Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
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.
USA DUI Deaths (and how they relate to other things) (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter KCitons
- Start date
timschochet
Footballguy
Doesn’t have to be R vs D but there should be at least a political angle IMO.
Whatever though. I’m not the board police; carry on.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I also THINK he said that his bracelet detects alcohol content, but that sounded a bit futuristic, so not 100% on that. I thought he said something about needed to be sober for the duration of the bracelet. I will admit to not listening too closely to him about this topic since my blood starts boiling in anger, so I will have to look into if that is a thing or not.KCitons said:
KCitons
Footballguy
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 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?
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
I would like the penalty increased for fleeing the scene of an accident. Most importantly fleeing the scene of a single car crash as i think that is just a small ticket.
ETA: on foot
ETA: on foot
Last edited by a moderator:
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
The fines and jail time keep increasing and that can help. It does not help the people who have serious problems with drinking though. I would not be opposed to having licenses tagged for restriction to purchase alcohol. Alcoholics will of course find ways around it but it would help. A breathalyzer in their vehicle at all times could help but once again some will find ways around it.
Zow
Footballguy
I could see a liability issue as well. Ignition interlock devices are not perfect. They also tend to cause some internal computer issues with some cars. Also, they aren't compatible with all vehicles (e.g. classic cars, many motorcycles, etc.). Further, there could issues arise that it would slow a car from being driven in an emergency situation.fatguyinalittlecoat said:
They're also very expensive for the user. The government would essentially be requiring everybody to spent an additional $100 plus per month just to drive/own a vehicle.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
What are the stats on 2nd, 3rd, 4th offenses? What %s are we talking?
I also assume that varies from state to state depending on strictness of laws.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
There is always people who will buy booze and it's so readily accessible it would be hard to stop. Agree it would be a starting point though.
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
It's also really easy to make your own liquor or beer so it would never be stopped.
KCitons
Footballguy
That's a good question. Hard to find stats on those.
The bigger question is why we even have penalties for 3rd or 4th offenses. At that point, it should be obvious that the person is not changing their ways.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
That's obvious but your agenda for this one doesn't seem to be what the title suggests.
KCitons
Footballguy
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?
2 - Again, it's reactive and penalty only applies after the fact
3 - Insurance is only necessary to register. There are thousands of people on the roads without insurance.
4 - This has nothing to do with cars. It has to do with a license. But, I will use a personal example of the governments failure to recognize a problem. As you may know, my wife was diagnosed with a rare eye condition about 7 years ago. She was working as a Rural Mail Carrier at the time. The Post Office had requirements that her vision be 20/50 in her best eye in order to remain employed. We monitored the condition for few years. Seeing a specialist every quarter. At the time that her best eye became worst than 20/50, we notified the Post Office and she went to the DMV. The Post Office wouldn't let her continue to work. The DMV told her that she had 2 years left before she needed to renew her license and to not worry about it until then. She had to take a note from her eye dr. to the DMV explaining that she should not be driving at night. If she was only looking out for herself, she could have kept her previous license and become a hazard to the rest of the population. So, I have no faith in execution by some of these checks.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
NO, they don't want them compared to or treated that way, because then - 2nd Amendment and law abiding citizens. They just want to point out that cars and doctor accidents cause more deaths than guns, so focus on those things instead of guns.
KCitons
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
You seem to be the only one that wants to compare other things to what the title is about while the rest of us want to focus on the title's subject.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
Just so I'm clear:
1 - You don't want me to compare things in the gun thread.
2 - You tell me if I want to discuss it, that I should create my own thread.
3 - I create my own thread.
4 - You tell me not to compare things in the new thread.
Sounds like you just want to censor my opinion.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
You're comparing things that are not comparable. That does not add to an honest discussion. The rest of us have been having an honest discussion that is just about drunk driving. In the shooting thread everyone else is trying to only discuss guns and shootings, except for you and Stealthy. Why are you unable to discuss just the one so there can be meaningful talk?
I have no idea what you are trying to prove here. None whatsoever.
The concept is that we can and do have extensive regulations relating to cars and the people driving them. What is the argument about having regulations related to gun ownership and use?
3. Huh? Because thousands of people break the law, we should not have laws? What kind of bizarro world do you live in?
4. It has everything to do with cars - we regulate who can use cars, and under what conditions. If you want a pat on the back for your wife being a law-abiding citizen - consider this such a pat. No extra points simply because she did not break the law. And, for the record - had she gone on to become a "hazard" - the civil liabilities would have moved from negligence to intentional or reckless conduct - opening yourself up to punitive damages. So, congrats?
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
I own several guns and enjoy taking them to the range, but the whole guns vs. driving/dui comparison by the extreme gun crowd is one of the most bizarre and inane I can remember hearing about anything.
Driving and DUIs are dangerous things that are continuously studied and regulated and deaths surrounding it continue to trend downwards because of it. Meanwhile gun violence cannot even legally be studied by congress and the only things increasing are NRA lobbying expenditures as gun deaths rise year over year.
Yet somehow the takeaway from that is that the "anti-gun" crowd, much of which is really the pro-gun crowd that is able to see beyond the simpleton premise than any gun regulation or study is just an attempt to take everyone's guns so the government can tyrannize you, should just leave well enough alone.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/30/drunken-driving-rate-falls-to-new-low-federal-data-show/?utm_term=.5877ffd50737
https://www.statista.com/chart/16421/the-number-of-us-gun-deaths-due-to-firearms/
Drunk driving: Big problem, studies and regulations done, problem gets better
Gun violence: Big problem, studies banned and regulations whole-heartedly fought against, problem gets worse
Takeaway: Studies and regulations don't help so we may as well just leave it alone.
Driving and DUIs are dangerous things that are continuously studied and regulated and deaths surrounding it continue to trend downwards because of it. Meanwhile gun violence cannot even legally be studied by congress and the only things increasing are NRA lobbying expenditures as gun deaths rise year over year.
Yet somehow the takeaway from that is that the "anti-gun" crowd, much of which is really the pro-gun crowd that is able to see beyond the simpleton premise than any gun regulation or study is just an attempt to take everyone's guns so the government can tyrannize you, should just leave well enough alone.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/30/drunken-driving-rate-falls-to-new-low-federal-data-show/?utm_term=.5877ffd50737
https://www.statista.com/chart/16421/the-number-of-us-gun-deaths-due-to-firearms/
Drunk driving: Big problem, studies and regulations done, problem gets better
Gun violence: Big problem, studies banned and regulations whole-heartedly fought against, problem gets worse
Takeaway: Studies and regulations don't help so we may as well just leave it alone.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
I own several guns and enjoy taking them to the range, but the whole guns vs. driving/dui comparison by the extreme gun crowd is one of the most bizarre and inane I can remember hearing about anything.
Driving and DUIs are dangerous things that are continuously studied and regulated and deaths surrounding it continue to trend downwards because of it. Meanwhile gun violence cannot even legally be studied by congress and the only things increasing are NRA lobbying expenditures as gun deaths rise year over year.
Yet somehow the takeaway from that is that the "anti-gun" crowd, much of which is really the pro-gun crowd that is able to see beyond the simpleton premise than any gun regulation or study is just an attempt to take everyone's guns so the government can tyrannize you, should just leave well enough alone.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/30/drunken-driving-rate-falls-to-new-low-federal-data-show/?utm_term=.5877ffd50737
https://www.statista.com/chart/16421/the-number-of-us-gun-deaths-due-to-firearms/
Drunk driving: Big problem, studies and regulations done, problem gets better
Gun violence: Big problem, studies banned and regulations whole-heartedly fought against, problem gets worse
Takeaway: Studies and regulations don't help so we may as well just leave it alone.
This is going to be a bizarre thread.
KCitons
Footballguy
1 - my point was that it is not preventive. It's merely reactive. To make effective auto registration, you need to have the dmv mediate the transaction to ensure that the purchaser registers that car at the time of sale. Otherwise, the danger (IE accidents without insurance) is still possible.
2 - It has been suggested that the registration of autos should be applied to guns. But, as I pointed out above, auto registration has loopholes.
3 - Again, I thought we are trying to prevent, not just react.
4 - I expect nothing from anyone here. Much less a pat on the back. The fact that you saw that comment as being that, shows how little you pay attention. It was to point out that your ongoing checks wouldn't make any difference. My wife's situation is an example of that. But, since most people in America are living paycheck to paycheck, what kind of punitive damages are they going to be able to pay?
KCitons
Footballguy
Show me a report that tells how many people died from DUI related accidents in 2018? I looked when I started this thread, and couldn't find accurate information.I own several guns and enjoy taking them to the range, but the whole guns vs. driving/dui comparison by the extreme gun crowd is one of the most bizarre and inane I can remember hearing about anything.
Driving and DUIs are dangerous things that are continuously studied and regulated and deaths surrounding it continue to trend downwards because of it. Meanwhile gun violence cannot even legally be studied by congress and the only things increasing are NRA lobbying expenditures as gun deaths rise year over year.
Yet somehow the takeaway from that is that the "anti-gun" crowd, much of which is really the pro-gun crowd that is able to see beyond the simpleton premise than any gun regulation or study is just an attempt to take everyone's guns so the government can tyrannize you, should just leave well enough alone.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/30/drunken-driving-rate-falls-to-new-low-federal-data-show/?utm_term=.5877ffd50737
https://www.statista.com/chart/16421/the-number-of-us-gun-deaths-due-to-firearms/
Drunk driving: Big problem, studies and regulations done, problem gets better
Gun violence: Big problem, studies banned and regulations whole-heartedly fought against, problem gets worse
Takeaway: Studies and regulations don't help so we may as well just leave it alone.
But someone posted this in the shooting thread this yesterday:
We have lots of web pages that list the location, the number of deaths, the type of weapon, etc, etc. when it comes to shootings. I don't see any of that on DUI deaths.
KCitons
Footballguy
I've yet to hear a good reason why the comparison isn't valid. Posters asked me to stop making it in the gun thread, so I did.
KCitons
Footballguy
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Nonsense. I mean you are typing words, but they have no bearing to the discussion.
1. So what? Pass a law that requires guns to be registered prior to use. If someone breaks the law - arrest them, and confiscate the guns. When a car is sold - the state is notified - otherwise they continue to tax the previous owner...
2. Again. SO what? There are loopholes for everything. IS it your position that laws are then meaningless? We should live in a lawless society?
3. No idea where you are going with this
4. You clearly were looking for some sort of "Hey LOOK AT ME" response. I gave you what you were looking for.
So:
1. Lets register all guns. That way, when you are convicted of a felony, we know to take your weapons.
2. Lets require licensure to operate a gun - and you have to periodically update that licensure.
3. Lets require insurance for all gun ownership. Why? Because it puts the risk of gun ownership on the owner. Premiums should be very inexpensive given how few gun accidents occur
Then, when we do that, we can come back and compare notes on guns and cars.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
if anyone cares about these stats
ban or severely restrict alcohol sales to everyone
have ignition interlock devices on all cars that everyone has to use every time they start a car
background check to buy any alcohol to make sure the person buying isn't a repeat offender
anyone with a DUI cannot own a vehicle or license ever again
anyone who buys alcohol, raise the insurance costs to those people to help pay for all the damages alcohol does
require liability insurance to anyone who uses alcohol
- In 2017, a total of 1,147 children 14 and younger were killed in motor vehicle traffic crashes.
- According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 37,133 people died in traffic crashes in 2017 in the United States.
- Its numbers over a million every year arrested.
- Each day, people drive drunk more than 300,000 times, but only about 3200 are arrested.
ban or severely restrict alcohol sales to everyone
have ignition interlock devices on all cars that everyone has to use every time they start a car
background check to buy any alcohol to make sure the person buying isn't a repeat offender
anyone with a DUI cannot own a vehicle or license ever again
anyone who buys alcohol, raise the insurance costs to those people to help pay for all the damages alcohol does
require liability insurance to anyone who uses alcohol
Stealthycat
Footballguy
or
we have enough laws and restrictions right now, and the cost of legal alcohol and drugs in the USA is the deaths that comes from DUI's and we just accept the collateral damages
we have enough laws and restrictions right now, and the cost of legal alcohol and drugs in the USA is the deaths that comes from DUI's and we just accept the collateral damages
KCitons
Footballguy
So:
1 - Are we going to let people buy cars and guns from a private seller? Currently, I can buy a car with cash. No registry, no background check, just cash in hand.
2 - Let's do this just like autos. I had my previous license for 10 years and was able to update it via mail.
3 - As long as premiums are inline with use, I think this is acceptable. Since I drive my car daily and only use my guns a few times a year, the gun insurance should be like boat insurance.
You can buy cars and guns from private sellers. Cars are taxed in most states, so unless the previous owner has agreed to continue the property tax burden, the state is notified of a sale. No reason why the state should not be notified in the event of a private gun transaction.
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.
Premiums will be decided by capitalism - I assume you are ok with capitalism.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
@KCitons Let’s pass the Avoid Unneccesary Deaths Act that I just made up. At some date in the future the following must occur:fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I. All new vehicles sold in the country must be equipped with breathalyzers that would require a pass for the car to start.
II. All new firearms purchased must be equipped with a biometric lock so only the registered owner can allow its use.
On board?
KCitons
Footballguy
Cars are taxed. As I already mentioned, I can sell one of my cars today and the government is only notified if I return the plates (usually if you are going to reuse them on a different car). Otherwise, the state/county has no idea whether or not I have the vehicle in my possession until the next renewal period expires.
This is the reason I make these statements when someone says "let's regulate guns like cars". There are too many loopholes when it comes to cars. But, you guys are so busy trying to prove me wrong, you don't see that I'm actually helping your cause.
KCitons
Footballguy
Possibly.
The car would be able to be used by anyone that can pass the ignition lock. But, the gun would only be able to be used by the registered owner. I would want the biometrics to be able to register multiple users.
Which brings up another point about DUI's. If my brother in law, who is uninsured, borrows my car, goes to the bar, and kills someone driving home, who carries that liability? I would assume the victims family would come after me at some point. Even though I had not knowledge of any wrongdoing.
I suspect you are required to notify the state upon sale. If you choose to be an outlaw, not much I can do to help.
KCitons
Footballguy
I suspect you are wrong. I've lived in the same state for 50 years, owned 2 dozen cars. Never once have I had an issue.
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...
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...
Quint
Footballguy
Assuming the vehicle is in your name and you had insurance, the victim’s family would deal with your insurance company. Your BiL could be facing a civil suit, in addition to the criminal aspects of his actions.
Of course, the victim’s family may file a civil suit against you too (as the owner of the vehicle). And that would play out in court.
Similar threads
