Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
KCitons

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

Recommended Posts

Nebraska: A Certificate of Title must be issued within 30 days of the date of purchase.

Ohio: Title transfers must take place within 30 days of the date of sale

Nevada: The buyer must register the vehicle at a DMV office within 30 days

Missouri: You have 30 days from the date of purchase to title and pay sales tax on your newly purchased vehicle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Alabama law provides that any person acquiring a new or used motor vehicle shall obtain a license plate within twenty (20) calendar days from the date of acquisition. 

As an Alaska resident when you purchase a vehicle, you are required to transfer the vehicle into your name within 30 days of the date of sale by obtaining an Alaska title.

Idaho: Idaho law requires you to title a vehicle within 30 days after the purchase date.

Kansas: Application for certificate of title and registration must be made through the county treasurer’s office in the county in which the vehicle is garaged. To avoid penalty, vehicle registration must be made within 60 days from date of purchase (day the title was assigned to the new owner, or in the case of transferring ownership of an antique vehicle, the day the bill of sale was completed).

Kentucky requires that an application for title be made within 15 days of purchase.

Texas: Failure to title a vehicle within 30 days from the date of sale may result in delinquent transfer penalties.

 

 

I could go on...

Are you okay with gun owners having 15-60 days to register a gun?

Also, you mentioned that I, as the seller, needed to notify the dmv that I sold the car. I do not. If the buyer takes the car from Nebraska to Alaska, I doubt there is communication on the VIN that the car is now in Alaska. 

Point remains, car regulation is not that stringent. It has too many loopholes, that if applied to guns, would not help in the event of someone buying a gun and shooting someone within the first week of ownership. 

Also, I don't need to have a drivers license to register a car. I only need to have proof of insurance and the funds. 

Share this post


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

Are you okay with gun owners having 15-60 days to register a gun?

Also, you mentioned that I, as the seller, needed to notify the dmv that I sold the car. I do not. If the buyer takes the car from Nebraska to Alaska, I doubt there is communication on the VIN that the car is now in Alaska. 

Point remains, car regulation is not that stringent. It has too many loopholes, that if applied to guns, would not help in the event of someone buying a gun and shooting someone within the first week of ownership. 

Also, I don't need to have a drivers license to register a car. I only need to have proof of insurance and the funds. 

Well at least now you are shifting your stance.  

 

I like it.

If you, the seller, do not notify DMV of the sale - you will be hit with a tax bill.  Particularly if the car is registered in a new state.

 

But, you seem to have the sense that everything has to be perfect - or not at all.

I certainly think that gun registration would be tighter than car registration - simply because one is a weapon designed specifically to kill or injure.  While the other can kill or injure - but is not designed to do so.  Also, there are current laws that prohibit gun ownership and possession for certain people - no reason not to ensure that everyone complies with those laws when selling weapons...

 

But, lets take baby steps.  Lets get all the guns registered, lets do the universal background check on all sales, and lets require gun owners to carry insurance.

Share this post


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

Well at least now you are shifting your stance.  

 

I like it.

If you, the seller, do not notify DMV of the sale - you will be hit with a tax bill.  Particularly if the car is registered in a new state.

 

But, you seem to have the sense that everything has to be perfect - or not at all.

I certainly think that gun registration would be tighter than car registration - simply because one is a weapon designed specifically to kill or injure.  While the other can kill or injure - but is not designed to do so.  Also, there are current laws that prohibit gun ownership and possession for certain people - no reason not to ensure that everyone complies with those laws when selling weapons...

 

But, lets take baby steps.  Lets get all the guns registered, lets do the universal background check on all sales, and lets require gun owners to carry insurance.

This is funny. Dare I say "Trump like" the way you spin it to sound like I've shifted my stance. And somehow you've won.

I've been making these statements for months in the other thread. Posters can't get past the desire to be right and see that I'm actually pointing out the flaws in regulating guns like cars. We've now taken a DUI thread and developed new ways to regulate cars, in order to effectively regulate guns. 

I never said it had to be perfect. I just think we need to be realistic about how we counter things that lead to unnecessary deaths. We know people die from DUI's. 28 people every single day. School shootings, mall shootings, theater shootings are terrible, they happen randomly and at any time. In my original post, I link to an article where 50 people died in one long weekend. It was second only to Thanksgiving weekend. We know when the problem occurs, yet we still can't fix the problem. If we knew when a mass shooting was going to occur, I guarantee we would be concentrating on a solution specific to that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Nebraska: A Certificate of Title must be issued within 30 days of the date of purchase.

Ohio: Title transfers must take place within 30 days of the date of sale

Nevada: The buyer must register the vehicle at a DMV office within 30 days

Missouri: You have 30 days from the date of purchase to title and pay sales tax on your newly purchased vehicle. 

how does this, in any way, shape or form, impact DUI deaths ?

Share this post


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

I have no real problem with that - pass a test on gun safety and gun usage, and show proficiency using the gun, and I am ok with regular updates to include your current address, and other basic information.  The fact of registration and licensing allows for the government to more easily identify guns that are in the hands of people who are not eligible - felons, certain mental illnesses, etc.

 

we have ALL those things for automobiles and drivers, why do we still have DUI deaths?

we had all those things 30 years ago when DUI deaths were way, way higher ........ what changed in the past 30 years to drop DUI deaths ?

any idea?

Since 1982, drunk driving fatalities on our nation’s roadways have decreased 48%, while total traffic fatalities have declined nearly 18%.  Among persons under 21, drunk driving fatalities have decreased 80%.

 

why ?

Edited by Stealthycat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

 

we have ALL those things for automobiles and drivers, why do we still have DUI deaths?

we had all those things 30 years ago when DUI deaths were way, way higher ........ what changed in the past 30 years to drop DUI deaths ?

any idea?

Since 1982, drunk driving fatalities on our nation’s roadways have decreased 48%, while total traffic fatalities have declined nearly 18%.  Among persons under 21, drunk driving fatalities have decreased 80%.

 

why ?

Since 1982? I am thinking squi and pj might know the answer to this. 

Share this post


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

 

we have ALL those things for automobiles and drivers, why do we still have DUI deaths?

we had all those things 30 years ago when DUI deaths were way, way higher ........ what changed in the past 30 years to drop DUI deaths ?

any idea?

Since 1982, drunk driving fatalities on our nation’s roadways have decreased 48%, while total traffic fatalities have declined nearly 18%.  Among persons under 21, drunk driving fatalities have decreased 80%.

 

why ?

One of the big factors has been better safety technology in cars.

Share this post


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

One of the big factors has been better safety technology in cars.

let me rephrase -   safety in cars has stopped people from driving under the influence?    maybe its stopped a few deaths, yes, but there are literally STILL millions of people driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs every year

but through social measures, we DO have far fewer driving under the influence than we had 30 years ago, do we all agree on that ?

what changed is the question I'm asking to drive DUI numbers DOWN

Share this post


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

Please post this exact thing in the gun thread. 

Thanks,

Again?  I've probably posted it in that thread 20-30 times usually in response to Stealthycat :shrug: 

Well, the sentiment anyway....the exact words as they read here might be there only a handful of times.

Share this post


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

So we've addressed the period of house arrest and the ability to remove alcohol from the offender. 

What happens after that period is over? Why do we end up with 2nd, 3rd and 4th offenders?

Shouldn't there be a way to keep those people from obtaining alcohol? Especially after a 2nd offence?

What do you propose happen?  To the bold....that's a pipe dream....virtually impossible....goes back to my other comment in this thread.

Edited by The Commish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

One of the big factors has been better safety technology in cars.

So, to counter drunk drivers we make cars safer through technology.

Then to counter active shooters we need to make clothing safer?

In the case of drunk drivers, we did nothing to change the use, design, or the effectiveness of alcohol. We changed other things. But, when it comes to active shooters, we need to change the design and effectiveness of the gun in order to save lives?

Share this post


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

What do you propose happen?  To the bold....that's a pipe dream....virtually impossible....goes back to my other comment in this thread.

Why do you think it's so impossible? Yet it's possible to regulate firearms? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the point of this thread is just some giant red herring to distract from the gun control argument? 

If so, that’s disappointing as this is an interesting topic because I find it fundamentally very challenging to regulate and criminalize drinking and driving. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So, to counter drunk drivers we make cars safer through technology.

Then to counter active shooters we need to make clothing safer?

In the case of drunk drivers, we did nothing to change the use, design, or the effectiveness of alcohol. We changed other things. But, when it comes to active shooters, we need to change the design and effectiveness of the gun in order to save lives?

False premise. Cars were not made safer to counter drunk drivers.

Share this post


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

So, to counter drunk drivers we make cars safer through technology.

Then to counter active shooters we need to make clothing safer?

In the case of drunk drivers, we did nothing to change the use, design, or the effectiveness of alcohol. We changed other things. But, when it comes to active shooters, we need to change the design and effectiveness of the gun in order to save lives?

Wait, in your analogy is the alcohol the gun or is the car the gun?  I feel like you’ve switched.

Share this post


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

Wait, in your analogy is the alcohol the gun or is the car the gun?  I feel like you’ve switched.

Both. But I know that cars have a valid benefit to society. Alcohol has less of a benefit (much like guns) I said we've changed other things. In my opinion, cars were made safer because everyone benefits from safer cars. However, posters use the argument that DUI deaths have decreased because of safer cars. And that they will decrease even more with autonomous autos. However, we still have a disturbing amount of DUI deaths. Perhaps it's time to look at altering the use of alcohol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, squistion said:

False premise. Cars were not made safer to counter drunk drivers.

Right. But posters here use that as the reason why DUI deaths have decreased.

Share this post


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

1. - You can buy a car without registering it. Penalty only occurs if you are caught driving said car after the grace period. Should we apply the same to guns? 

When is the law broken? When you fail to register or when you get caught?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Zow said:

So the point of this thread is just some giant red herring to distract from the gun control argument? 

If so, that’s disappointing as this is an interesting topic because I find it fundamentally very challenging to regulate and criminalize drinking and driving. 

Don't let the masses confuse you. I've been making this point for years. There is a connection to the gun thread. But only because posters kept telling me to start a new thread to discuss. 

Very early in the gun thread I pointed out the lack of concern over the 10k people that die every year from DUI related deaths. And that, in general, society is not as concerned about that number, in part due to a decrease over the past couple of decades. (even though it's become stagnant as of late)

Share this post


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

When is the law broken? When you fail to register or when you get caught?

I would assume when you fail to register. I've bought a dozen cars from private owners. I give them cash, they give me a bill of sale and the signed title. I had 30 days to register the vehicle. If it was purchased out of state (Omaha is on the border with Iowa) I would need to take it to an inspection site to have the VIN cleared before registration (still 30 day grace period)

If we applied the same regulations to guns, this would do nothing to prevent the mass shootings that occur within 30 days after the gun was purchased. Which was my point about applying auto regulations to guns. 

Share this post


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

Right. But posters here use that as the reason why DUI deaths have decreased.

No. That is a Straw Man.

The argument has been that auto deaths have declined (to whatever degree) resulting from an improvement in safety technology not that there was any motive in doing that to protect people against drunk drivers.

Share this post


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

I would assume when you fail to register. I've bought a dozen cars from private owners. I give them cash, they give me a bill of sale and the signed title. I had 30 days to register the vehicle. If it was purchased out of state (Omaha is on the border with Iowa) I would need to take it to an inspection site to have the VIN cleared before registration (still 30 day grace period)

If we applied the same regulations to guns, this would do nothing to prevent the mass shootings that occur within 30 days after the gun was purchased. Which was my point about applying auto regulations to guns. 

No one is suggestiing to apply auto regislation to guns verbatim. Nice strawman

Share this post


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

No. That is a Straw Man.

The argument has been that auto deaths have declined (to whatever degree) resulting from an improvement in safety technology not that there was any motive in doing that to protect people against drunk drivers.

Funny how you're silent when one of the "inner circle" makes that statement. I repeat it, and your all over me like white on rice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, msommer said:

No one is suggestiing to apply auto regislation to guns verbatim. Nice strawman

Really? Maybe you should be having this conversation with someone besides me. 

5 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

But, maybe we should start to treat Guns like cars?

 

1.  Require registration

2.  Annual taxes

3.  Required Insurance

4.  Periodic renewal of licensing - including health checks.

 

 

3 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

Nebraska: A Certificate of Title must be issued within 30 days of the date of purchase.

Ohio: Title transfers must take place within 30 days of the date of sale

Nevada: The buyer must register the vehicle at a DMV office within 30 days

Missouri: You have 30 days from the date of purchase to title and pay sales tax on your newly purchased vehicle. 

 

 

Share this post


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

Why do you think it's so impossible? Yet it's possible to regulate firearms? 

You're shifting the goalposts again.  Both can be regulated.  It's impossible to keep people from obtaining alcohol or guns.  As I said, it goes back to my initial comment in this thread.

Edited by The Commish

Share this post


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

Funny how you're silent when one of the "inner circle" makes that statement. I repeat it, and your all over me like white on rice. 

You didn't repeat the statement they made, you mischaracterized what they said and argued against that, as you are wont to do.

They attributed the decline in auto deaths to better safety technology (among other things). You falsely stated that they claimed the improved safety technology was a response to and/or to counter drunk drivers, which was not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, squistion said:

You didn't repeat the statement they made, you mischaracterized what they said and argued against that, as you are wont to do.

They attributed the decline in auto deaths to better safety technology (among other things). You falsely stated that they claimed the improved safety technology was a response to and/or to counter drunk drivers, which was not the case.

Give me a break. I've never argued auto safety vs guns. I have argued DUI/Alcohol vs guns. The response to DUI deaths declining was because of auto safety. It was also mentioned in this thread as well. (which is a DUI thread) 

8 hours ago, The Z Machine said:

I didn't know that. That's sad. Hopefully autonomous driving or other safety technology in cars (or maybe less driving altogether) will slow this toll.

 

Share this post


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

Give me a break. I've never argued auto safety vs guns. I have argued DUI/Alcohol vs guns. The response to DUI deaths declining was because of auto safety. It was also mentioned in this thread as well. (which is a DUI thread) 

True, what you said was:

Quote

2 hours ago, KCitons said:

So, to counter drunk drivers we make cars safer through technology.

Then to counter active shooters we need to make clothing safer?

In the case of drunk drivers, we did nothing to change the use, design, or the effectiveness of alcohol. We changed other things. But, when it comes to active shooters, we need to change the design and effectiveness of the gun in order to save lives?

And that is a mischaracterization or Straw Man of what had been said, that was not the point or close to the point being made by the OP. I am not saying what you have argued, just how you distort what others have said.

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, squistion said:

True, what you said was:

And that is a mischaracterization or Straw Man of what had been said, that was not the point or close to the point being made by the OP. I am not saying what you have argued, just how you distort what others have said.

Unbelievable. Perhaps you should tell @The Z Machine

Your statement was

1 hour ago, squistion said:

The argument has been that auto deaths have declined (to whatever degree) resulting from an improvement in safety technology not that there was any motive in doing that to protect people against drunk drivers.

I showed a post (from today) where someone made that statement.

Go ahead, kill the messenger. 

Share this post


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

Unbelievable. Perhaps you should tell @The Z Machine

Your statement was

I showed a post (from today) where someone made that statement.

Go ahead, kill the messenger. 

I don't understand your point. Can you elaborate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

I don't understand your point. Can you elaborate?

There is nothing to understand. You made the innocuous statement that auto technology will hopefully reduce the number of DUI deaths.

I referenced your statement with the following:

Quote

So, to counter drunk drivers we make cars safer through technology.

Then to counter active shooters we need to make clothing safer?

@squistion had an embolism for some reason. He's adamant that technology is not being use to counter drunk drivers. I suspect he would fight me to the death over me repeating your statement, but wouldn't say a word to you.   

Share this post


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

There is nothing to understand. You made the innocuous statement that auto technology will hopefully reduce the number of DUI deaths.

I referenced your statement with the following:

@squistion had an embolism for some reason. He's adamant that technology is not being use to counter drunk drivers. I suspect he would fight me to the death over me repeating your statement, but wouldn't say a word to you.   

James Fenimore Cooper!!!!!!

You are mischaracterizing the entire discussion. Shame on you!

I am going to watch the Cowboys Seattle game and check out of this thread while you set up more Straw Man arguments.

Share this post


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

There is nothing to understand. You made the innocuous statement that auto technology will hopefully reduce the number of DUI deaths.

I referenced your statement with the following:

@squistion had an embolism for some reason. He's adamant that technology is not being use to counter drunk drivers. I suspect he would fight me to the death over me repeating your statement, but wouldn't say a word to you.   

The new safety measures aren’t being added specifically for any one subset of drivers, they are being made for ALL drivers. Drunk drivers happen to be a subset of drivers who benefit from the changes

Share this post


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

James Fenimore Cooper!!!!!!

You are mischaracterizing the entire discussion. Shame on you!

I am going to watch the Cowboys Seattle game and check out of this thread while you set up more Straw Man arguments.

The thread is only 3 pages long. It's not like the discussion is buried in the pages of War and Peace. 

Maybe some meditation will help you relax?

Share this post


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

The new safety measures aren’t being added specifically for any one subset of drivers, they are being made for ALL drivers. Drunk drivers happen to be a subset of drivers who benefit from the changes

Are you telling me or @The Z Machine?

Share this post


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

 

What is the point of the gun thread?

How many people died in car crashes during the same period?  How many people got killed by guns in safes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why didn't anyone like my idea on having to register to buy alcohol ? if we did that, and everyone had to have a background check, repeat drunk drivers couldn't get alcohol or anyone with a DUI couldn't right? isn't that a big win ?

if everyone had to blow into a machine to get their cars to start ..... wouldn't that help stop DUI's ?

why would anyone not be on board with just those 2 simple common sense measures?

 

a few years ago, I was driving home at like 2 am from a call out ..... there was a vehicle in front of me, I was driving a company truck, 2 lane, split highway, north bound traffic. as we crested a rise at 70 mph, that car swerved wildly and went off the highway, and a split second later I saw why - a southbound car going FAST in my north bound lane. I had to crazy swerve too but didn't go off highway. I got out, went into the ditch where the car ahead of me had planted into a bunch of thigh sized tree's ..... driver was pregnant, 2 other ladies in the car, they were lucky and not hurt. Second later a police car in on the southbound highway comes across the median only our side and he screams "is that the car" and I said no - the car continued south bound in the north bound traffic. He said ok after asking about the ladies and sped off.

anyway, next morning I found out that southbound drunk driver had hit a car and killed 3 college kids about 7-8 miles after it passed us

if people are bitter about gun deaths and blame guns, there should be equal bitterness towards alcohol and automobiles. I bet everyone here has been touched by drunk / DUI driving in some way ......... isn't it time we severely restrict alcohol and improve common sense ways people drive ?

Edited by Stealthycat

Share this post


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

why didn't anyone like my idea on having to register to buy alcohol ? if we did that, and everyone had to have a background check, repeat drunk drivers couldn't get alcohol or anyone with a DUI couldn't right? isn't that a big win ?

If I get a DUI, I can't buy alcohol...at least that was true in NC and SC...not sure about Florida.  It was attached to your license (that serves as the background check you are :hophead: about).  

2 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

if everyone had to blow into a machine to get their cars to start ..... wouldn't that help stop DUI's ?

why would anyone not be on board with just those 2 simple common sense measures?

Already discussed in this thread and approved by me, though easy to get around.  It might help people think twice.  Those measures don't stop the determined from driving drunk, no.  That's not going to happen with any law and shouldn't ever be the goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Commish said:

If I get a DUI, I can't buy alcohol...at least that was true in NC and SC...not sure about Florida.  It was attached to your license (that serves as the background check you are :hophead: about).  

 

Great. In my state you have to go to the police station to register a handgun before taking possession. Does that regulation have any effect on other states?

Should we be looking to DC for regulations on DUI's?

Share this post


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

Great. In my state you have to go to the police station to register a handgun before taking possession. Does that regulation have any effect on other states?

Should we be looking to DC for regulations on DUI's?

I don't think it has any effect on other states.  That wasn't the point.  The point was to show Stealthycat these sorts of things are already being done.  These aren't novel ideas.  To your last question, I guess it depends on what the regulation is and looks like.  If it's appropriate to regulate from the federal government, then go for it.  If it only makes sense in certain places/states, it should be left to the state.  As always, the devil's in the details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Commish said:

If I get a DUI, I can't buy alcohol...at least that was true in NC and SC...not sure about Florida.  It was attached to your license (that serves as the background check you are :hophead: about).  

 

7 hours ago, The Commish said:

Already discussed in this thread and approved by me, though easy to get around.  It might help people think twice.  Those measures don't stop the determined from driving drunk, no.  That's not going to happen with any law and shouldn't ever be the goal.

 

so in other words ......... all the trouble legal law abiding people would have to go through would really have little results.

 

maybe I missed it but what are your top 3 ways to lower DUI deaths?  Its a huge concern isn't it? Tens of thousands dead, many more injured, hundreds of millions or more in damages ............. what's your top 3 ways to stop it ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Commish said:

I don't think it has any effect on other states.  That wasn't the point.  The point was to show Stealthycat these sorts of things are already being done.  These aren't novel ideas.  To your last question, I guess it depends on what the regulation is and looks like.  If it's appropriate to regulate from the federal government, then go for it.  If it only makes sense in certain places/states, it should be left to the state.  As always, the devil's in the details.

Sure. But I wonder why we there have been calls for the President or lawmakers in DC to do anything about gun control? It seems to me gun regulation and dui regulation should be handled at the local level, since they will be better suited to adjust laws based on constituents needs. The only reason there would need to be federal regulation is if there needed to be a Constitutional change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2019 at 3:22 PM, KCitons said:

Don't let the masses confuse you. I've been making this point for years. There is a connection to the gun thread. But only because posters kept telling me to start a new thread to discuss. 

Very early in the gun thread I pointed out the lack of concern over the 10k people that die every year from DUI related deaths. And that, in general, society is not as concerned about that number, in part due to a decrease over the past couple of decades. (even though it's become stagnant as of late)

So it’s a red herring completely irrelevant to the gun debate. Okay. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

what's your top 3 ways to stop it ?

Give sober drivers more beer

Allow more open container laws in states

Allow alcohol purchases without ID checks.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

Sure. But I wonder why we there have been calls for the President or lawmakers in DC to do anything about gun control? It seems to me gun regulation and dui regulation should be handled at the local level, since they will be better suited to adjust laws based on constituents needs. The only reason there would need to be federal regulation is if there needed to be a Constitutional change.

I'm not sure how you'd miss my constant suggestion to battle this gun nonsense from the bottom up. They will be much more successful in their progress that way

The federal government would be needed for a solution where all states would have to be on the same page. Its completely naive fo think one could get all states to write legislation that was uniform across states. So for solutions requiring that sort of agreement you'd need a leader. 

Share this post


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

 

 

so in other words ......... all the trouble legal law abiding people would have to go through would really have little results.

 

maybe I missed it but what are your top 3 ways to lower DUI deaths?  Its a huge concern isn't it? Tens of thousands dead, many more injured, hundreds of millions or more in damages ............. what's your top 3 ways to stop it ?

 

There's is no need for^in other words"  the ones i used fit my thoughts just fine. As far as says to stop dui?  Never thought about it that way as i don't believe laws stop or prevent anything. I've told you that a billion times. 

Share this post


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

I'm not sure how you'd miss my constant suggestion to battle this gun nonsense from the bottom up. They will be much more successful in their progress that way

The federal government would be needed for a solution where all states would have to be on the same page. Its completely naive fo think one could get all states to write legislation that was uniform across states. So for solutions requiring that sort of agreement you'd need a leader. 

What solutions would those be where states would need to be on the same page? Nebraska is a good example of a state where there are 2-3 pockets of population and the rest is rural. It's not a one size fits all within a state, much less the country.  What could the federal government do that the states couldn't? Looking at the marijuana laws, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Zow said:

So it’s a red herring completely irrelevant to the gun debate. Okay. 

Let's not work in absolutes. 

On 1/5/2019 at 4:22 PM, KCitons said:

Don't let the masses confuse you. I've been making this point for years. There is a connection to the gun thread. But only because posters kept telling me to start a new thread to discuss. 

Very early in the gun thread I pointed out the lack of concern over the 10k people that die every year from DUI related deaths. And that, in general, society is not as concerned about that number, in part due to a decrease over the past couple of decades. (even though it's become stagnant as of late)

Posters did not want me making comparisons to dui regulations vs gun regulations. If we had media coverage of the horrific dui related deaths each day/week, would we have people marching on Washington?

This topic has been a concern of mine for some time.   Note that thread was started in 2013. The shooting thread was started in 2018. 

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.