"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
I'm still waiting for an answer too... from the anti gunners...
but I think we already know
they would have been damn glad someone brave was there to stop
the murderer of 26 little children days before Christmas.
They would be thankful for the gun that stopped him.
OK but you still didn't answer his question. IF, hypothetically speaking, there were a regulation that would have prevented this, would you support it? Please answer not in the form of verse poetry. One word will suffice.
Thanks.
Van,
You were correct earlier when you assumed I had asked the hypothetical question earlier to determine the level of resolve gun supporters had.
It's curious that deflection and avoidance strategies are offered while dancing around the question to avoid answering it.
Here it is again... with a slight modification making it easier to understand:
If you could go back in time, accept gun legislation, and be assured that as a result the Newtown tragedy would not occur... would you do it?
My resolve is I wish they had never been created... go back in time to then we have
a hypothetical... but you know as well as I no gun regulations can guarantee no killing.
I see deflection as well... would you be glad if a citizen with a gun or a Resource Officer had
stopped the crazed shooter? Would you be glad that gun was there for protection?
Of course you would. That person would be a hero.
More avoidance.
I don't know why I am trying here but I posed a question to DS. He ducked it. Then you kind of crept into the conversation and ducked it as well when Van posed it to you.
Let me frame it this way...
Multiple Choice Question:
If you could go back in time, accept gun legislation, and be assured that as a result the Newtown tragedy would not occur... would you do it?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Me no speak English
I'm still waiting for an answer too... from the anti gunners...
but I think we already know
they would have been damn glad someone brave was there to stop
the murderer of 26 little children days before Christmas.
They would be thankful for the gun that stopped him.
I'm still waiting for an answer too... from the anti gunners...
but I think we already know
they would have been damn glad someone brave was there to stop
the murderer of 26 little children days before Christmas.
They would be thankful for the gun that stopped him.
I'm still waiting for an answer too... from the anti gunners...
but I think we already know
they would have been damn glad someone brave was there to stop
the murderer of 26 little children days before Christmas.
They would be thankful for the gun that stopped him.
Pretty much this.
yep and they can't admit it ... that we need guns
...and you know what? The story would have been buried in the media.
I'm still waiting for an answer too... from the anti gunners...
but I think we already know
they would have been damn glad someone brave was there to stop
the murderer of 26 little children days before Christmas.
They would be thankful for the gun that stopped him.
Pretty much this.
yep and they can't admit it ... that we need guns
Ok...we "anti-gunners" will answer your question if you answer ours. Thirty Bills posed his first, so you in accordance with proper rules of etiquette and debate, which I know we all adhere to, you two can answer ours first.
Fair?
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
By the way, weren't we talking about drunk driving? That was your original intention when posting this, right? To talk about drunk drivers? It wasn't a not-so-oblique trolling for yet another gun control argument, right?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. Let's talk about drunk driving...
Ignition Interlock devices are increasingly popular in my state/county where I prosecute. Often, if someone agrees to have the device installed in their vehicle, they will receive more lenient sentences. The device is costly and the person typically must agree to be on the program for the term of their probation (or some other lengthy period of time). Using the device is also a means for the person to drive legally (after a license is revoked for a DWI offense).
The device works by requiring the driver to blow into a machine that measures the driver's breath, before the vehicle will start. If any alcohol is measured in the driver's breath, the vehicle will not start.
Some critics state that the program/device is not working because drunk drivers, when making a conscious decision to drive under the influence, will simply find another vehicle to drive. This ignores the fact that (1) most drunk people aren't that industrious, and (2) at the very least, the program/device puts up a roadblock toward someone driving drunk in that vehicle. At the very least, it makes it much more difficult to drive drink at that specific time with that specific vehicle. Because of the evanescent nature of alcohol and intoxication, time is the best defense against someone driving drunk.
Will this voluntary regulation continue to be successful? I'm optimistic. It's never been in use as much as it is now, and once involved in the program, any violations typically trigger lengthy jail sentences.
It's interesting what we can accomplish when we get creative...
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Ok. Got it. Given the opportunity... you would seek to keep your right to bear assault rifles and handguns even though you were guaranteed to avert the tragedy!
Guns are that important to you, huh? Wow. Just wow.
Now that your silence and "I know you are but what am I" style of game playing has essentially answered my question (which begged a response first- given it was issued first)... I'll answer yours:
Yes. Anything. ANYTHING to avoid what had happened. Given your reality... I wish that someone had a gun to shoot that sick bastard in the head before he got into the school and unleashed his insanity.
But my response is only given in the context of your reality. If your country will not accept gun reform then you probably should start placing the military on every street corner and alleyway. You're not at war with Iraq insurgents as much as you're at war with yourself.
I posted this in one of the threads: in the same time frame... the US lost more people to gunfire than deaths in the Chechen War. I only included homicides for comparison's sake and in truth... numbers for both sides of the comparison are debatable (160,000 dead as a result of war in Chechnya and 100,000 dead as a result of homicide by gunfire in the US); however, I didn't account for all the 'accidental deaths' which place your yearly deaths by firearms at a rate that supersedes a war's death toll.
Ok. Got it. Given the opportunity... you would seek to keep your right to bear assault rifles and handguns even though you were guaranteed to avert the tragedy!
Guns are that important to you, huh? Wow. Just wow.
Now that your silence and "I know you are but what am I" style of game playing has essentially answered my question (which begged a response first- given it was issued first)... I'll answer yours:
Yes. Anything. ANYTHING to avoid what had happened. Given your reality... I wish that someone had a gun to shoot that sick bastard in the head before he got into the school and unleashed his insanity.
But my response is only given in the context of your reality. If your country will not accept gun reform then you probably should start placing the military on every street corner and alleyway. You're not at war with Iraq insurgents as much as you're at war with yourself.
I posted this in one of the threads: in the same time frame... the US lost more people to gunfire than deaths in the Chechen War. I only included homicides for comparison's sake and in truth... numbers for both sides of the comparison are debatable (160,000 dead as a result of war in Chechnya and 100,000 dead as a result of homicide by gunfire in the US); however, I didn't account for all the 'accidental deaths' which place your yearly deaths by firearms at a rate that supersedes a war's death toll.
We aren't answering your question because it is a ridiculous premise.
No law or regulation could guarantee this tragedy would not happen.
You have to bring something to the table believable. A scenario that is plausible. We know laws don't control people.
Look at the blow devices ... way around that just drive without a license.
There are millions doing it. The lawless do not follow laws.
And drunks kill people on the roads.
Our reality is reality.
We know everyone here wishes a gun was there to stop this killer.
And the folks in their homes tonight who fall victim to a home invasion
want one too.
As long as guns exist we need them to protect ourselves.
So if we could really change a world to have no guns, no bad guys then I would
like to live there. Maybe when Jesus comes. That would be nice.
Ok. Got it. Given the opportunity... you would seek to keep your right to bear assault rifles and handguns even though you were guaranteed to avert the tragedy!
Guns are that important to you, huh? Wow. Just wow.
Now that your silence and "I know you are but what am I" style of game playing has essentially answered my question (which begged a response first- given it was issued first)... I'll answer yours:
Yes. Anything. ANYTHING to avoid what had happened. Given your reality... I wish that someone had a gun to shoot that sick bastard in the head before he got into the school and unleashed his insanity.
But my response is only given in the context of your reality. If your country will not accept gun reform then you probably should start placing the military on every street corner and alleyway. You're not at war with Iraq insurgents as much as you're at war with yourself.
I posted this in one of the threads: in the same time frame... the US lost more people to gunfire than deaths in the Chechen War. I only included homicides for comparison's sake and in truth... numbers for both sides of the comparison are debatable (160,000 dead as a result of war in Chechnya and 100,000 dead as a result of homicide by gunfire in the US); however, I didn't account for all the 'accidental deaths' which place your yearly deaths by firearms at a rate that supersedes a war's death toll.
We aren't answering your question because it is a ridiculous premise.
No law or regulation could guarantee this tragedy would not happen.
You have to bring something to the table believable. A scenario that is plausible. We know laws don't control people.
Look at the blow devices ... way around that just drive without a license.
There are millions doing it. The lawless do not follow laws.
And drunks kill people on the roads.
Our reality is reality.
We know everyone here wishes a gun was there to stop this killer.
And the folks in their homes tonight who fall victim to a home invasion
want one too.
As long as guns exist we need them to protect ourselves.
So if we could really change a world to have no guns, no bad guys then I would
like to live there. Maybe when Jesus comes. That would be nice.
You like to avoid questions... but you paint the obvious. Remember all that, "I don't know who I'm going to cast my vote for" stuff?
You avoided the hypothetical question because it tested your indoctrinated belief. You can dismiss it any way you want, but it's painfully obvious the real reason you never responded was that you knew the answer would likely be offensive to the dead and their survivors.
We do not know that everyone here wishes there was a gun to stop this killer. Many wish the killer never had the opportunity to lay his hands on such a destructive weapon. Many hope the next deranged idiot won't be able to procure the same to do his bidding.
As for protection... why wouldn't a shotgun suffice at your door if you were truly afraid of a home invasion? Why must you insist on handguns, military style assault weapons, and hand grenades as the only reasonable form of protection in your country?
We aren't answering your question because it is a ridiculous premise.
No law or regulation could guarantee this tragedy would not happen.
You have to bring something to the table believable. A scenario that is plausible. We know laws don't control people.
Look at the blow devices ... way around that just drive without a license.
There are millions doing it. The lawless do not follow laws.
And drunks kill people on the roads.
Our reality is reality.
We know everyone here wishes a gun was there to stop this killer.
And the folks in their homes tonight who fall victim to a home invasion
want one too.
As long as guns exist we need them to protect ourselves.
So if we could really change a world to have no guns, no bad guys then I would
like to live there. Maybe when Jesus comes. That would be nice.
You're not answering because you're afraid to admit that "my right to own dangerous toys is more important than someone else's right to not be killed by dangerous toys." By not being able to fumble the words out of your mouth, that YES, anyone in their fucking right mind would completely support a regulation that would guarantee or prevent the murder of children, that's what you are tacitly admitting. That your right to own guns are more important than safety. There, I fucking said it.
How do I know that's true? Because none of the gun monkeys on here are ever willing to cite support for their claims: that most violent gun crime is done with "illegally obtained" guns, that the sheer existence of guns doesn't contribute to the incidence of violent crime (despite evidence to the contrary), that "responsible gun owners" (without defining what that means) only use their weapons responsibly, and, perhaps most pitifully, that the right to own guns trumps all, and no regulations are tolerable in the face of that. All that is what's being implied every time you refuse to state that, yes, there are some regulations that are appropriate.
It's become a sickening zero-sum game with the NRA and gun-loving portion of America. I have never advocated for a ban on guns, but yet, somehow, that's what "gun control" is perceived as meaning. No calls for compromise or middle-ground is heeded. I don't care if someone owns a gun, anymore than I care if someone likes Justin Bieber. I do care if someone's love of guns or Justin results in deaths. Right now, no one's dying because they love Biebs. (...yet).
But to simply say there there is nothing we can do, because people kill people, blah blah blah, is to be unwilling to compromise, unwilling to take a comprehensive approach toward the real issue. The real issue, of course, is that people kill people, and people use guns to do it at a frighteningly frequent pace (70% of murders are with guns!). So what does that mean? That we need to get people help who need it (i.e. mental health services, help for vets, anti-bullying etc), but also making it more difficult to obtain guns (i.e. closing gun show loopholes, disenfranchising felons, people under mental health commitment or convicted of certain offenses, outlawing high magazine weapons or assault weapons etc). "Responsible" gun owners shouldn't care if they have to jump through a few more hoops to get the rifle of their dreams, right? Because they're responsible? Right?!
So, of course, crazy nuts will find a way to commit violence. THAT'S THE POINT! Guns make finding that way much, much easier. So if we see both ends of the problem, why can't we attack both sides of the issue? Why is it that the too many gun owners aren't willing to compromise, or at least concede that guns contribute to violent crime? (Note: I can likely cite you decades of numbers from the FBI to support that, by the way).
SO...to play fair and answer your question...
...would I have preferred that someone had a gun there that day in Newtown AND actually prevented the death of children? Of course. Of-fucking-course. But do I think that's a long-time tenable solution? No. Because as we're seeing way too often, someone is only a responsible gun owner until they're not.
We could have a reasonable discussion/debate about this. But people like you don't respond except with spiraling nonsensical, deflecting statements. Others, simply post antagonistic threads and responses. No one knows if a regulation could have prevented Newtown, just like no one knows if a gun-toting janitor could have saved the day.
But for the sake of dozens of dead children in Connecticut, I'M WILLING TO GIVE ANYTHING A FUCKING SHOT. ARE YOU?
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
... But for the sake of dozens of dead children in Connecticut, I'M WILLING TO GIVE ANYTHING A FUCKING SHOT. ARE YOU?
not just for their sake but for the future.
it is interesting as well as frustrating to me to sit back and watch the arguments put forward for basically doing nothing or for increasing the carrying powers of citizens. i can not fathom the mindset that thinks MORE guns is the answer or even a good idea.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
By the way, weren't we talking about drunk driving? That was your original intention when posting this, right? To talk about drunk drivers? It wasn't a not-so-oblique trolling for yet another gun control argument, right?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. Let's talk about drunk driving...
Ignition Interlock devices are increasingly popular in my state/county where I prosecute. Often, if someone agrees to have the device installed in their vehicle, they will receive more lenient sentences. The device is costly and the person typically must agree to be on the program for the term of their probation (or some other lengthy period of time). Using the device is also a means for the person to drive legally (after a license is revoked for a DWI offense).
The device works by requiring the driver to blow into a machine that measures the driver's breath, before the vehicle will start. If any alcohol is measured in the driver's breath, the vehicle will not start.
Some critics state that the program/device is not working because drunk drivers, when making a conscious decision to drive under the influence, will simply find another vehicle to drive. This ignores the fact that (1) most drunk people aren't that industrious, and (2) at the very least, the program/device puts up a roadblock toward someone driving drunk in that vehicle. At the very least, it makes it much more difficult to drive drink at that specific time with that specific vehicle. Because of the evanescent nature of alcohol and intoxication, time is the best defense against someone driving drunk.
Will this voluntary regulation continue to be successful? I'm optimistic. It's never been in use as much as it is now, and once involved in the program, any violations typically trigger lengthy jail sentences.
It's interesting what we can accomplish when we get creative...
By the way, weren't we talking about drunk driving? That was your original intention when posting this, right? To talk about drunk drivers? It wasn't a not-so-oblique trolling for yet another gun control argument, right?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. Let's talk about drunk driving...
Ignition Interlock devices are increasingly popular in my state/county where I prosecute. Often, if someone agrees to have the device installed in their vehicle, they will receive more lenient sentences. The device is costly and the person typically must agree to be on the program for the term of their probation (or some other lengthy period of time). Using the device is also a means for the person to drive legally (after a license is revoked for a DWI offense).
The device works by requiring the driver to blow into a machine that measures the driver's breath, before the vehicle will start. If any alcohol is measured in the driver's breath, the vehicle will not start.
Some critics state that the program/device is not working because drunk drivers, when making a conscious decision to drive under the influence, will simply find another vehicle to drive. This ignores the fact that (1) most drunk people aren't that industrious, and (2) at the very least, the program/device puts up a roadblock toward someone driving drunk in that vehicle. At the very least, it makes it much more difficult to drive drink at that specific time with that specific vehicle. Because of the evanescent nature of alcohol and intoxication, time is the best defense against someone driving drunk.
Will this voluntary regulation continue to be successful? I'm optimistic. It's never been in use as much as it is now, and once involved in the program, any violations typically trigger lengthy jail sentences.
It's interesting what we can accomplish when we get creative...
Waste of time and money in my opinion.
Why? The cost is borne almost entirely by the offender. I say "almost" the remaining supervision cost is essentially none, as the supervision comes from an adult corrections officer that would be supervising the offender anyway. So I'm not sure what you're basing it on, because in practice, it works fairly well.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Why? The cost is borne almost entirely by the offender. I say "almost" the remaining supervision cost is essentially none, as the supervision comes from an adult corrections officer that would be supervising the offender anyway. So I'm not sure what you're basing it on, because in practice, it works fairly well.
Because it doesn't prevent a drunk driver from driving.
Why? The cost is borne almost entirely by the offender. I say "almost" the remaining supervision cost is essentially none, as the supervision comes from an adult corrections officer that would be supervising the offender anyway. So I'm not sure what you're basing it on, because in practice, it works fairly well.
Because it doesn't prevent a drunk driver from driving.
What are you basing that on? Theoretically, it may not prevent someone from driving drunk, but statistically, programs like this ARE preventing people from driving drunk. So, I'm not sure why you would oppose this. We shouldn't regulate something just because its not airtight? Despite statistics that say it is working, at least in some respect?
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Why? The cost is borne almost entirely by the offender. I say "almost" the remaining supervision cost is essentially none, as the supervision comes from an adult corrections officer that would be supervising the offender anyway. So I'm not sure what you're basing it on, because in practice, it works fairly well.
Because it doesn't prevent a drunk driver from driving.
What are you basing that on? Theoretically, it may not prevent someone from driving drunk, but statistically, programs like this ARE preventing people from driving drunk. So, I'm not sure why you would oppose this. We shouldn't regulate something just because its not airtight? Despite statistics that say it is working, at least in some respect?
I'm basing it on it doesn't stop a drunk driver who wants to drive from driving drunk. :? You can quote as many numbers as anyone wants about how "it's working". How does anyone know the people who have these devices would have repeated the offense again? Perhaps someone driving drunk, that was the first time they did it, got caught, and would never do it again, device or not? This device...I think of it this way....a five year old sticks a fork in an electrical outlet and gets shocked...so his parents install emergency breakers or covers on all of the outlets to prevent it again...was it the covers that stopped the child from doing it again or the initial shock the first time and he learned his lesson? A kid who wants to stick forks in an outlet is still going to find an outlet to do that in.
I'm basing it on it doesn't stop a drunk driver who wants to drive from driving drunk. :? You can quote as many numbers as anyone wants about how "it's working". How does anyone know the people who have these devices would have repeated the offense again? Perhaps someone driving drunk, that was the first time they did it, got caught, and would never do it again, device or not? This device...I think of it this way....a five year old sticks a fork in an electrical outlet and gets shocked...so his parents install emergency breakers or covers on all of the outlets to prevent it again...was it the covers that stopped the child from doing it again or the initial shock the first time and he learned his lesson? A kid who wants to stick forks in an outlet is still going to find an outlet to do that in.
So your logic would be: "because we never know if it was the emergency breaker or the cover or the initial shock that stopped the kid from shocking himself again, his parents shouldn't put anything on the outlets, because we can't be sure that they work at all?" You've got to be fucking kidding me.
Well, once again, this is a horseshit analogy because with the ignition interlock, there's extensive evidence (measures convictions, driving offenses, accidents and alcohol-related offenses) that demonstrate people on the program do not re-offend.
So I'll ask again: why are you opposed to a low-cost (to taxpayers that is) program that is showing to reduce recidivism among participants by as much as 90% (according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)? Because of some unsupported theoretical assumption that is actually disproven by extensive research?
Good grief man...I've heard of going down with your ship, but this is just ridiculous. Is it too much to admit that sometimes, just sometimes, government works? If you're really against drunk driving, really, really against it (and this whole thread wasn't just some bullshit, antagonistic ruse to reignite a gun control debate), I can think of no reason why you wouldn't think this type of program is a good idea.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Why? The cost is borne almost entirely by the offender. I say "almost" the remaining supervision cost is essentially none, as the supervision comes from an adult corrections officer that would be supervising the offender anyway. So I'm not sure what you're basing it on, because in practice, it works fairly well.
Because it doesn't prevent a drunk driver from driving.
Dude you're not open to anything that goes against your beliefs are you?
I know two people personally that have had these things installed in their cars because of DUI convictions and I can tell you without a doubt that it works.
These devices only stop someone from starting a car who has had too much to drink. Doesn't keep them from actually driving it. Doesn't stop them from starting or driving a car that doesn't have one either. Waste of time. Again. it's the US judicial system jerking themselves off into thinking they are doing a great job.
I'm basing it on it doesn't stop a drunk driver who wants to drive from driving drunk. :? You can quote as many numbers as anyone wants about how "it's working". How does anyone know the people who have these devices would have repeated the offense again? Perhaps someone driving drunk, that was the first time they did it, got caught, and would never do it again, device or not? This device...I think of it this way....a five year old sticks a fork in an electrical outlet and gets shocked...so his parents install emergency breakers or covers on all of the outlets to prevent it again...was it the covers that stopped the child from doing it again or the initial shock the first time and he learned his lesson? A kid who wants to stick forks in an outlet is still going to find an outlet to do that in.
So your logic would be: "because we never know if it was the emergency breaker or the cover or the initial shock that stopped the kid from shocking himself again, his parents shouldn't put anything on the outlets, because we can't be sure that they work at all?" You've got to be fucking kidding me.
Well, once again, this is a horseshit analogy because with the ignition interlock, there's extensive evidence (measures convictions, driving offenses, accidents and alcohol-related offenses) that demonstrate people on the program do not re-offend.
So I'll ask again: why are you opposed to a low-cost (to taxpayers that is) program that is showing to reduce recidivism among participants by as much as 90% (according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)? Because of some unsupported theoretical assumption that is actually disproven by extensive research?
Good grief man...I've heard of going down with your ship, but this is just ridiculous. Is it too much to admit that sometimes, just sometimes, government works? If you're really against drunk driving, really, really against it (and this whole thread wasn't just some bullshit, antagonistic ruse to reignite a gun control debate), I can think of no reason why you wouldn't think this type of program is a good idea.
I am against drunk driving and if you were then you would support having these devices installed retroactively at the cost of the individual in every single car on the road. Also, making every vehicle sitting on a car dealer's lot before it was sold having one installed. You would also be for every manufacturer producing them in every new vehicle sold in the US and they will pass the cost down to every consumer in the US. This is the only way ideas like this would actually work, not trying to pass ridiculous legislation targeting a single car (and note doesn't keep them from driving...only starting)that someone gets convicted of driving drunk in...and then giving them reduced sentences for doing it! :fp: It's like a damn get out of free jail card.
These devices only stop someone from starting a car who has had too much to drink. Doesn't keep them from actually driving it. Doesn't stop them from starting or driving a car that doesn't have one either. Waste of time. Again. it's the US judicial system jerking themselves off into thinking they are doing a great job.
Its a fact that people who get one DWI are likely to commit another. Installing these devices reduces DWI recidivism by up to 90%. That means, there are less DWIs occurring. This is a good thing. If this is a law and order/crime and punishment type thing, fine. You want DWI offenders to do jail time. I'm not going to debate you on that, because irrelevant as to whether the program's working or not.
But if this is a "let's have less DWIs happen overall," then this program works and that should be something you would support, IF you're as against DWIs as you say you are.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
I am against drunk driving and if you were then you would support having these devices installed retroactively at the cost of the individual in every single car on the road. Also, making every vehicle sitting on a car dealer's lot before it was sold having one installed. You would also be for every manufacturer producing them in every new vehicle sold in the US and they will pass the cost down to every consumer in the US. This is the only way ideas like this would actually work, not trying to pass ridiculous legislation targeting a single car (and note doesn't keep them from driving...only starting)that someone gets convicted of driving drunk in...and then giving them reduced sentences for doing it! :fp: It's like a damn get out of free jail card.
So you're proposing that these devices should only be used prospectively (i.e. installed on every car, regardless of whether the driver has been convicted of a DWI)? You know these machines have cameras on them too, right?
Which would mean, that on the issue of guns, you want Uncle Sam to do nothing and stay completely out of your gun shed, but on the issue of cars, you want him watching your every move, whether or not you've driven drunk?
Again, it seems to me that you think regulations - any type, any issue - had better be perfect in their implementation or perfect in their effectiveness, or they're not worth putting in place. What's worse is that you think if they're not perfect, it somehow offends your individual rights when people promote them! If you are really against DWIs (which I'm beginning to doubt by your arguments here - is there an alterior motive with this thread? :roll: ), a program that reduces recividist offenders when we know people who commit DWIs typically reoffend should be something you can support. Your feelings on the merits of stringent or lenient sentencing are irrelevant.
Your effort to compare gun control to drunk driving is failing miserably.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
These devices only stop someone from starting a car who has had too much to drink. Doesn't keep them from actually driving it.
Explain this. If the crux of your argument against this device is because it allows drunk drivers to get the car into neutral and roll slowly in whichever way gravity allows it (no rolling DWIs in the plains I guess), then I guess I'll stop trying to reason with you. It would appear you'd only be satisfied with government sponsored regulation of our lives if said regulation is completely airtight and always effective, in spite of any benefits, statistics or research that shows the program is larger working. In this case, it sounds like the only regulation of drunk drivers you would support is complete incapacitation (that would be always effective). Which, I know isn't the case, because you seem to take the Bill of Rights pretty literally on some subjects...you'd know then that this is America, and we've got protections against that kind of thing. (wow that felt good).
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Your effort to compare gun control to drunk driving is failing miserably.
it's because, as you know, this thread never really was about drunk driving in the first place.
Well of course...but OP seems pretty intent on tying himself up in inconsistencies and irrational arguments, regardless of which topic, so I'm content with letting him.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
These devices only stop someone from starting a car who has had too much to drink. Doesn't keep them from actually driving it.
Explain this. If the crux of your argument against this device is because it allows drunk drivers to get the car into neutral and roll slowly in whichever way gravity allows it (no rolling DWIs in the plains I guess), then I guess I'll stop trying to reason with you. It would appear you'd only be satisfied with government sponsored regulation of our lives if said regulation is completely airtight and always effective, in spite of any benefits, statistics or research that shows the program is larger working. In this case, it sounds like the only regulation of drunk drivers you would support is complete incapacitation (that would be always effective). Which, I know isn't the case, because you seem to take the Bill of Rights pretty literally on some subjects...you'd know then that this is America, and we've got protections against that kind of thing. (wow that felt good).
All those "stats" you quote are nothing but jerkoff stats. The device does not stop a drunk driver from driving. No one will ever sway me on that fact.
These devices only stop someone from starting a car who has had too much to drink. Doesn't keep them from actually driving it.
Explain this. If the crux of your argument against this device is because it allows drunk drivers to get the car into neutral and roll slowly in whichever way gravity allows it (no rolling DWIs in the plains I guess), then I guess I'll stop trying to reason with you. It would appear you'd only be satisfied with government sponsored regulation of our lives if said regulation is completely airtight and always effective, in spite of any benefits, statistics or research that shows the program is larger working. In this case, it sounds like the only regulation of drunk drivers you would support is complete incapacitation (that would be always effective). Which, I know isn't the case, because you seem to take the Bill of Rights pretty literally on some subjects...you'd know then that this is America, and we've got protections against that kind of thing. (wow that felt good).
All those "stats" you quote are nothing but jerkoff stats. The device does not stop a drunk driver from driving. No one will ever sway me on that fact.
I do believe you have just proved a point to a lot of people on here. Well done
Comments
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
but I think we already know
they would have been damn glad someone brave was there to stop
the murderer of 26 little children days before Christmas.
They would be thankful for the gun that stopped him.
More avoidance.
I don't know why I am trying here but I posed a question to DS. He ducked it. Then you kind of crept into the conversation and ducked it as well when Van posed it to you.
Let me frame it this way...
Multiple Choice Question:
If you could go back in time, accept gun legislation, and be assured that as a result the Newtown tragedy would not occur... would you do it?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Me no speak English
Pretty much this.
...and you know what? The story would have been buried in the media.
Ok...we "anti-gunners" will answer your question if you answer ours. Thirty Bills posed his first, so you in accordance with proper rules of etiquette and debate, which I know we all adhere to, you two can answer ours first.
Fair?
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. Let's talk about drunk driving...
Ignition Interlock devices are increasingly popular in my state/county where I prosecute. Often, if someone agrees to have the device installed in their vehicle, they will receive more lenient sentences. The device is costly and the person typically must agree to be on the program for the term of their probation (or some other lengthy period of time). Using the device is also a means for the person to drive legally (after a license is revoked for a DWI offense).
The device works by requiring the driver to blow into a machine that measures the driver's breath, before the vehicle will start. If any alcohol is measured in the driver's breath, the vehicle will not start.
Some critics state that the program/device is not working because drunk drivers, when making a conscious decision to drive under the influence, will simply find another vehicle to drive. This ignores the fact that (1) most drunk people aren't that industrious, and (2) at the very least, the program/device puts up a roadblock toward someone driving drunk in that vehicle. At the very least, it makes it much more difficult to drive drink at that specific time with that specific vehicle. Because of the evanescent nature of alcohol and intoxication, time is the best defense against someone driving drunk.
Will this voluntary regulation continue to be successful? I'm optimistic. It's never been in use as much as it is now, and once involved in the program, any violations typically trigger lengthy jail sentences.
It's interesting what we can accomplish when we get creative...
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Guns are that important to you, huh? Wow. Just wow.
Now that your silence and "I know you are but what am I" style of game playing has essentially answered my question (which begged a response first- given it was issued first)... I'll answer yours:
Yes. Anything. ANYTHING to avoid what had happened. Given your reality... I wish that someone had a gun to shoot that sick bastard in the head before he got into the school and unleashed his insanity.
But my response is only given in the context of your reality. If your country will not accept gun reform then you probably should start placing the military on every street corner and alleyway. You're not at war with Iraq insurgents as much as you're at war with yourself.
I posted this in one of the threads: in the same time frame... the US lost more people to gunfire than deaths in the Chechen War. I only included homicides for comparison's sake and in truth... numbers for both sides of the comparison are debatable (160,000 dead as a result of war in Chechnya and 100,000 dead as a result of homicide by gunfire in the US); however, I didn't account for all the 'accidental deaths' which place your yearly deaths by firearms at a rate that supersedes a war's death toll.
We aren't answering your question because it is a ridiculous premise.
No law or regulation could guarantee this tragedy would not happen.
You have to bring something to the table believable. A scenario that is plausible.
We know laws don't control people.
Look at the blow devices ... way around that just drive without a license.
There are millions doing it. The lawless do not follow laws.
And drunks kill people on the roads.
Our reality is reality.
We know everyone here wishes a gun was there to stop this killer.
And the folks in their homes tonight who fall victim to a home invasion
want one too.
As long as guns exist we need them to protect ourselves.
So if we could really change a world to have no guns, no bad guys then I would
like to live there. Maybe when Jesus comes. That would be nice.
You like to avoid questions... but you paint the obvious. Remember all that, "I don't know who I'm going to cast my vote for" stuff?
You avoided the hypothetical question because it tested your indoctrinated belief. You can dismiss it any way you want, but it's painfully obvious the real reason you never responded was that you knew the answer would likely be offensive to the dead and their survivors.
We do not know that everyone here wishes there was a gun to stop this killer. Many wish the killer never had the opportunity to lay his hands on such a destructive weapon. Many hope the next deranged idiot won't be able to procure the same to do his bidding.
As for protection... why wouldn't a shotgun suffice at your door if you were truly afraid of a home invasion? Why must you insist on handguns, military style assault weapons, and hand grenades as the only reasonable form of protection in your country?
You're not answering because you're afraid to admit that "my right to own dangerous toys is more important than someone else's right to not be killed by dangerous toys." By not being able to fumble the words out of your mouth, that YES, anyone in their fucking right mind would completely support a regulation that would guarantee or prevent the murder of children, that's what you are tacitly admitting. That your right to own guns are more important than safety. There, I fucking said it.
How do I know that's true? Because none of the gun monkeys on here are ever willing to cite support for their claims: that most violent gun crime is done with "illegally obtained" guns, that the sheer existence of guns doesn't contribute to the incidence of violent crime (despite evidence to the contrary), that "responsible gun owners" (without defining what that means) only use their weapons responsibly, and, perhaps most pitifully, that the right to own guns trumps all, and no regulations are tolerable in the face of that. All that is what's being implied every time you refuse to state that, yes, there are some regulations that are appropriate.
It's become a sickening zero-sum game with the NRA and gun-loving portion of America. I have never advocated for a ban on guns, but yet, somehow, that's what "gun control" is perceived as meaning. No calls for compromise or middle-ground is heeded. I don't care if someone owns a gun, anymore than I care if someone likes Justin Bieber. I do care if someone's love of guns or Justin results in deaths. Right now, no one's dying because they love Biebs. (...yet).
But to simply say there there is nothing we can do, because people kill people, blah blah blah, is to be unwilling to compromise, unwilling to take a comprehensive approach toward the real issue. The real issue, of course, is that people kill people, and people use guns to do it at a frighteningly frequent pace (70% of murders are with guns!). So what does that mean? That we need to get people help who need it (i.e. mental health services, help for vets, anti-bullying etc), but also making it more difficult to obtain guns (i.e. closing gun show loopholes, disenfranchising felons, people under mental health commitment or convicted of certain offenses, outlawing high magazine weapons or assault weapons etc). "Responsible" gun owners shouldn't care if they have to jump through a few more hoops to get the rifle of their dreams, right? Because they're responsible? Right?!
So, of course, crazy nuts will find a way to commit violence. THAT'S THE POINT! Guns make finding that way much, much easier. So if we see both ends of the problem, why can't we attack both sides of the issue? Why is it that the too many gun owners aren't willing to compromise, or at least concede that guns contribute to violent crime? (Note: I can likely cite you decades of numbers from the FBI to support that, by the way).
SO...to play fair and answer your question...
...would I have preferred that someone had a gun there that day in Newtown AND actually prevented the death of children? Of course. Of-fucking-course. But do I think that's a long-time tenable solution? No. Because as we're seeing way too often, someone is only a responsible gun owner until they're not.
We could have a reasonable discussion/debate about this. But people like you don't respond except with spiraling nonsensical, deflecting statements. Others, simply post antagonistic threads and responses. No one knows if a regulation could have prevented Newtown, just like no one knows if a gun-toting janitor could have saved the day.
But for the sake of dozens of dead children in Connecticut, I'M WILLING TO GIVE ANYTHING A FUCKING SHOT. ARE YOU?
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
not just for their sake but for the future.
it is interesting as well as frustrating to me to sit back and watch the arguments put forward for basically doing nothing or for increasing the carrying powers of citizens. i can not fathom the mindset that thinks MORE guns is the answer or even a good idea.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Waste of time and money in my opinion.
Why? The cost is borne almost entirely by the offender. I say "almost" the remaining supervision cost is essentially none, as the supervision comes from an adult corrections officer that would be supervising the offender anyway. So I'm not sure what you're basing it on, because in practice, it works fairly well.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Because it doesn't prevent a drunk driver from driving.
What are you basing that on? Theoretically, it may not prevent someone from driving drunk, but statistically, programs like this ARE preventing people from driving drunk. So, I'm not sure why you would oppose this. We shouldn't regulate something just because its not airtight? Despite statistics that say it is working, at least in some respect?
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
I'm basing it on it doesn't stop a drunk driver who wants to drive from driving drunk. :? You can quote as many numbers as anyone wants about how "it's working". How does anyone know the people who have these devices would have repeated the offense again? Perhaps someone driving drunk, that was the first time they did it, got caught, and would never do it again, device or not? This device...I think of it this way....a five year old sticks a fork in an electrical outlet and gets shocked...so his parents install emergency breakers or covers on all of the outlets to prevent it again...was it the covers that stopped the child from doing it again or the initial shock the first time and he learned his lesson? A kid who wants to stick forks in an outlet is still going to find an outlet to do that in.
So your logic would be: "because we never know if it was the emergency breaker or the cover or the initial shock that stopped the kid from shocking himself again, his parents shouldn't put anything on the outlets, because we can't be sure that they work at all?" You've got to be fucking kidding me.
Well, once again, this is a horseshit analogy because with the ignition interlock, there's extensive evidence (measures convictions, driving offenses, accidents and alcohol-related offenses) that demonstrate people on the program do not re-offend.
So I'll ask again: why are you opposed to a low-cost (to taxpayers that is) program that is showing to reduce recidivism among participants by as much as 90% (according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)? Because of some unsupported theoretical assumption that is actually disproven by extensive research?
Good grief man...I've heard of going down with your ship, but this is just ridiculous. Is it too much to admit that sometimes, just sometimes, government works? If you're really against drunk driving, really, really against it (and this whole thread wasn't just some bullshit, antagonistic ruse to reignite a gun control debate), I can think of no reason why you wouldn't think this type of program is a good idea.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Dude you're not open to anything that goes against your beliefs are you?
I know two people personally that have had these things installed in their cars because of DUI convictions and I can tell you without a doubt that it works.
I am against drunk driving and if you were then you would support having these devices installed retroactively at the cost of the individual in every single car on the road. Also, making every vehicle sitting on a car dealer's lot before it was sold having one installed. You would also be for every manufacturer producing them in every new vehicle sold in the US and they will pass the cost down to every consumer in the US. This is the only way ideas like this would actually work, not trying to pass ridiculous legislation targeting a single car (and note doesn't keep them from driving...only starting)that someone gets convicted of driving drunk in...and then giving them reduced sentences for doing it! :fp:
Its a fact that people who get one DWI are likely to commit another. Installing these devices reduces DWI recidivism by up to 90%. That means, there are less DWIs occurring. This is a good thing. If this is a law and order/crime and punishment type thing, fine. You want DWI offenders to do jail time. I'm not going to debate you on that, because irrelevant as to whether the program's working or not.
But if this is a "let's have less DWIs happen overall," then this program works and that should be something you would support, IF you're as against DWIs as you say you are.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
So you're proposing that these devices should only be used prospectively (i.e. installed on every car, regardless of whether the driver has been convicted of a DWI)? You know these machines have cameras on them too, right?
Which would mean, that on the issue of guns, you want Uncle Sam to do nothing and stay completely out of your gun shed, but on the issue of cars, you want him watching your every move, whether or not you've driven drunk?
Again, it seems to me that you think regulations - any type, any issue - had better be perfect in their implementation or perfect in their effectiveness, or they're not worth putting in place. What's worse is that you think if they're not perfect, it somehow offends your individual rights when people promote them!
Your effort to compare gun control to drunk driving is failing miserably.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
it's because, as you know, this thread never really was about drunk driving in the first place.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Explain this. If the crux of your argument against this device is because it allows drunk drivers to get the car into neutral and roll slowly in whichever way gravity allows it (no rolling DWIs in the plains I guess), then I guess I'll stop trying to reason with you. It would appear you'd only be satisfied with government sponsored regulation of our lives if said regulation is completely airtight and always effective, in spite of any benefits, statistics or research that shows the program is larger working. In this case, it sounds like the only regulation of drunk drivers you would support is complete incapacitation (that would be always effective). Which, I know isn't the case, because you seem to take the Bill of Rights pretty literally on some subjects...you'd know then that this is America, and we've got protections against that kind of thing. (wow that felt good).
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Well of course...but OP seems pretty intent on tying himself up in inconsistencies and irrational arguments, regardless of which topic, so I'm content with letting him.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
All those "stats" you quote are nothing but jerkoff stats. The device does not stop a drunk driver from driving. No one will ever sway me on that fact.
I do believe you have just proved a point to a lot of people on here. Well done