW is a frickin lunatic who needs to be put down. I always think he/she is just another e-thug that is FOS. Finally, that number is predicated on alcohol being involved at all, and doesn't say anything about someone being drunk, or that even a driver was being drunk. I'm not sure of how they get their stats, so I could be wrong, but a few minutes of googling didn't reveal anything.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Mill
Regardless, POW is a frickin lunatic who needs to be put down. I always think he/she is just another e-thug that is FOS.

You're welcome to try. PM me for my address if you're feeling new levels of luck.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Mill
Regardless, POW is a frickin lunatic who needs to be put down. I always think he/she is just another e-thug that is FOS.

You're welcome to try. PM me for my address if you're feeling new levels of luck.

See. That was exactly my point. You're a hair trigger lunatic that now wants to fight someone that disagreed with them over the internet. Grow the fvck up. I do think you are FOS, but I'm not about to come meet you and play e-penis with you. Fvcking moron. :roll:

Oh you have a GUN, what a big bad fvcker you are. This is the exact reason why they should do a mental test before you can have a gun. You give gun owners a bad name you freaking satanic lunatic. Talking about shooting people if you caught them driving drunk. Freakshow.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Mill
Regardless, POW is a frickin lunatic who needs to be put down. I always think he/she is just another e-thug that is FOS.

You're welcome to try. PM me for my address if you're feeling new levels of luck.

See. That was exactly my point. You're a hair trigger lunatic that now wants to fight someone that disagreed with them over the internet. Grow the fvck up. I do think you are FOS, but I'm not about to come meet you and play e-penis with you. Fvcking moron. :roll:

Oh you have a GUN, what a big bad fvcker you are. This is the exact reason why they should do a mental test before you can have a gun. You give gun owners a bad name you freaking satanic lunatic. Talking about shooting people if you caught them driving drunk. Freakshow.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAAH. Oh come now, if I was a lunatic I'd hunt you down and kill you...all I did was post back a smart-a$$ retort (even following it with a smiley). If there were no guns, I'd still kill someone that crashed into me because they were drunk, I'd just use my bare hands. Why? Because they purposefully tried to kill me and my daughter by driving drunk. Period. You don't agree? Fine. I don't care. Just don't drive drunk and I won't ever have to kill you for it. See how easy that is? If you're willing to gamble on killing a family so you can get blitzed without a plan, you must also be willing to gamble on that other person not killing you for it. It makes us even.

Interestingly enough, I've had psych eval's my whole life. As part of my advanced placement screening in elementary school, in the military, post military for certain security jobs, during my divorce to prove my ex wrong, etc. All told I can count at least 5 full professional psychological screenings, not one of which shows any serious defects. How many have you had?

Where did the satanic reference come from anyway? Bet your a$$ is way more comfortable now without that stuffed up there waiting to come out.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Mill
Regardless, POW is a frickin lunatic who needs to be put down. I always think he/she is just another e-thug that is FOS.

You're welcome to try. PM me for my address if you're feeling new levels of luck.

See. That was exactly my point. You're a hair trigger lunatic that now wants to fight someone that disagreed with them over the internet. Grow the fvck up. I do think you are FOS, but I'm not about to come meet you and play e-penis with you. Fvcking moron. :roll:

Oh you have a GUN, what a big bad fvcker you are. This is the exact reason why they should do a mental test before you can have a gun. You give gun owners a bad name you freaking satanic lunatic. Talking about shooting people if you caught them driving drunk. Freakshow.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAAH. Oh come now, if I was a lunatic I'd hunt you down and kill you...all I did was post back a smart-a$$ retort (even following it with a smiley). If there were no guns, I'd still kill someone that crashed into me because they were drunk, I'd just use my bare hands. Why? Because they purposefully tried to kill me and my daughter by driving drunk. Period. You don't agree? Fine. I don't care. Just don't drive drunk and I won't ever have to kill you for it. See how easy that is? If you're willing to gamble on killing a family so you can get blitzed without a plan, you must also be willing to gamble on that other person not killing you for it. It makes us even.

Interestingly enough, I've had psych eval's my whole life. As part of my advanced placement screening in elementary school, in the military, post military for certain security jobs, during my divorce to prove my ex wrong, etc. All told I can count at least 5 full professional psychological screenings, not one of which shows any serious defects. How many have you had?

Where did the satanic reference come from anyway? Bet your a$$ is way more comfortable now without that stuffed up there waiting to come out.

I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you about your right to "kill" someone to driving drunk. You're a lunatic, and there isn't exactly anything stellar about having FIVE pysch evals. Honestly, you'd think one would be enough. I didn't ask you anything about your daughter, your military service, your divorce, or anything of that nature. I simply said you are a moron, a lunatic, and possibly a satanist(if not a myopic self-aggrandizing braggart) for suggesting that you had the right to kill someone for driving drunk. You know what bucko? I can think of one person who had complete responsibility for my father's death, but I can exactly go kill him over it. We have laws in this country, and not vigilantism. Either learn to deal or have fun in prison. The choice is yours. Freaking pyscho!

 

[Mill]

Yeah, you're not a pyscho... :roll:

You know, I'm so tired of the same blind devotees to both sides ignoring arguments from their opposition that I'm about ready to off the pres just to end all debate on him (no, really, that's my only reason, honest). If he ain't livin, he ain't causing grief in P&N.

You want to kill the president? There's more to the quote(including you talking about about the Secret Service). Let's see... your solution to life's problems are to kill or shoot people. Yeah talk about being REAL mentally stable there.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Mill
Regardless, POW is a frickin lunatic who needs to be put down. I always think he/she is just another e-thug that is FOS.

You're welcome to try. PM me for my address if you're feeling new levels of luck.

See. That was exactly my point. You're a hair trigger lunatic that now wants to fight someone that disagreed with them over the internet. Grow the fvck up. I do think you are FOS, but I'm not about to come meet you and play e-penis with you. Fvcking moron. :roll:

Oh you have a GUN, what a big bad fvcker you are. This is the exact reason why they should do a mental test before you can have a gun. You give gun owners a bad name you freaking satanic lunatic. Talking about shooting people if you caught them driving drunk. Freakshow.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAAH. Oh come now, if I was a lunatic I'd hunt you down and kill you...all I did was post back a smart-a$$ retort (even following it with a smiley). If there were no guns, I'd still kill someone that crashed into me because they were drunk, I'd just use my bare hands. Why? Because they purposefully tried to kill me and my daughter by driving drunk. Period. You don't agree? Fine. I don't care. Just don't drive drunk and I won't ever have to kill you for it. See how easy that is? If you're willing to gamble on killing a family so you can get blitzed without a plan, you must also be willing to gamble on that other person not killing you for it. It makes us even.

Interestingly enough, I've had psych eval's my whole life. As part of my advanced placement screening in elementary school, in the military, post military for certain security jobs, during my divorce to prove my ex wrong, etc. All told I can count at least 5 full professional psychological screenings, not one of which shows any serious defects. How many have you had?

Where did the satanic reference come from anyway? Bet your a$$ is way more comfortable now without that stuffed up there waiting to come out.

I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you about your right to "kill" someone to driving drunk. You're a lunatic, and there isn't exactly anything stellar about having FIVE pysch evals. Honestly, you'd think one would be enough. I didn't ask you anything about your daughter, your military service, your divorce, or anything of that nature. I simply said you are a moron, a lunatic, and possibly a satanist(if not a myopic self-aggrandizing braggart) for suggesting that you had the right to kill someone for driving drunk. You know what bucko? I can think of one person who had complete responsibility for my father's death, but I can exactly go kill him over it. We have laws in this country, and not vigilantism. Either learn to deal or have fun in prison. The choice is yours. Freaking pyscho!

Again, failing to see the satanic thing. Satanism has nothing to do with impulsive killing, it's just catholicism for the other side. Actually you can go kill him over it, you'd just likely go to jail for it. Many people would back you however.

To state that laws are the be-all is ridiculous...laws are as good or bad as those that make them. Furthermore, we have juries in this country that can be final arbitrators even over laws. In that way, the correct 12 peole could allow you to kill someone and get away with it. Not likely, but possible.

You are correct, however, in your last line. You can choose to live within an existing system, or not. It is entirely up to the individual. If someone has the right to drive drunk, thus threatening my daughters life, then I have an equal right to threaten his. If you're saying that he can break the law (against dui) but I can't, then I'd say there's some discrepancy...unless you're viewing it as a matter of degree only. Personally, I believe in everyone taking care of themselves. I don't do anything to threaten the safety of innocent people, and I expect them to do the same. If they don't, then I'll do whatever has to be done because frankly I know for a fact that our judicial system is incapable of correctly dealing with it.

 

[SportSC4]

I'm not going to answer this questions as is... but i do have a few questions and statements to think about.

According to the stats, out of 42,116 fatal collisions, 17,268 were alcohol related. That means that 24,848 fatal collisions were not alcohol related. If it is deemed necessary that dui/dwi penalties be severely increased then penalties involving speed (speed increases the liklehood of death but decreases the number of accidents) and anything else that can lead to death also be severely increased. Hit 100mph? 10,000$ in fines and 1 year probation. Driving with only 2 hours of sleep in the last 24 hours? 20,000$ in fines, mandatory 60 days jail and 3 years probation. You simply cannot argue one side and look the other way.

Also, their is a law of diminishing returns in terms of laws to prevent people from doing these things. Think of it as this way. I'm simplifying this but let's say a 1000$ dollar cd player will sound 10x better than a 100$ cd player. would a 10,000$ cd player sound better than a 1000$ cd player? No. that's the law of diminishing returns. If I could graph it out, it would be an S curve of some type.

my point is that the laws can be made to the point where they will kcuf up the person for the rest of their life but it will always still be a problem. the laws are meant to discourage those that might. has the death penalty reduced the number of murders in Texas?

POW... do you know why there are so many gun laws in the states now? It's because of people like you. You do NOT have the right to murder others as YOU see fit. So next time you complain about lawmakers making it harder to get a handgun, you only have yourself to blame.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: SportSC4

POW... do you know why there are so many gun laws in the states now? It's because of people like you. You do NOT have the right to murder others as YOU see fit. So next time you complain about lawmakers making it harder to get a handgun, you only have yourself to blame.

Doesn't bother me a bit. What I hate is pansy a$$ idiots that expect to be taken care of, then complain about being taxed into the ground. Drug abuse has always been a touchy subject around me anyway. But driving under the influence is really the same to me as planning to take my life. I honestly do not see any difference. Again, if I got drunk and waved my gun at your kid (or parent), you'd want me locked up for life. In fact, many people who carry a gun might just shoot me thinking that I MIGHT accidentally kill the other person, and there's a damn good chance they'd get off in court for it. I'm only talking about the same thing...people who are so selfish and stupid as to drink and drive would probably be willing to do it again. If, after being a crash with one, I'm capable of stopping them from ever harming someone else, I will. Sorry that upsets so many people, but I don't care. I'm only like this because I care so much about innocent people being destroyed by self-centered ignorant a$$holes.

I know many people believe that laws > justice etc. I don't. To me, there is only right and wrong and to me it's not wrong to stop someone who is wrong from doing other wrong things. They CHOOSE to threaten my life. They CHOOSE to risk killing innocents. As far as I'm concerned that removes their humanity...they are no longer people, they are soulless killers dedicated to hurting good people. I have no issues with removing them from an otherwise lovely little planet.

As for anti-gun legislation, it's moot. I'll continue to do what I choose, as will most gun enthusiasts (btw I'm not a gun enthusiast, I actually dislike them, but they're necessary atm) regardless of ignorant legislation (ie no one actually obeys laws that are wrong anyway - like magazine capacity, off limits carry and so on...all we do is create illusions to show law enforcement to get left alone until more reasonable rules are in place). Should there ever be a true ban, we'll revolt and kill everyone supporting it. Pretty simple really, either allow us our rights to defend ourselves, or you'd better pick up a weapon and try to stop us, because we WILL kill for our rights. Your only other option is to move far far away, because this country will NEVER disarm it's citizens.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Mill
Regardless, POW is a frickin lunatic who needs to be put down. I always think he/she is just another e-thug that is FOS.

You're welcome to try. PM me for my address if you're feeling new levels of luck.

See. That was exactly my point. You're a hair trigger lunatic that now wants to fight someone that disagreed with them over the internet. Grow the fvck up. I do think you are FOS, but I'm not about to come meet you and play e-penis with you. Fvcking moron. :roll:

Oh you have a GUN, what a big bad fvcker you are. This is the exact reason why they should do a mental test before you can have a gun. You give gun owners a bad name you freaking satanic lunatic. Talking about shooting people if you caught them driving drunk. Freakshow.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAAH. Oh come now, if I was a lunatic I'd hunt you down and kill you...all I did was post back a smart-a$$ retort (even following it with a smiley). If there were no guns, I'd still kill someone that crashed into me because they were drunk, I'd just use my bare hands. Why? Because they purposefully tried to kill me and my daughter by driving drunk. Period. You don't agree? Fine. I don't care. Just don't drive drunk and I won't ever have to kill you for it. See how easy that is? If you're willing to gamble on killing a family so you can get blitzed without a plan, you must also be willing to gamble on that other person not killing you for it. It makes us even.

Interestingly enough, I've had psych eval's my whole life. As part of my advanced placement screening in elementary school, in the military, post military for certain security jobs, during my divorce to prove my ex wrong, etc. All told I can count at least 5 full professional psychological screenings, not one of which shows any serious defects. How many have you had?

Where did the satanic reference come from anyway? Bet your a$$ is way more comfortable now without that stuffed up there waiting to come out.

You're a lunatic, and there isn't exactly anything stellar about having FIVE pysch evals. Honestly, you'd think one would be enough.

I just realized how UTTERLY stupid that sentence was, especially based on your argument that I was insane.

If you think the ability to do harm to other necessitates the need of an evaluation, than you have to believe that you need ongoing testing each time another situation like that arises. Psych profiling as part of intelligence testing, for access to sensitive material and extreme stress, to carry firearms among the public...these are not negative reasons to have psych evals...in fact, they're EXACTLY what you are asking for. But when I show you that I've had them, and passed them with flying colors, instead you want to infer that me doing many things that require testing for public safety makes ME somehow usntable. WTF??? Do you see the idiocy of your statement in this regard? It's not like I keep getting tested because I beat people up or anything, they're mostly REQUIREMENTS for the extreme responsibility that comes in my various jobs.

Sheesh.

 

[Mill]

POW - Let's lay out a few facts real quick. In this country you do NOT have the permission or right to be the final adjudicator or executioner. I see that you are myopic about this enough to start talking about Jury Nullification happening in a murder case. WRONG. So incredibly rare it isn't worth mentioning. This isn't some life or death situation you would be faced with. If you go and murder someone in cold-blood when your life is NOT endangered( don't try some semantical argument about the drunk having already endangered it) in that current time then you are a murderer. Your myopia doesn't extend to just your ignorance of the laws, our justice system, and your supreme arrogance, but it also extends to your child. How would your child be better off with you in jail? How is martyring yourself a prudent or responsible thing to do? Perhaps you are being hyperbolic, and I sincerely hope so, but so far you are sticking to your story.

You'd kill someone in cold-blood, screw your daughter over, and be the arbitrator of someone's life for what reason? So youcan feel like justice has been done? Have you ever drove while tired or preoccupied? You probably put people's lives at risk then. Fatigue related accidents are incredibly hard to estimate or even give a casually factual base guess. There's no odor and no way to prove it in most cases. That doesn't mean it isn't just as deadly. You seem to have this idea that your morality and ideas are superior to our culture and our system. Why are you living here if you think you are superior. I'm not going to get into a debate about the true meaning of "justice" but gunning someone down for driving intoxicated doesn't strike me as justice. Our system was setup to avoid such emotional, logic lacking moments of stupidity and ignorance. Obviously you feel you are better suited to dole out justice, but fortunately our Founding Fathers and our current laws disagree. Laws are there to balance vigilantism, justice, and rationality. While you might see gunning someone down as justice, a vast majority of society would disagree. This isn't a killing in which someone was breaking in your house and trying to stab you. Yes, they might have been breaking the law, but that doesn't give you the right to do the same.

Surf on over to Nizkor.org and figure out which fallacy that is. Your whole argument is based purely on fallacies and the idea that you are supreme to your fellow man. You are not supreme, and you are a totally myopic loser if you'd go to jail just to try to be a bad-ass. I'd like to see an explanation for why you'd so greatly hurt you daughter just to arbitrate justice. I have an idea that you didn't pass any of those psych tests. If anything you are a total bitch for advocating murder. If you are being hyperbolic then just say so... My own personal hyperbolic posts are frequently misinterpreted.

 

[Mill]

POW - You seem to think it is you and only you that gets to determine the righteousness of a situation. Perhaps you should understand the contract you have with society, and being an American citizen. Or perhaps you are just a lonely, pathetic, windbag that masquerades as a freakshow, gun-toting, asshole. I'm not sure which one, but suffice to say you are devoid or even a modicum of logic or understanding.

 

[IGBT]

.04 on the way for Calif.allready the law for transportation workers,safety sensitive workers and truck drivers. Get used to it. If you drive your a machine operator.