The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Retirement Discussions / Retire Early Liberal Edition
|Subject: Re: Connecticut||Date: 12/14/2012 10:49 PM|
|Author: salaryguru||Number: 46799 of 53679|
I blame all of you for making me take tele off of ignore so I could see what strange parallels he tried to draw between drunk driving and gun violence.
So . . . Here's what I read:
Same for drunk driving. How well did that work out for prohibition?
Prohibition did not work out well, and I suspect that an attempt to outlaw guns would work out equally poorly . . . or worse.
But although we no longer have prohibition, we do have strict laws about drinking and driving. You may feel like they are not enforced sufficiently, but they exist. We also charge high license fees and apply strict regulations to establishments that sell and dispense alcohol.
In addition, we have fairly rigid requirements for being allowed to drive. I believe all states require that applicants pass a test. Further, cars are all required to be licensed and to pay an annual fee to be allowed on the road. Most states even require periodic safety and pollution tests for all cars. There is a readily accessible data base of all drivers and all legal automobiles that allows law enforcement officials to identify a driver or car and their associated records in a matter of minutes.
Let's start there for guns and gun ownership. Shall we? Require training and passing a test to become a gun owner. License all guns and track ownership. Require registration fees be paid on all guns every year.
What is it, 40,000 to 50000 slaughtered on the roads each year, half of them by drunk drivers?
This is a classic tele statement. Not only is the number completely made up and wrong, but it points to an issue where the gun nuts tend to be completely inconsistent. If there is an accident anywhere in America and one of the drivers is found to have elevated alcohol content in their blood, the accident and any injuries or deaths associate with it are officially identified as caused by alcohol. That is clearly not always true, but that's the way we record statistics. On the other hand, when someone takes a gun and opens fire killing other people, the first thing we hear from the gun nuts is, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."
Maybe as a second step, we should try being more consistent and accurate about both types of incidents.
Lots of innocent kids, too...wiped out by 7th conviction DUI types who intercst and the libs will never put in jail, nor remove their driving licenses other than for a slap on the wrist and a promise to get 'treatment'.....
This is just tele fantasy. I don't know of anybody - liberal or conservative - who has ever advocated allowing multiple DUI offenders to continue driving. I'm sure there is someone, somewhere who has advocated such a thing, but I've never met them or heard them propose such nonsense. And I would certainly be surprised if we could round up more than a dozen such people if we would find them to be predominantly liberal. Until tele provides some evidence for such a claim, I will simply assume it's another case of him needing a plexiotomy.
How about it intercst? First conviction drunk driving - six months suspension and car impounded......second conviction - driving priveleges taken away for life, not allowed to own or possess a car, and a year in jail.
Let's solve the drunk driving problem. . .
Go for it. It might help if you understood the problem first, and I think you are incredibly naïve if you think you can achieve that goal simply by requiring steeper penalties. One of the things that some researchers have noted is that when the penalties get too steep, law enforcement officials can become reluctant to arrest. No one wants to ruin the life of a good person for having a bad day. Most experts think the road to safer highways is through better education and training. Social pressure, not fear of arrest, is ultimately more effective. In fact, they will point to improvements in traffic safety that have come through such efforts. Too bad we can't approach the gun violence issue in the same way because of the fanatic gun nuts. Instead, we have to pretend that guns have nothing to do with gun violence and watch our children and others be gunned down by people carrying multiple guns capable of rapid fire and high ammunition capacity.
|Copyright 1996-2013 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|