Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is Drunk Driving a comparison to a lunatic mass shooter?
Yes. Both should be euthanized if their deed results in lives lost.
Drunk driving is no accident. She knowingly got behind the wheel of a car when she was impaired.
Although now they are saying she is mentally ill, it doesn't change my opinion. If she is so ****ed up in the head that she didn't know not to mow down 50 people, she should be euthanized.
Last edited by convextech; 10-26-2015 at 12:09 PM..
There was a point in time when drunk driving was much more common than it is now. Then a bunch of fed up citizens, mostly moms, founded MADD. That organization was able to channel all the outrage into changing public perceptions of drunk driving as well as getting new laws on the books. Now drunk drivers are more likely to end up in legal trouble and face public scorn. The organization was effective. When an incident like the Oklahoma accident happens now it is seen as an isolated incident that the law will handle. The public has confidence that justice will be served.
Gimum.
Isolated incident???
I see morbidity and mortality and the socioeconomic impact of alcohol every single effin' day I go to work.
Just because something doesn't make the news doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Currently the news is obsessed with reporting shootings. That has to be the right kind of shooting. It has to be the kind of shooting that can spark outrage amongst the right population. There are shootings of children that don't make national media because they aren't perpetuated by the right kind of criminals.
Alcohol-related crimes, accidents, and illnesses maim and kill more people than all the gun nonsense put together over a decade. PLUS the war.
No one takes that Moderator cut: Language seriously. It is frustrating as hell.
Just like in the 1000s of other threads on the subject I will pose the question.
What laws are you proposing?
Can you show any evidence, even imagined, that shows how your proposed law(s) would have prevented any of the "mass shootings" in the last calendar year?
I would like the US to follow New Zealand's gun laws. They had a violent history including mass shootings, the last one took place in 1997. It takes 6-8 months to get a gun license there. You have to join a local gun club to learn how to properly shoot, clean and store your weapons, before you are ever allowed to own a gun. You have to take a written test and have two people vouch through private interviews that you are mentally sound and competent enough to own a gun. No criminal record! All guns in the home must be locked in a safe. All guns in transit must be locked in a safe. If your gun gets stolen, you never own a gun again, period. Automatic and semi automatic weapons are banned. Punishment for breaking these laws is harsh, like 3 years jail time for selling a gun without a licensed dealer. They now average 11 gun dearths per YEAR there, population is 4.4 million.
We also need stop Craigslist and gun show sales. It's completely absurd that you can purchase weapons this way. Licensed dealers only. If you want to do a private sale, put it on consignment.
Shootings that may have been prevented with stronger laws:
If you wander into this discussion crying about how some "common sense" laws should be embraced but that darn NRA is just too unreasonable....then you're not informed.
The problem is that there have been many many attempts over the years to circumvent the 2nd amendment with laws like Chicago's handgun restrictions (unconstitutional) and a host of steep taxes or fees on things like bullets or a per gun tax or high licensing fees etc.
Also, when people mention how you have to have a valid license, insurance etc. to drive a car....in recent years there are states in this country with 1 in 3 to 1 in 4 drivers are without insurance. The majority of gun violence is going to occur whether or not you make the guy they are buying requiring a license or not.
Especially galling is the fact that the NRA enjoys most of it's support in rural America which has gun violence rates similar to Canada.
How about instead of blaming rural America for what is mostly an urban problem....that we as a country address those areas and why they are over-run with violent youths gunning each other down? Heck, Baltimore graduates maybe half their kids from highschool and the cause of all the violence is the darn NRA? Somebody is getting hoodwinked bigtime....but that's what happens when you buy into partisan politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by numberfive
Just curious, would you be able to name 5 gun laws that the NRA wants strengthened? Or maybe 5 that they successfully strengthened ? Maybe 3 of each? Even 1? I often see people vilify the NRA without taking an honest look at what they actually do.
Also, if you think strict gun laws work, can you provide a short list of countries that had a violence problem like we have here in the US, and how stricter gun laws changed the overall homicide trends?
I would be thrilled if you could find even one. The only examples I've seen where people even attempt that are Britain (homicide rates were low to begin with) and Australia (the overall homicide rate trend didn't change, just the method). I'm interested to hear your examples though.
Um no. The NRA IS a huge problem. Yes, most of their supporters are white country guys and gals, but the NRA has Billy Bob and Cleetus so terrified that an inner city gang is going to come blasting into their farmhouse that they MUST have an arsenal of guns to protect themselves. They also have them terrified that the government will be rounding up their guns at any moment and that any attempt to alter gun laws will result in total gun bans, so even though all the measures I suggested above will have zero effect on Billy Bob and Cleetus, they vote against all these laws and the people who SHOULDN'T have guns still get them with ease. The NRA has also been caught illegally funneling money to politicians so they will vote against ANY gun measure.
Gun violence has been rising the US for decades. Britain's may have already been low before, but they aren't going up. They put laws into place before there was a problem. The NRA keeps saying that guns keep is safe, but then why do we, the US have such high rates of gun violence while Britain, Australia (read above article) New Zealand, Costa Rica and the Nordic countries, countries with much fewer guns and much stricter laws do not???? Why do states with stricter laws have less gun crime than states with kax laws?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan4
Isolated incident???
I see morbidity and mortality and the socioeconomic impact of alcohol every single effin' day I go to work.
Just because something doesn't make the news doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Currently the news is obsessed with reporting shootings. That has to be the right kind of shooting. It has to be the kind of shooting that can spark outrage amongst the right population. There are shootings of children that don't make national media because they aren't perpetuated by the right kind of criminals.
Alcohol-related crimes, accidents, and illnesses maim and kill more people than all the gun nonsense put together over a decade. PLUS the war.
No one takes that Moderator cut: Language seriously. It is frustrating as hell.
Alcohol and drunk driving are still a problem, but changes in laws and the voices of MADD have reduced the number of drunk driving incidents in half since 1980. I remember my dad telling me how you could drink a beer while driving in the 1960s (not drunk), now you can't even have an open container in your car without facing arrest even if you hadn't ingested it at the time. People will always be irresponsible and do bad things, but we shouldn't let the rest of the world go buck wild because of a irresponsible few.
I see morbidity and mortality and the socioeconomic impact of alcohol every single effin' day I go to work.
Just because something doesn't make the news doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Currently the news is obsessed with reporting shootings. That has to be the right kind of shooting. It has to be the kind of shooting that can spark outrage amongst the right population. There are shootings of children that don't make national media because they aren't perpetuated by the right kind of criminals.
Alcohol-related crimes, accidents, and illnesses maim and kill more people than all the gun nonsense put together over a decade. PLUS the war.
No one takes that Moderator cut: Language seriously. It is frustrating as hell.
The media is to blame when they get all hyped up about a mass shooting and make the shooter infamous. There are many idiots out there that relate with the shooter and see him as a hero while the rest of us look at the deeds with disgust we keep looking much like passing a scene of an auto accident.
How many times a day in this country does the mere presence of a gun prevent a crime from happening and we never hear of it? In the news world "If it bleeds it leads" . Blame Hollywood but people like to see carnage.
If we look at strict firearm laws how do we explain Chicago and the high incident of gun violence there? It might be due to a socioeconomic problem but in the end the people shooting each other are gang bangers using illegal guns yet where is the outrage there? I say all lives matter including black lives so why don't the politicians allow the police to crack down on illegal guns to protect the black gang member people from each other?
There is a health crisis in Chicago, hundreds are dieing from lead poisoning (bullets) Where is the outrage there??
I would like the US to follow New Zealand's gun laws. They had a violent history including mass shootings, the last one took place in 1997. It takes 6-8 months to get a gun license there. You have to join a local gun club to learn how to properly shoot, clean and store your weapons, before you are ever allowed to own a gun. You have to take a written test and have two people vouch through private interviews that you are mentally sound and competent enough to own a gun. No criminal record! All guns in the home must be locked in a safe. All guns in transit must be locked in a safe. If your gun gets stolen, you never own a gun again, period. Automatic and semi automatic weapons are banned. Punishment for breaking these laws is harsh, like 3 years jail time for selling a gun without a licensed dealer. They now average 11 gun dearths per YEAR there, population is 4.4 million.
Interesting...
Did New Zealand have a murder rate comparable to ours here in the US? What was the overall homicide trend before and after those gun laws were introduced? Or to phrase it in a different way, how did those gun laws change the overall homicide trends for New Zealand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
Um no. The NRA IS a huge problem. Yes, most of their supporters are white country guys and gals, but the NRA has Billy Bob and Cleetus so terrified that an inner city gang is going to come blasting into their farmhouse that they MUST have an arsenal of guns to protect themselves. They also have them terrified that the government will be rounding up their guns at any moment and that any attempt to alter gun laws will result in total gun bans, so even though all the measures I suggested above will have zero effect on Billy Bob and Cleetus, they vote against all these laws and the people who SHOULDN'T have guns still get them with ease. The NRA has also been caught illegally funneling money to politicians so they will vote against ANY gun measure.
This strawman isn't worth addressing. You clearly haven't checked to see what laws the NRA helped strengthen. Let's check in later after you've had a chance to see what the NRA actually does, rather than what other people have told you it does pertaining to gun laws.
Britain's may have already been low before, but they aren't going up. They put laws into place before there was a problem. The NRA keeps saying that guns keep is safe, but then why do we, the US have such high rates of gun violence while Britain, Australia (read above article) New Zealand, Costa Rica and the Nordic countries, countries with much fewer guns and much stricter laws do not???? Why do states with stricter laws have less gun crime than states with kax laws?
Britain's violent crime is dropping, not staying flat. Australia's homicide victim counts have remained flat before and after the gun ban in '96. That means the gun ban didn't reduce overall homicides, just the method. Empty victory.
I'm not sure about New Zealand, awaiting your input from the above question.
States with stricter laws have more or less gun crime than states with lax laws. Take California, the #1 best state for gun laws according to the Brady Campaign. Their gun crime rates are just slightly higher than the national average. According to your logic, they should be the safest in the nation, but nope. And the neighboring states like Nevada and Arizona? Worst gun laws according to the Brady Campaign. And their gun crime rates? Exactly the same as California. Your theory just doesn't hold up.
The difference between drunk driver and a sober, if insane, mass shooter is one of intent. The drunk driver, even if too drunk to realize they could not drive a car, did not intend to drive into a crowd and hurt anyone. The mass shooter, by the acts of planning the shooting, gathering the firearms and doing the deed, proved prior intent. The shooter intended to kill people while the drunk likely did not.
P4P Post #13 - New Zealand's and Britain's Gun laws are inappropriate for the United States for several reasons. The primary reason is we are still a free country where adult people are, or should be, allowed to carry, concealed or openly, guns any place they are allowed to be for whatever legal reason they have to be there. Places that heavily restrict the possession, carrying or presence of firearms violate the individual freedom to be armed. The secondary reason for individual firearms possession is our sacred authorities have seen it proper to not take the responsibility for defending individual citizens from assault wherever we are. If the authorities are not willing or able to defend everyone from assault then everyone must be able and willing to defend themselves. Firearms make this a lot easier than wishing your assailant would just stop and go away. Just being alive is a good enough reason to be armed well enough to defend yourself.
I believe many wishful people want to restrict possession of firearms either completely or to the selected few "proper" people like the really wealthy or to police and military personal on duty. Apparently they do not trust anyone to be armed and expect the criminals to instantly give up their guns and play nice like them and their friends. That will never happen. Enough people are violent criminals that will never give up firearms and that makes it necessary for the rest of us to have to defend ourselves.
I have friends that have told me they would rather be hurt than use a gun to defend themselves. I tell them that is there prerogative but not mine. I try to avoid the places where I am in greater danger of being assaulted as much as possible. When I have to travel in those areas I will be alert, aware of my surroundings and armed.
The difference between drunk driver and a sober, if insane, mass shooter is one of intent. The drunk driver, even if too drunk to realize they could not drive a car, did not intend to drive into a crowd and hurt anyone. The mass shooter, by the acts of planning the shooting, gathering the firearms and doing the deed, proved prior intent. The shooter intended to kill people while the drunk likely did not.
P4P Post #13 - New Zealand's and Britain's Gun laws are inappropriate for the United States for several reasons. The primary reason is we are still a free country where adult people are, or should be, allowed to carry, concealed or openly, guns any place they are allowed to be for whatever legal reason they have to be there. Places that heavily restrict the possession, carrying or presence of firearms violate the individual freedom to be armed. The secondary reason for individual firearms possession is our sacred authorities have seen it proper to not take the responsibility for defending individual citizens from assault wherever we are. If the authorities are not willing or able to defend everyone from assault then everyone must be able and willing to defend themselves. Firearms make this a lot easier than wishing your assailant would just stop and go away. Just being alive is a good enough reason to be armed well enough to defend yourself.
I believe many wishful people want to restrict possession of firearms either completely or to the selected few "proper" people like the really wealthy or to police and military personal on duty. Apparently they do not trust anyone to be armed and expect the criminals to instantly give up their guns and play nice like them and their friends. That will never happen. Enough people are violent criminals that will never give up firearms and that makes it necessary for the rest of us to have to defend ourselves.
I have friends that have told me they would rather be hurt than use a gun to defend themselves. I tell them that is there prerogative but not mine. I try to avoid the places where I am in greater danger of being assaulted as much as possible. When I have to travel in those areas I will be alert, aware of my surroundings and armed.
Good post.
I have relatives who are very anti gun to the point of being naive, but if the world gets turned upside down they will be desperate to find someone with a gun to protect them.
Criminals by definition do not care about following laws and even if guns vanished tomorrow they would still find a way to hurt someone.
There are many women in this country who are attacked by ex husbands/ boyfriends. Why do the Liberals want to disarm these women when the only thing between being beat up, raped and possibly murdered is a firearm? Sometimes a restraining order and a call to 911 isn't enough.
Owning a firearm is as much a personal choice to women as getting an abortion is. If you need one it is nice to be able to get one.
How many times a day in this country does the mere presence of a gun prevent a crime from happening and we never hear of it? there??
I don't think it's a coincidence that every home around my parents house in a very fancy neighborhood has been broken into except for theirs. And they have lived there longer than anyone else. They happen to have an NRA sticker on their front door. Irony. They don't actually own a gun.
The difference between drunk driver and a sober, if insane, mass shooter is one of intent. The drunk driver, even if too drunk to realize they could not drive a car, did not intend to drive into a crowd and hurt anyone. The mass shooter, by the acts of planning the shooting, gathering the firearms and doing the deed, proved prior intent. The shooter intended to kill people while the drunk likely did not. rmed.
The biggest and most important difference between mass shooters and drunk drivers is that most drunk drivers are serial drunk drivers who will continue to drink and drive no matter how many times they are caught and especially if they are never caught.
A mass shooter does his thing once and is either annihilated or commits suicide. I think it's way more important to control the drunk drivers. They are much bigger threat to society.
I would like the US to follow New Zealand's gun laws. nsible few.
I think those rules are completely reasonable. I also think that we should adopt other countries' drunk driving rules. And make it just hard and as expensive to get a license.
See, I am a doctor who sees and takes care of trauma. I have for many years. And it's hard for me to get excited about gun rules, even good ones, when I see all the tragedies that poor driving, distracted driving, idiot driving, and drunk driving cause. So much more tragedy from driving. The stats only tell you about deaths. They don't tell you about the people who can't function the way they used to. They don't tell you about the people who can't sleep at night because of a chronic pain they have now. They don't tell you the full story.
Driving kills people because no one cares. It's too easy to get a license. It's too easy to get your license back. There is no skin in the game when it comes to getting your license in this country.
Require the training and expense other countries do, and you will see death rates plummet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
