Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
KCitons

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

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, KCitons said:

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.

Anything where systems between states need to be in sync and able to communicate with each other.  So, for example, if you guys wanted to propose not allowing people to purchase alcohol after a DUI.  Obviously, that would be tied to one's driver's license.  All those state systems would have to have standards in place that allow the systems to interact with each other.  You need a governing body to set those standards.  The federal government seems like a logical place for that sort of oversite to occur.  

Share this post


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

Give sober drivers more beer

Allow more open container laws in states

Allow alcohol purchases without ID checks.

sober drivers can have 10 cases of beer in the back seat, they are zero threat because they're not drinking and driving.

open container laws have nothing to do with driving drunk

your third point would actually be not allowing anyone to drink person to person ........... like if you went to someone's house for cards, you couldn't drink a beer unless the Govt was made aware that you were going to take alcohol from someone else. If you're in favor of that i can see how you're support trying to regulate person to person transaction of every kin.

Share this post


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

sober drivers can have 10 cases of beer in the back seat, they are zero threat because they're not drinking and driving.

open container laws have nothing to do with driving drunk

your third point would actually be not allowing anyone to drink person to person ........... like if you went to someone's house for cards, you couldn't drink a beer unless the Govt was made aware that you were going to take alcohol from someone else. If you're in favor of that i can see how you're support trying to regulate person to person transaction of every kin.

:whoosh:

Share this post


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

:whoosh:

you tried to compare to guns

you failed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.  Create more drunk drivers - that will make the roads safer, because if everyone is drinking and driving, then the drunk drivers won't want to be out on the road.

 

2.  Allowing more open container laws allows people to drink more freely in public - and people can see all the drunks at that point.  See a drunk - avoid a drunk.

 

3.  No ID checks - everyone can get beer, whether they are permitted by law or not - there is no sense in requiring ID checks, the more the merrier.  

 

If it works for guns, why can't it work for beer?  Why should we have more people with guns, but not more people drinking and driving?

 

Damn it - I like beer!

Share this post


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

1.  Create more drunk drivers - that will make the roads safer, because if everyone is drinking and driving, then the drunk drivers won't want to be out on the road.

 

2.  Allowing more open container laws allows people to drink more freely in public - and people can see all the drunks at that point.  See a drunk - avoid a drunk.

 

3.  No ID checks - everyone can get beer, whether they are permitted by law or not - there is no sense in requiring ID checks, the more the merrier.  

 

If it works for guns, why can't it work for beer?  Why should we have more people with guns, but not more people drinking and driving?

 

Damn it - I like beer!

We all know that drunk people feel they are better drivers when drunk.  If everyone was drunk then everyone would be better drivers.  No more accidents.

Share this post


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

We all know that drunk people feel they are better drivers when drunk.  If everyone was drunk then everyone would be better drivers.  No more accidents.

True story (albeit not a proud story)  back in college, I would go out drinking without wearing my glasses (or contacts).  Then when it was time to drive home, I put my glasses on, and everything was much clearer.  It was brilliant!  :bag:

 

Fortunately - no DUIs or accidents...different era though.

Share this post


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

True story (albeit not a proud story)  back in college, I would go out drinking without wearing my glasses (or contacts).  Then when it was time to drive home, I put my glasses on, and everything was much clearer.  It was brilliant!  :bag:

 

Fortunately - no DUIs or accidents...different era though.

My friends and I did plenty of stupid crap back then too.  Not proud of it now.

Share this post


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

Seemed very obvious too.

Obviousness is a sliding scale like "left" and "right".  The further skewed your view from the mainstream, the less obvious things become.

Share this post


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

We all know that drunk people feel they are better drivers when drunk.  If everyone was drunk then everyone would be better drivers.  No more accidents.

Maybe if it was part of Drivers Ed?  How can we expect to perform on the road after several beers if we dont train for that scenario? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

If it works for guns, why can't it work for beer?  Why should we have more people with guns, but not more people drinking and driving?

I thought you couldn't compare guns and DUI's ?    tsk tsk

But since you did ..... lets explore it

1.  Create more drunk drivers - that will make the roads safer, because if everyone is drinking and driving, then the drunk drivers won't want to be out on the road.

Nobody wants to create more drunk driver or more shooters. Nobody. We have laws that says don't drink and drive, don't point guns at people, don't carry beer into a mall, don't carry a gun into a mall. We have legal alcohol and if you want to drink at home, go for it. We have legal gun ownership, if you want guns at home, go for it.

 

2.  Allowing more open container laws allows people to drink more freely in public - and people can see all the drunks at that point.  See a drunk - avoid a drunk.

I'm not sure why open container laws matter - if you're drunk and disorderly, that's against the law, if you're drinking and driving, against the law. If you carry into places that ask you not to, against the law. if you are happily drunk on Beal street or Bourbon street minding your own, that's no problem. If I have a concealed weapons permit, legally attained and I have it on me walking down the street, no problem.

 

3.  No ID checks - everyone can get beer, whether they are permitted by law or not - there is no sense in requiring ID checks, the more the merrier. 

we have ID laws on guns. we have ID laws on buying alcohol. Alcohol is easily obtained, guns not as easy because they cost more but yes, they're pretty easy to get too. Nobody has ever said in all these pages no age limits on drugs, alcohol or guns. 

 

so your extreme and frankly silly points really boil down to this - common sense drinking laws and we have them, and the price for legal alcohol and a free society lies in personal responsibility and some people are just going to not do that and when they break those common sense laws, people will get hurt and people will die - and the DUI people will face the judicial system when that happens. and it happens .... millions drive impaired, tens of thousands die, many more injured, and you and I and nobody else pushed our Govt to impose more restrictions and why ?

because it unnecessarily impacts the legal drivers - that's why

you know it, I know it, everyone knows it - all those deaths and injuries are the cost we have for alcohol to be legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I blame cars.

 

If we got rid of automobiles, we would have no more DUI deaths.

Share this post


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

If we got rid of automobiles, we would have no more DUI deaths.

100% true

Share this post


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

Uh, what about boats, motorcycles, ATVs, and snowmobiles, guys?? 

What about them? 

DUI laws apply to boats, motorcycles, ATVs and snowmobiles in most states. 

Share this post


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

What about them? 

DUI laws apply to boats, motorcycles, ATVs and snowmobiles in most states. 

But SC said DUIs wouldn't exist if we got rid of automobiles. 

Share this post


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

I blame cars.

 

If we got rid of automobiles, we would have no more DUI deaths.

Drunk drivers don't kill people.  Cars kill people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why is this only at 4 pages ?

more people die in auto wrecks than are killed by guns by far - tens of thousands more injured

many many more kids are killed by auto wrecks than anything else right ?

why doesn't anyone care? I have a guess ........... because CNN doesn't tell you to worry about it .....

Share this post


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

why is this only at 4 pages ?

more people die in auto wrecks than are killed by guns by far - tens of thousands more injured

many many more kids are killed by auto wrecks than anything else right ?

why doesn't anyone care? I have a guess ........... because CNN doesn't tell you to worry about it .....

I am guessing it is only 4 pages because it didn't take long to see that it probably wasn't a DUI thread, but a thinly veiled extension of the gun thread.  

Eta: to my point, you came in and tied it to gun deaths just now. 

Edited by KarmaPolice

Share this post


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

why is this only at 4 pages ?

more people die in auto wrecks than are killed by guns by far - tens of thousands more injured

many many more kids are killed by auto wrecks than anything else right ?

why doesn't anyone care? I have a guess ........... because CNN doesn't tell you to worry about it .....

I am all for driverless cars. I hope that technology really gets off the ground soon.

Share this post


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

I am guessing it is only 4 pages because it didn't take long to see that it probably wasn't a DUI thread, but a thinly veiled extension of the gun thread.  

Eta: to my point, you came in and tied it to gun deaths just now. 

nobody mentioned guns before in this thread? really ?

I gave three ways that we can impact legal law abiding drivers and alcohol drinkers that would minimally impact DUI's and nobody seems on board really. why?

you're right - if I gave 3 ways we could impact legal gun owners that would minimally impact gun violence, people would cheer and agree with me and say how common sense it was and that absolutely we needed that

 

I thought lives mattered?

 

Share this post


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

Also probably not gaining traction because who doesn't want to stop DUIs?  

the American people - because we allow legal alcohol instead of banning it, we allow people to buy cars and license them under 21 years old and we simply do not have strong enough restrictions on drivers

and the cost is tens of thousands of people dead - every year, hundreds of thousands injured

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ilov80s said:

I am all for driverless cars. I hope that technology really gets off the ground soon.

I've done some reading. DUI laws are going to remain until we have driver less cars. Which isn't going to happen anytime soon. As long as the occupant of the car has the ability to alter the course of the vehicle, the drive will still be liable if he/she is drunk. The only way to remove that liability is to have the passengers sit in the back seat, with no means to take over operation of the vehicle. I don't know if we will ever get to that comfort level in our lifetimes.

Share this post


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

Also probably not gaining traction because who doesn't want to stop DUIs? 

You?

Share this post


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

nobody mentioned guns before in this thread? really ?

I gave three ways that we can impact legal law abiding drivers and alcohol drinkers that would minimally impact DUI's and nobody seems on board really. why?

you're right - if I gave 3 ways we could impact legal gun owners that would minimally impact gun violence, people would cheer and agree with me and say how common sense it was and that absolutely we needed that

I thought lives mattered?

So now we are going to have two thread where you and KCitons will keep making these awful gun/alcohol analogies?

If this continues then the mods should merge this back into the shootings thread.

 

Edited by squistion

Share this post


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

why is this only at 4 pages ?

more people die in auto wrecks than are killed by guns by far - tens of thousands more injured

many many more kids are killed by auto wrecks than anything else right ?

why doesn't anyone care? I have a guess ........... because CNN doesn't tell you to worry about it .....

No, it's because most everyone is on the same side of the topic.  We all agree that drunk driving is bad and we like to see continued changes towards improving it.  It's pretty simple really.

Share this post


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

You?

Link to where I said that? 

I assume your rant last night was because that is what you took my post to mean, which for sure isn't the case. 

Share this post


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

No, it's because most everyone is on the same side of the topic.  We all agree that drunk driving is bad and we like to see continued changes towards improving it.  It's pretty simple really. 

cool

so what new laws are being forged by Democrats to stop this crisis? you know they're working on anti-gun legislation right now, what are they doing about all these auto deaths ?

nothing ?

texting and driving laws have been passed - I'll grant you that although those are State, not federal. That's equivalent to don't carry your gun into a mall though - its not confiscation, banning a certain phone or banning only certain phone owners.

Share this post


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

So now we are going to have two thread where you and KCitons will keep making these awful gun/alcohol analogies?

If this continues then the mods should merge this back into the shootings thread.

 

 

what's being proposed to stop DUI deaths? its a national crisis, it needs addressed does it not ?

Share this post


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

cool

so what new laws are being forged by Democrats to stop this crisis? you know they're working on anti-gun legislation right now, what are they doing about all these auto deaths ?

nothing ?

texting and driving laws have been passed - I'll grant you that although those are State, not federal. That's equivalent to don't carry your gun into a mall though - its not confiscation, banning a certain phone or banning only certain phone owners.

Why do there need to be new laws and what does this have to do with Democrats?  I'm not a Democrat.  There are constantly things being done to lower drunk driving.  Bars take more responsibility in getting customers home safe by offering services.  The companies that make alcoholic products advertise drinking responsibly.  There are more forms of public transportation than ever before.  Vehicles are made to be safer.

Why do you think drunk driving deaths have dropped over the years.

Share this post


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

So now we are going to have two thread where you and KCitons will keep making these awful gun/alcohol analogies?

If this continues then the mods should merge this back into the shootings thread.

 

Why don't you PM @Fish and ask if he's okay with that.

Share this post


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

Why do there need to be new laws and what does this have to do with Democrats?  I'm not a Democrat.  There are constantly things being done to lower drunk driving.  Bars take more responsibility in getting customers home safe by offering services.  The companies that make alcoholic products advertise drinking responsibly.  There are more forms of public transportation than ever before.  Vehicles are made to be safer.

Why do you think drunk driving deaths have dropped over the years.

Have they dropped over the recent years? Seems to me they have stagnated. That's even with the introduction of Uber and Lyft.

Share this post


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

 

what's being proposed to stop DUI deaths? its a national crisis, it needs addressed does it not ?

Yes and the discussion needs to be addressed here not in the shootings thread. People suggested this thread be started so you two couldn't continually hijack and derail the shootings thread with the completely unrelated subject of DUIs. Now you also want to continue the gun deaths vs. alcohol deaths talk here.

Share this post


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

Link to where I said that? 

I assume your rant last night was because that is what you took my post to mean, which for sure isn't the case. 

Your words. 

Quote

You keep posting this nonsense.  Is it so hard to get that people get there is an inherent risk to certain activities like this and are fine with risk in certain situations, but not fine with it in other situations?   Example - while wanting safety standards and want to improve these over time, I get and accept that if I am driving around on an ATV with my kids there is a chance of injury and a small chance of death.   What I don't accept is that  getting shot at and "death is just a part of" activities such as:  going to a concert, sitting in school, going to church.   I don't believe that should be part of any free society in 2019.   This seems to be one of many core disagreements that we seem to have.  

When I linked to articles where people were killed by drunk drivers while going to, or coming from, concerts and church, you chose to argue semantics. 

Quote

Leaving an event <> being at the event.  

How else would a person explain this comment? I see it as you saying "people that drive on public roads accept the possibility that they could be killed by a drunk driver". But, using your argument, people that choose shouldn't accept the possibility of partaking in activities in a public place such as concert, churches, or schools. 

Share this post


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

Yes and the discussion needs to be addressed here not in the shootings thread. People suggested this thread be started so you two couldn't continually hijack and derail the shootings thread with the completely unrelated subject of DUIs. Now you also want to continue the gun deaths vs. alcohol deaths talk here.

Fixed the title. So you have nothing to complain about. 

Share this post


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

Have they dropped over the recent years? Seems to me they have stagnated. That's even with the introduction of Uber and Lyft.

You're right, they have stayed pretty constant at around 10,000 deaths.  What I find interesting is the younger age death from drunk driving have gone down while the older ages have gone up.  Maybe it's a generational thing?

Share this post


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

You're right, they have stayed pretty constant at around 10,000 deaths.  What I find interesting is the younger age death from drunk driving have gone down while the older ages have gone up.  Maybe it's a generational thing?

Maybe. Technology and awareness doesn't seem to be having the same effect that it had the last few decades. 

With things like school shootings (and subsequent activism), could the generational effects have an impact on guns?

Share this post


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

Maybe. Technology and awareness doesn't seem to be having the same effect that it had the last few decades. 

With things like school shootings (and subsequent activism), could the generational effects have an impact on guns?

I thought this site had some good info.  Check out the data by age.

https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-alcohol-impaired-driving

Share this post


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

I thought this site had some good info.  Check out the data by age.

https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-alcohol-impaired-driving

Interesting data.

It says a lot that 15% of all DUI deaths are from drivers under the age of 21. Like guns, we have a minimum age to acquire alcohol. But, those laws are not working in at least 15% of the DUI accidents. I imagine the number of actual people using alcohol under the age of 21 is much higher. We should be looking at how they are gaining access. Should we require parents to lock up their booze? 

Share this post


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

Should we require parents to lock up their booze? 

If kids got access to the parent's alcohol - I would say hold the parents liable.  I do think it is the parent's responsibility to ensure their kids are not drinking their liquor or beer.

 

If the kids got alcohol from an older sibling/friend - hold the sibling/friend liable .

 

This is not rocket science.  If you have possession of something that can cause harm, you have a duty to act responsibly.  If the kids smashed open a liquor cabinet - I'd probably give the parents a pass. But, if the liquor is just sitting out - then I put the onus on the parents to supervise and/or remove the liquor.

Share this post


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

Interesting data.

It says a lot that 15% of all DUI deaths are from drivers under the age of 21. Like guns, we have a minimum age to acquire alcohol. But, those laws are not working in at least 15% of the DUI accidents. I imagine the number of actual people using alcohol under the age of 21 is much higher. We should be looking at how they are gaining access. Should we require parents to lock up their booze? 

I think a lot of parents already lock up their booze or try to hide it.  Parents are held responsible for having alcohol available to underage kids.  Businesses are held responsible for selling to underage people.  People are held responsible for having underage people at their parties.

This is getting more into drinking in general and not just drunk driving though.

Share this post


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

I think a lot of parents already lock up their booze or try to hide it.  Parents are held responsible for having alcohol available to underage kids.  Businesses are held responsible for selling to underage people.  People are held responsible for having underage people at their parties.

This is getting more into drinking in general and not just drunk driving though.

Eliminate one, and you eliminate the other.

Share this post


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

If kids got access to the parent's alcohol - I would say hold the parents liable.  I do think it is the parent's responsibility to ensure their kids are not drinking their liquor or beer.

 

If the kids got alcohol from an older sibling/friend - hold the sibling/friend liable .

 

This is not rocket science.  If you have possession of something that can cause harm, you have a duty to act responsibly.  If the kids smashed open a liquor cabinet - I'd probably give the parents a pass. But, if the liquor is just sitting out - then I put the onus on the parents to supervise and/or remove the liquor.

It's not. But, it still isn't happening. Some are proposing laws that require gun owners to lock up their firearms. Should there be laws to require people to lock up their liquor?

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.