Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
If I understand correctly - domestic abuse is mostly charged as a misdemeanor, not a felony. Hence the problem - high correlation of domestic abusers and shooters (not to mention the damage at home), but they still keep their guns because it's not a felony (not to mention it's not as stiff of a penalty, so they are right back out).
Do you think some people may drink less if the costs went up? Maybe a few less DUIs? If we increased the penalties, could it have some effect?
No level of penalty? If you get 1 DUI, you lose your license for 5 years. You don't think that would decrease DUIs within a couple years?
Does travelling from Oklahoma to Illinois make abortion more expensive than just having it done in Oklahoma? Can you not see that happening?More expensive? No one in here is saying this. That's you making something up to try and prove some kind of point nobody made.
Maybe you are right for addicts. I don't know, but I would be curious what % of DUIs are alcoholics vs. partiers at a game/concert/club. IMO stiffer penalties would decrease those types, again to what % I'd be curious to see.
I would be totally on board with this as long as there was a BAC qualifier.
As a bartender, people do not drink at bars nearly like they used to for a number of reasons. Yes there is always the outlier that you have to watch for, Addicts don’t care what the limit is. Now move this point to guns - the Buffalo shooter is the outlier and didn’t care what others thought, he was going to do his thing. It’s a problem we as a society has to figure out. We can ban guns, but that shooter will find a way to get them.
We sell more Busch Light and draft beer now vs higher end lately, because of the economy.
I’m a little older, but feel the same way. Although I’ve usually lived in decent neighborhoods, I’ve travelled around the world, and never once yearned for a gun.
I believe that this is your experience. I just looked, and the charts that I saw seem to say that it's down from the 80s, but it's still plateaued over the last decade or so. Like I said, my experience in beer central here in WI is that drinking is normalized. I know people with multiple DUIs, I see dads during their kids basketball tournaments have 2-3 drinks during lunch break and go right back to the game. My overall point was disagreeing with this SC that we had common sense laws that work for these cases, not that the extreme examples won't continue to do so (again, that should also never be a reason for us to pass or enforce a law either). Your point about the Buffalo shooter was also not my point either. I don't believe we are doing the basic things right for reasons I've said. That's in general, not the extreme cases like Buffalo. So IMO we don't have common sense laws that we properly enforce.
Liquor sales did go up a lot in 2020 when people were shut in at home.
Yes the enforcement is a problem as well. Personally, I don't think it makes sense that:
Yeah, we don't agree on the first part either. I don't think it's harsh enough, and easy to mask. Also 0 in there about non-physical abuse. Again, odd that I can't seem to get agreement on these concepts.
Despite the statistics over and over and over showing banning abortion does not make the rate go down. But the safe rate go down.
You can’t stop someone from driving, IDC if they have 100 DUIs. People are going to do what they are going to do. It doesn’t matter how harsh the laws are.
This line of thinking does nor compute to me, and imo is a lazy reason not to have a law or try to stop it. If that was the case something simple like seatbelt laws would have never worked. Over time attitudes, messaging, behavior changes.
It’s not lazy because you can’t relate to it. Trust me, it happens. I had posted before about a friend who had 5 DUI’s. He can never get a license in Michigan. Guess what, he still drives to work every day.
WTF? I said I have a co-worker doing the same. I come from a family alcoholics. I live in a state I would assume is one of the highest drinking states. I also have said all these things, some in the last day.
Tell me a law that is 100% effective as a deterrent, we can go from there. I don’t what to tell you, if someone wants to drive bad enough, they will. Rational people don’t think this way. Are you ready to give up all of your freedoms to be safe? Sounds like it.WTF? I said I have a co-worker doing the same. I come from a family alcoholics. I live in a state I would assume is one of the highest drinking states. I also have said all these things, some in the last day.
What I think is lazy and a bit ####ed up is that you seem to be basically shrugging your shoulders and saying that it won't stop your buddy if we as a whole think the laws are too lax and make them harsher. Again, why bother with laws at all if we just point to an extreme example and say it won't stop them? That's the lazy part.
Remember, my beef has a lot to do overall with how these laws and attitudes reflect on our thnking as a country. IMO it seems a little lax on domestic abusuers and drinkings. Better not get caught with weed, or selling loose cigs though.
You are probably right and I am living in the past a bit on that one. That comment wasn't needed and distracted from my point about the other things.
*rational people as in knowing not to drive, not aimed at Karma Police personally.
This was never my claim, and now it's in SC territory.
I feel like we are talking in circles a bit, gb. Plus, we have managed to turn another gun thread into a DUI thread.
That was why I had the post about a drunk is going to drive and someone who wants a gun will get a gun by any means. It isn’t rational thinking by them.I feel like we are talking in circles a bit, gb. Plus, we have managed to turn another gun thread into a DUI thread.
I get that. But my position is that should have 0 bearing on what we overall decide our laws should be, otherwise there is 0 need for any laws because you could apply your reasoning here to any rule I throw at you. We agree that enforcement is also a big piece of the puzzle, but we still have to have rational discussions on where we drawn our lines and why.
So we disagree on that premise. That I can accept and move on from. I just get very frustrated when I feel like I am having to argue something that is not my position at all - ie a law will "stop" something from happening.
Do you read my posts?
