Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
KCitons

USA DUI Deaths (and how they relate to other things)

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

LOL.  KC talking to himself in here?

Is there something specifically funny about people dying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bumping this thread because I didn't want to post this in any of the other gun threads. I know how much my analogies make people angry. So, I will ask this question here.

We are seeing more and more mass shootings being prevented. There were 3 separate people arrested this weekend. Supposedly, all were plotting some type of deadly event. 

How is this any different than the things that police do to prevent drunk drivers? Things like check points prevent a dangerous situation from becoming deadly. They did it without banning alcohol. 

If we see more mass shootings prevented, are people still going to want gun bans? If so, why wouldn't you want alcohol bans? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, KCitons said:

Bumping this thread because I didn't want to post this in any of the other gun threads. I know how much my analogies make people angry. So, I will ask this question here.

We are seeing more and more mass shootings being prevented. There were 3 separate people arrested this weekend. Supposedly, all were plotting some type of deadly event. 

How is this any different than the things that police do to prevent drunk drivers? Things like check points prevent a dangerous situation from becoming deadly. They did it without banning alcohol. 

If we see more mass shootings prevented, are people still going to want gun bans? If so, why wouldn't you want alcohol bans? 

Preventing mass shooting is great, especially if it can be done without banning any kind of guns.  Not sure what banning alcohol has to do with this though?  Once again, not all that comparable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Preventing mass shooting is great, especially if it can be done without banning any kind of guns.  Not sure what banning alcohol has to do with this though?  Once again, not all that comparable.

The comparison was the point of my question. 

We don't feel the need to ban alcohol because we have a number of dui deaths that is either acceptable or in line with other countries. 

You just confirmed that we may not need to ban any guns. We've done very little from a proactive standpoint to educate on the dangers of guns, the way we do with alcohol, drugs, or even vaping. Vaping has been around for only  few years and the television is plastered with PSA's. Maybe if we had something that warned smaller kids not to touch a gun, if they find one, and to notify a grownup, we would have less accidental shootings. Maybe if we had more PSA's about the short window in which someone commits suicide would make a gun owner lock up their firearms. People say we are doing nothing in regards to gun regulation. But, really we haven't done some of the simplest things. I don't believe the NRA would stand in the way of PSA's that promote gun safety. What basis would they use to censor them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KCitons said:

The comparison was the point of my question. 

We don't feel the need to ban alcohol because we have a number of dui deaths that is either acceptable or in line with other countries. 

You just confirmed that we may not need to ban any guns. We've done very little from a proactive standpoint to educate on the dangers of guns, the way we do with alcohol, drugs, or even vaping. Vaping has been around for only  few years and the television is plastered with PSA's. Maybe if we had something that warned smaller kids not to touch a gun, if they find one, and to notify a grownup, we would have less accidental shootings. Maybe if we had more PSA's about the short window in which someone commits suicide would make a gun owner lock up their firearms. People say we are doing nothing in regards to gun regulation. But, really we haven't done some of the simplest things. I don't believe the NRA would stand in the way of PSA's that promote gun safety. What basis would they use to censor them?

The reason I say they are not comparable is because a gun is created to kill.  Alcohol occurs naturally and is meant to be consumed by individuals.  No one is going out and killing someone with alcohol.  Alcohol may be the reason for their actions but it is not what it is intended for.  No one is buying up a bunch of alcohol to go out and murder people.

The only relation the two have is that they can be involved in deaths.  If that's the only relation you're interested in then you might as well lump everything in the world that can be responsible for deaths.  This is why I don't think it's a very good comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

The reason I say they are not comparable is because a gun is created to kill.  Alcohol occurs naturally and is meant to be consumed by individuals.  No one is going out and killing someone with alcohol.  Alcohol may be the reason for their actions but it is not what it is intended for.  No one is buying up a bunch of alcohol to go out and murder people.

The only relation the two have is that they can be involved in deaths.  If that's the only relation you're interested in then you might as well lump everything in the world that can be responsible for deaths.  This is why I don't think it's a very good comparison.

We've discussed this a long time ago. What was the intent of lawn darts? We regulate or ban things because they are dangerous and cause the loss of human life. Why do I wear a seat belt? I'm not going to hurt anyone else if I get into a car accident? What about cigarettes? We allow people to continue to smoke, although not around other people, even though we know it will lead to health problems and possibly death. Is that their intent? 

The comparison is how/when the people of this country want the government to step in and fix things.

If alcohol occurs naturally, then we should ban the sale and distribution. We can consume only what occurs naturally. While we are at it, we can do the same with marijuana, cocaine and heroin. Those are all legal, correct?  You seem to want to ignore the long process between natural alcohol and that Bud Lite in your hand. 

I posted awhile back that all of the materials used to create a gun are found in nature as well. With the right process those materials can be turned into a gun. I can see the advertisements now. Remington, made of 100% local organic materials. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, KCitons said:

We've discussed this a long time ago. What was the intent of lawn darts? We regulate or ban things because they are dangerous and cause the loss of human life. Why do I wear a seat belt? I'm not going to hurt anyone else if I get into a car accident? What about cigarettes? We allow people to continue to smoke, although not around other people, even though we know it will lead to health problems and possibly death. Is that their intent? 

The comparison is how/when the people of this country want the government to step in and fix things.

If alcohol occurs naturally, then we should ban the sale and distribution. We can consume only what occurs naturally. While we are at it, we can do the same with marijuana, cocaine and heroin. Those are all legal, correct?  You seem to want to ignore the long process between natural alcohol and that Bud Lite in your hand. 

I posted awhile back that all of the materials used to create a gun are found in nature as well. With the right process those materials can be turned into a gun. I can see the advertisements now. Remington, made of 100% local organic materials. 

This is why I think this argument is a waste of time.  It's the same thing over and over again yet you continue to bring it up.  Alcohol has plenty of regulations.  It is not legal for someone to make their own alcohol and distribute it.  There are many laws centered around alcohol and consumption.  Alcohol was even banned completely at one time and it was a failure.  History has shown that a lot has been done with alcohol sales and consumption and there are actions being made all the time to try and lower deaths related to it.

This argument is tiring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

This is why I think this argument is a waste of time.  It's the same thing over and over again yet you continue to bring it up.  Alcohol has plenty of regulations.  It is not legal for someone to make their own alcohol and distribute it.  There are many laws centered around alcohol and consumption.  Alcohol was even banned completely at one time and it was a failure.  History has shown that a lot has been done with alcohol sales and consumption and there are actions being made all the time to try and lower deaths related to it.

This argument is tiring.

Here we go. I've stated facts that dispute your intent argument. So, now you're going to revert to "this argument is a waste of time" or "this argument is tiring". You did nothing to prove anything I said was false. Just that you don't agree. 

We are regulating guns, the same way we are regulating alcohol. What would the equivalent of an assault weapons ban in regards to alcohol? Banning kegs or 30 packs? 

Guns and alcohol have age restrictions. Guns and alcohol are prohibited from certain buildings. You can't shoot a gun out of a moving car, the same way you can't drink a beer while driving down the road. (but you can carry both in a car from point A to point B). 

FYI, it is legal for people to make their own alcohol. And I guarantee that people are distributing it. My Dad made his own wine since the 1970's and gave bottles as gifts for Christmas. I will agree that you can't sell alcohol. (if that's what you mean by distribute). But, technically you can't sell lemonade without proper permits. So, it's less about the red tape than it is about the ability to do so. 

DUI deaths have stagnated over the last half a decade. 10k people die every year. When we remove suicides and gang violence from the overall number of gun deaths, that means less people die from gun deaths than from dui deaths. And that doesn't account for all other alcohol related deaths and the cost of alcohol on society. It's about agenda and political talking points and not about saving lives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Here we go. I've stated facts that dispute your intent argument. So, now you're going to revert to "this argument is a waste of time" or "this argument is tiring". You did nothing to prove anything I said was false. Just that you don't agree. 

We are regulating guns, the same way we are regulating alcohol. What would the equivalent of an assault weapons ban in regards to alcohol? Banning kegs or 30 packs? 

Guns and alcohol have age restrictions. Guns and alcohol are prohibited from certain buildings. You can't shoot a gun out of a moving car, the same way you can't drink a beer while driving down the road. (but you can carry both in a car from point A to point B). 

FYI, it is legal for people to make their own alcohol. And I guarantee that people are distributing it. My Dad made his own wine since the 1970's and gave bottles as gifts for Christmas. I will agree that you can't sell alcohol. (if that's what you mean by distribute). But, technically you can't sell lemonade without proper permits. So, it's less about the red tape than it is about the ability to do so. 

DUI deaths have stagnated over the last half a decade. 10k people die every year. When we remove suicides and gang violence from the overall number of gun deaths, that means less people die from gun deaths than from dui deaths. And that doesn't account for all other alcohol related deaths and the cost of alcohol on society. It's about agenda and political talking points and not about saving lives. 

Who said anything about it being illegal to make your own alcohol?  It is legal in all 50 states to brew your own beer but there are regulations on how much and certain regulations can vary by state.  It is not legal to distill your own alcohol, which is why it's illegal to make moonshine.  It's illegal to sell your homemade brew.  In some states it's illegal for it to leave your house which means you can not distribute it to others.

I've stated numerous times why I think guns and alcohol are a bad comparison and that's why I said it's tiring.  I'm tired of repeating it and you don't think I'm providing you with good enough info so what's the point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Who said anything about it being illegal to make your own alcohol?  It is legal in all 50 states to brew your own beer but there are regulations on how much and certain regulations can vary by state.  It is not legal to distill your own alcohol, which is why it's illegal to make moonshine.  It's illegal to sell your homemade brew.  In some states it's illegal for it to leave your house which means you can not distribute it to others.

I've stated numerous times why I think guns and alcohol are a bad comparison and that's why I said it's tiring.  I'm tired of repeating it and you don't think I'm providing you with good enough info so what's the point?

 

1 hour ago, Hawkeye21 said:

This is why I think this argument is a waste of time.  It's the same thing over and over again yet you continue to bring it up.  Alcohol has plenty of regulations.  It is not legal for someone to make their own alcohol and distribute it.  There are many laws centered around alcohol and consumption.  Alcohol was even banned completely at one time and it was a failure.  History has shown that a lot has been done with alcohol sales and consumption and there are actions being made all the time to try and lower deaths related to it.

This argument is tiring.

How do you prevent someone form distributing it? I think you are confusing distribution and sales. You can't stop distribution, you can only build laws to punish it. When it comes to sales, they are not stopping that either. They just want to guarantee the government gets it's cut.  The government gets a cut from gun sales already. 

There are many laws centered around guns and use as well. Let's do a comparison. It's 2am, I am driving home drunk from a bar. I pass through a school zone where I am pulled over by police. I blow a .12.  Will I legally be able to drive after my punishment is served? Will I be able to buy booze the moment I walk out of jail? Scenario two, I am in a school zone at 2am and fire a handgun. I am caught by police. Will I legally be able to own another handgun?

What is the penalty for causing an accident while driving drunk? What is the penalty for shooting someone, but they don't die. 

You don't want to admit that we have gun laws. And in many cases, those laws are much stricter that things like alcohol. 

I suspect your next comments will be that this conversation isn't worth discussing and you will tell me to have a good day. Meanwhile, you've done nothing to prove your point. Or disprove facts that I've presented. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

 

How do you prevent someone form distributing it? I think you are confusing distribution and sales. You can't stop distribution, you can only build laws to punish it. When it comes to sales, they are not stopping that either. They just want to guarantee the government gets it's cut.  The government gets a cut from gun sales already. 

There are many laws centered around guns and use as well. Let's do a comparison. It's 2am, I am driving home drunk from a bar. I pass through a school zone where I am pulled over by police. I blow a .12.  Will I legally be able to drive after my punishment is served? Will I be able to buy booze the moment I walk out of jail? Scenario two, I am in a school zone at 2am and fire a handgun. I am caught by police. Will I legally be able to own another handgun?

What is the penalty for causing an accident while driving drunk? What is the penalty for shooting someone, but they don't die. 

You don't want to admit that we have gun laws. And in many cases, those laws are much stricter that things like alcohol. 

I suspect your next comments will be that this conversation isn't worth discussing and you will tell me to have a good day. Meanwhile, you've done nothing to prove your point. Or disprove facts that I've presented. 

Making it and then distributing it is what I meant.  I know it's legal to make your own beer, it's not legal to distill liquor though.  As for distribution, it depends on the state like I said before.  Just because they are laws and regulations does not mean they crack down on them hard.  I don't really see how they are harming anything anyways.  I believe the entire purpose for the regulations is just so the government can make money off the sales of it.  I don't think it has much to do with safety.

Why the hell would anyone fire a gun near a school?  Of course you should face serious punishment for that.  

I have actually been arrested for a DUI right in front of a school at night.  I was arrested and spent the night in jail.  I lost my license for 6 months, had to change my insurance, paid thousands in fees, had to get a breathalyzer in my car, served house arrest for a weekend and was on probation for a year.  As a 21 year old at the time it was life changing for me.  I knew that if I did it again I would lose my license even longer and serve even more time in jail along with larger fines.  Was I able to continue drinking, of course, but I didn't drink and drive any more.  The thing about going out and buying alcohol right after getting a DUI is that you no longer have an ID and would have to get a new ID in order to purchase alcohol at certain locations.  I remember not being allowed into a bar in Chicago after a Cub's game because I didn't have my driver's license.

If I were to get in an accident that night that seriously injured or killed someone I would most likely still be in jail today.  If I shot a gun there I'm not sure what would have happened, probably not much.  Paid some fines and that's about it as far as I know unless I was firing at someone or was on school grounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Making it and then distributing it is what I meant.  I know it's legal to make your own beer, it's not legal to distill liquor though.  As for distribution, it depends on the state like I said before.  Just because they are laws and regulations does not mean they crack down on them hard.  I don't really see how they are harming anything anyways.  I believe the entire purpose for the regulations is just so the government can make money off the sales of it.  I don't think it has much to do with safety.

Why the hell would anyone fire a gun near a school?  Of course you should face serious punishment for that.  

I have actually been arrested for a DUI right in front of a school at night.  I was arrested and spent the night in jail.  I lost my license for 6 months, had to change my insurance, paid thousands in fees, had to get a breathalyzer in my car, served house arrest for a weekend and was on probation for a year.  As a 21 year old at the time it was life changing for me.  I knew that if I did it again I would lose my license even longer and serve even more time in jail along with larger fines.  Was I able to continue drinking, of course, but I didn't drink and drive any more.  The thing about going out and buying alcohol right after getting a DUI is that you no longer have an ID and would have to get a new ID in order to purchase alcohol at certain locations.  I remember not being allowed into a bar in Chicago after a Cub's game because I didn't have my driver's license.

If I were to get in an accident that night that seriously injured or killed someone I would most likely still be in jail today.  If I shot a gun there I'm not sure what would have happened, probably not much.  Paid some fines and that's about it as far as I know unless I was firing at someone or was on school grounds.

I would recheck your facts. There are ways around it. But they all lead to the government either getting money or knowing you have a still. You can get a permit to make "Fuel Alcohol". But who says you aren't drinking it. Can we apply the same to handguns and call them tools. As long as I promise to hold the gun by the barrel and hammer nails with the handle? 

The underlined statement is an interesting one. Since we can't tell what someone is going to use an AR15 for, we need to ban them all in order to make society safe. But, someone that wants to distill moonshine (and possibly drive drunk or cause blindness), gets the response "I don't really see how they are harming anything anyways". In one sentence you summed up the reason why there is a problem. 88k alcohol related deaths per year. 10k of which are DUI deaths. You can see how every gun is harming people, but not alcohol. 

Why would anyone fire a gun near a school? Have you looked around many of the schools? They have businesses and homes just like any other neighborhood. Things happen. We charge drug dealers the same way. It's not as though they are interacting with kids or that kids are even present. Or that these crimes happen during school hours. But, they are considered as school crimes due to proximity. Don't we have gun free zones at schools? The same we have drug free zones? Why would you be surprised? 

You got a DUI and lost your drivers license. You didn't lose your ability to purchase alcohol. If you went to the DMV you could have got a state issued license. What is the equivalent for someone that commits a firearm offense? Can they buy a gun with a state id? This is why your argument that alcohol is regulated as much as guns is ridiculous. You are walking, breathing proof. 

Your last paragraph needs to relate to today's laws. If you were caught driving drunk, how much has changed between when you were 21 and today? Would you still lose your license? Would you spend a day in jail? Would you have probation, house arrest, breathalyzer in your car? If you fired a gun today, would you pay a fine? Would you be able to own a gun ever again?

You know the answers. Gun regulation and the stigma around guns has changed. Alcohol and drunk driving, not so much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheriff: Kylie Rae Harris caused fatal crash that killed her and 16-year-old girl

 

Quote

Authorities  said alcohol is also suspected.

"The toxicology report from (the) investigation will confirm or deny alcohol or other substances in both drivers," Hogrefe said.

The Taos News reported that Harris had a prior DWI conviction in Collin County, Texas, in 2017 and had been ordered to install an ignition interlock device on her vehicle, according to court records.

If this 16 year old was killed by a mass shooter in her school, there would be 24 hour coverage and calls for change. Since it was caused by a drunk driver with prior DWI conviction, it's just another acceptable death. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2019 at 7:56 AM, KCitons said:

Sheriff: Kylie Rae Harris caused fatal crash that killed her and 16-year-old girl

 

If this 16 year old was killed by a mass shooter in her school, there would be 24 hour coverage and calls for change. Since it was caused by a drunk driver with prior DWI conviction, it's just another acceptable death. 

 

If she killed multiple kids while they were in school while driving drunk then it would get a lot more press.  I think the media has been that way for a very long time.  There are thousands of single shootings that don't make national news as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

If she killed multiple kids while they were in school while driving drunk then it would get a lot more press.  I think the media has been that way for a very long time.  There are thousands of single shootings that don't make national news as well.

A 16 year old lost to a drunk driver is the same as a 16 year old lost to gun violence. 

We must make bigger changes to gun laws to make sure that as few 16 year olds as possible die from gun violence. We don't feel the need to make any bigger changes to prevent the same from drunk drivers. Eventually (perhaps in 50 years) autonomous cars will solve the problem. Until then, thoughts and prayers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KCitons said:

A 16 year old lost to a drunk driver is the same as a 16 year old lost to gun violence. 

We must make bigger changes to gun laws to make sure that as few 16 year olds as possible die from gun violence. We don't feel the need to make any bigger changes to prevent the same from drunk drivers. Eventually (perhaps in 50 years) autonomous cars will solve the problem. Until then, thoughts and prayers. 

Please explain to me how we don't feel the need to make bigger changes to prevent deaths from drunk drivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hawkeye21 said:

Please explain to me how we don't feel the need to make bigger changes to prevent deaths from drunk drivers.

We lose more people to drunk drivers than we do to gun violence. Proposed universal background checks and red flag laws could be applied todrinkers as well to reduce incidents. The singer that killed that 16 year old girl had a DWI conviction in 2017. If someone had been convicted of attempting to shoot a 16 year old in 2017, would universal background check have prevented him from getting a gun today?

What proposed changes have you seen in the last 10 years in regards to drunk driving laws? (especially from a federal level) Any safety features that are not required by law does not count. Those features are not specific to drunk drivers, as they benefit sober drivers as well. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, KCitons said:

We lose more people to drunk drivers than we do to gun violence. Proposed universal background checks and red flag laws could be applied todrinkers as well to reduce incidents. The singer that killed that 16 year old girl had a DWI conviction in 2017. If someone had been convicted of attempting to shoot a 16 year old in 2017, would universal background check have prevented him from getting a gun today?

What proposed changes have you seen in the last 10 years in regards to drunk driving laws? (especially from a federal level) Any safety features that are not required by law does not count. Those features are not specific to drunk drivers, as they benefit sober drivers as well. 

 

My point is that things are constantly being worked on to reduce drinking and driving and that there doesn't seem to be much push back against it.  The nation is pretty much all in agreement that they want to minimize drunk driving.  https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/strategies.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

My point is that things are constantly being worked on to reduce drinking and driving and that there doesn't seem to be much push back against it.  The nation is pretty much all in agreement that they want to minimize drunk driving.  https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/strategies.html

The nation is pretty much in agreement that they want to minimize mass shootings as well. In order to do that, they've looked at ways to prevent people from obtaining firearms if they have a violent background. We don't do the same thing when someone has an alcohol abuse background. As is evident from this latest incident. I doubt I could find stats, but I would like to see the number of repeat offenders when it comes to gun violence vs the number of repeat offenders when it comes to DWI's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Please explain to me how we don't feel the need to make bigger changes to prevent deaths from drunk drivers.

Evidently because there isn't 24/7 news coverage of DUIs and and there aren't daily rallies, people don't care about this stuff.  

Meanwhile, I doubt he could find one person that is disagreement that most of the laws are a joke and would want to crack down on DUIs more.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Evidently because there isn't 24/7 news coverage of DUIs and and there aren't daily rallies, people don't care about this stuff.  

Meanwhile, I doubt he could find one person that is disagreement that most of the laws are a joke and would want to crack down on DUIs more.  

Perhaps the family of the 16 year old?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KarmaPolice said:

The family of the 16 year old would disagree that DUI laws are a joke? 

How would you feel if your 16 year old was killed by a drunk driver that was convicted of DWI two years ago? 

Did our laws do enough to protect the children? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KCitons said:

A 16 year old lost to a drunk driver is the same as a 16 year old lost to gun violence. 

We must make bigger changes to gun laws to make sure that as few 16 year olds as possible die from gun violence. We don't feel the need to make any bigger changes to prevent the same from drunk drivers. Eventually (perhaps in 50 years) autonomous cars will solve the problem. Until then, thoughts and prayers. 

We do not know at this time if Ms. Harris was drunk.  So please do not put it as a fact that a 16 year old was killed by a drunk driver. 

At this point it was an accident at high speed, could alcohol be involved sure, but at this point that has not been determined.   

And how many gun accidents happen with alcohol?  That would be the comparison not mass shootings. 

 

 

Edited by greenroom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, greenroom said:

We do not know at this time if Ms. Harris was drunk.  So please do not put it as a fact that a 16 year old was killed by a drunk driver. 

At this point it was an accident at high speed, could alcohol be involved sure, but at this point that has not been determined.   

And how many gun accidents happen with alcohol?  That would be the comparison not mass shootings. 

 

 

How many times have the police stated that alcohol was suspected, but it turns out to be incorrect. They rule it out with tons of accidents. 

Great. Let's use gun accidents. How do we prevent those from happening? Gun laws or alcohol laws?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, greenroom said:

We do not know at this time if Ms. Harris was drunk.  So please do not put it as a fact that a 16 year old was killed by a drunk driver. 

At this point it was an accident at high speed, could alcohol be involved sure, but at this point that has not been determined.   

And how many gun accidents happen with alcohol?  That would be the comparison not mass shootings. 

 

 

Actually we settled on miles driven vs bullets fired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, KCitons said:

We lose more people to drunk drivers than we do to gun violence. Proposed universal background checks and red flag laws could be applied todrinkers as well to reduce incidents. The singer that killed that 16 year old girl had a DWI conviction in 2017. If someone had been convicted of attempting to shoot a 16 year old in 2017, would universal background check have prevented him from getting a gun today?

What proposed changes have you seen in the last 10 years in regards to drunk driving laws? (especially from a federal level) Any safety features that are not required by law does not count. Those features are not specific to drunk drivers, as they benefit sober drivers as well. 

 

Do more people die each year in the United States from gun violence or drunk driving?

Gun deaths in the United States eclipse deaths during alcohol-impaired crashes, and by wide margins on pretty much every metric, according to federal data.

 

https://www.quora.com/Are-more-people-killed-by-drunk-drivers-than-guns

Edited by belljr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, KCitons said:

How would you feel if your 16 year old was killed by a drunk driver that was convicted of DWI two years ago? 

Did our laws do enough to protect the children? 

So you are proving my point. 

Didn't someone accuse you of not reading posts in the other thread? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

So you are proving my point. 

Didn't someone accuse you of not reading posts in the other thread? 

Not sure what point that is? 

You asked:

7 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

The family of the 16 year old would disagree that DUI laws are a joke? 

I think the family would agree we didn't do enough after the first DUI conviction. How would you feel if it was your child?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, belljr said:

Do more people die each year in the United States from gun violence or drunk driving?

Gun deaths in the United States eclipse deaths during alcohol-impaired crashes, and by wide margins on pretty much every metric, according to federal data.

 

https://www.quora.com/Are-more-people-killed-by-drunk-drivers-than-guns

I see gun violence as a subset of gun deaths. I remove all suicides from gun deaths in the U.S. because they are not an act committed on another person. 

But, if we are going to lump all gun deaths, then we need to include all alcohol related deaths. In 2016 there were 38,600 gun deaths and 88,000 alcohol related deaths in 2014 (quick google search of CDC stats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Not sure what point that is? 

You asked:

I think the family would agree we didn't do enough after the first DUI conviction. How would you feel if it was your child?

Hence, they would also agree that the DUI laws are a joke.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KarmaPolice said:

Hence, they would also agree that the DUI laws are a joke.  

Then we are in agreement. Sorry, I took your previous statement as sarcasm. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2019 at 8:45 AM, KCitons said:

How would you feel if your 16 year old was killed by a drunk driver that was convicted of DWI two years ago? 

Did our laws do enough to protect the children? 

I would be upset with the driver for driving while intoxicated.

I certainly don’t expect a single DWI to result in a 2+ year driving ban.  That’s ludicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jonessed said:

I would be upset with the driver for driving while intoxicated.

I certainly don’t expect a single DWI to result in a 2+ year driving ban.  That’s ludicrous.

Who said there needs to be a driving ban? A 2+ year alcohol ban might be the more appropriate approach. I think about the number of people that have been arrested recently for making threats of a mass shooting. Even Red Flag laws would identify someone that is a potential threat. Those are essentially the same as a first DWI. What would the level of outrage be if one of these Red Flag people were allowed to buy an assault rifle and committed a mass shooting? Why do we give people second chances to kill someone by drinking and driving, but we want to have background checks to keep guns from someone that has a violent background 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2019 at 10:14 AM, KCitons said:

Who said there needs to be a driving ban? A 2+ year alcohol ban might be the more appropriate approach. I think about the number of people that have been arrested recently for making threats of a mass shooting. Even Red Flag laws would identify someone that is a potential threat. Those are essentially the same as a first DWI. What would the level of outrage be if one of these Red Flag people were allowed to buy an assault rifle and committed a mass shooting? Why do we give people second chances to kill someone by drinking and driving, but we want to have background checks to keep guns from someone that has a violent background 

I’m not sure how you would enforce a 2-year alcohol ban without an ankle monitor and I also find that a ridiculous punishment for a first offender.

I think your comparison of a first time DUI offender with no record and someone trying to buy a gun with prior convictions involving violence is a non-starter.  I just don’t see the similarities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jonessed said:

I’m not sure how you would enforce a 2-year alcohol ban without an ankle monitor and I also find that a ridiculous punishment for a first offender.

I think your comparison of a first time DUI offender with no record and someone trying to buy a gun with prior convictions involving violence is a non-starter.  I just don’t see the similarities.

How would you enforce any gun ban, universal background check, or red flag law?

There are too many incidents where a person with a first offense DUI kills someone while driving under the influence. Why do we use data to determine that we need to ban certain guns, but we ignore data on repeat dui offenders. Do we need to give people 2 or 3 chances to kill someone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.